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.

(NPR)   Republican college students spell doom for the GOP: Many are leaning Libertarian because the GOP is medieval on social issues, and even those who parrot Fox News talking points admit the party may have lost voters for the next 50 years   (npr.org) divider line 467
    More: Obvious, Fox News, GOP, Republican, talking points, lecture hall, political parties in the United States, students  
•       •       •

3760 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Mar 2013 at 11:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-03-01 10:43:05 AM
You have your whole life to be a sexless, uptight whiner. Why would you ruin your time in college?
 
2013-03-01 10:46:47 AM
As a former college conservative, I can confirm.
 
2013-03-01 10:50:03 AM
The party of Angry Old Rich White Men And Batsh*t Crazy Christian Fundamentalists is having trouble rebranding. Couldn't be the actual message could it. Nah.
 
2013-03-01 10:51:08 AM
So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?
 
2013-03-01 11:03:12 AM
It's not just college kids, folks. Unless the party purges the Crazy Train, they're not going to get my vote either, and I'm in my early 40s. At this point, it's not just the social issues, but how economic issues are used to further those social issues, and how the refusal to contemplate prudent fiscal policy is draining the nation's coffers and impacting growth and opportunity. The party isn't just out of touch, the leadership is actively promoting an agenda that is curtailing the nation's future.

Not that a lot Libertarians are any better. The typical Libertarian candidate today promotes an agenda that is naught but a brand of NeoFeudalism that is even worse than their Republican counterparts. I had hopes for the Modern Whigs, but the TEA Party nonsense pretty much ate up their momentum, which is exactly what it was designed to do. The sad fact is, many Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke pot, and that is not the basis for real progress. We need better thinking, not just the same old, with a few whistles and bells to draw in the unwary...
 
2013-03-01 11:19:45 AM

hubiestubert: At this point, it's not just the social issues, but how economic issues are used to further those social issues, and how the refusal to contemplate prudent fiscal policy is draining the nation's coffers and impacting growth and opportunity. The party isn't just out of touch, the leadership is actively promoting an agenda that is curtailing the nation's future.


Who did you vote for in November?
 
2013-03-01 11:29:16 AM

hubiestubert: Not that a lot Libertarians are any better.


Libertarians are Republicans who are embarrassed to call themselves Republicans.
 
2013-03-01 11:35:52 AM

dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?


Because industrial feudalism is a really bad way to run the world.
 
2013-03-01 11:41:15 AM

RexTalionis: hubiestubert: Not that a lot Libertarians are any better.

Libertarians are Republicans who are embarrassed to call themselves Republicans.


In before Libertarians = Republicans...aww damn it.
 
2013-03-01 11:41:31 AM

RexTalionis: hubiestubert: Not that a lot Libertarians are any better.

Libertarians are Republicans who are embarrassed to call themselves Republicans.


Libertarians are Republicans who admit that they can't do Calculus.
 
2013-03-01 11:42:52 AM

GAT_00: dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?

Because industrial feudalism is a really bad way to run the world.


The polar opposite is just as bad, if not worse.

You can always quit a job and work for someone else.  It's much harder to quit your government.

/Don't argue from the extremes.
 
2013-03-01 11:43:04 AM

dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?


i46.tinypic.com
 
2013-03-01 11:43:53 AM
i204.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-01 11:45:05 AM
I hope the GOP continues doing what they are doing. Its working out really well for them.
 
2013-03-01 11:45:38 AM

GAT_00: dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?

Because industrial feudalism is a really bad way to run the world.


You people have no regard for tradition.  You shame your ancestors!
 
2013-03-01 11:46:37 AM

hubiestubert: It's not just college kids, folks. Unless the party purges the Crazy Train, they're not going to get my vote either, and I'm in my early 40s. At this point, it's not just the social issues, but how economic issues are used to further those social issues, and how the refusal to contemplate prudent fiscal policy is draining the nation's coffers and impacting growth and opportunity. The party isn't just out of touch, the leadership is actively promoting an agenda that is curtailing the nation's future.


THIS
 
2013-03-01 11:48:08 AM
If the Republican Party stood by it's professed tenets of limited government, there wouldn't be a need for a Libertarian Party.
 
2013-03-01 11:48:35 AM

RexTalionis: hubiestubert: Not that a lot Libertarians are any better.

Libertarians are Republicans who are embarrassed to call themselves Republicans.




i865.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-01 11:48:49 AM

hubiestubert: It's not just college kids, folks. Unless the party purges the Crazy Train, they're not going to get my vote either, and I'm in my early 40s. At this point, it's not just the social issues, but how economic issues are used to further those social issues, and how the refusal to contemplate prudent fiscal policy is draining the nation's coffers and impacting growth and opportunity. The party isn't just out of touch, the leadership is actively promoting an agenda that is curtailing the nation's future.

Not that a lot Libertarians are any better. The typical Libertarian candidate today promotes an agenda that is naught but a brand of NeoFeudalism that is even worse than their Republican counterparts. I had hopes for the Modern Whigs, but the TEA Party nonsense pretty much ate up their momentum, which is exactly what it was designed to do. The sad fact is, many Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke pot, and that is not the basis for real progress. We need better thinking, not just the same old, with a few whistles and bells to draw in the unwary...


Can you read my mind?
 
2013-03-01 11:49:39 AM
""Evolution is a fact. Climate change is happening. There's no arguing that. If you're arguing that, you're a fool," Jones says."

THIS
 
2013-03-01 11:49:39 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: hubiestubert: At this point, it's not just the social issues, but how economic issues are used to further those social issues, and how the refusal to contemplate prudent fiscal policy is draining the nation's coffers and impacting growth and opportunity. The party isn't just out of touch, the leadership is actively promoting an agenda that is curtailing the nation's future.

Who did you vote for in November?


It wasn't Romney. The winds of the Hell of Being Flayed Alive will still and stall before that will happen. He was a poor choice for the Primary in 2008, and he was an even poorer choice in 2012.

McCain lost my vote in 2008, despite getting it in the Primary, because he went not just odd, but absolutely loopy. His response to Ossetia was a symptom of not being aware of real conditions outside the US. Coupled with the poor decision tree in putting Palin on the ticket, I had to vote for Obama, because there was no way in Hells I wanted McCain near the White House. Romney shouldn't have been Governor of the state of Massachusetts, and in fairness, my antipathy for him goes back to my college days, and his involvement with the UMaine system, before he headed out to Utah to play with the Olympics. By the time the Primary rolled around to Mass, Johnson had removed himself from the running for the GOP, and that saddened me a great deal, because he was the better choice for the ticket, even though his economic policy is idealistic and naive. The Primary this last time around, was less about putting forward a good candidate, as much as suckering cash from rubes on a huge field, and the only real winners were PACs and those dedicated to streaming cash from campaigns to hands who would profit from anger.

The party is sick right now. Not just the obstructionism in the Congress, but the party has to figure out if using anger and vitriol to further an economic agenda that really puts the middle class on an ice floe is worth it. The cash from the Religious Right and the Idiot Brigade is nice, but it means putting in planks on the platform that run entirely counter to sound economic and the principles of this nation. I had hopes that the party would come to its sense after McCain lost, but instead they doubled down on the DERP and threw away efficient spending and taxation for some mixed message "clarion call" to the faithful, and it is growing even worse after Romney's loss. I haven't changed my stances on efficient taxation and regulation, but the party has shifted further and further from those principles, and given the leadership's stricter policies for staying in lockstep, I can't in good conscience support their vision. Here and there ARE good candidates, but they are growing fewer and far between. In the end, it comes down to voting for the candidate with best vision, and damn the initial after that name, but lately, it's growing harder and harder to find Republicans who are worth the effort. Snowe is retiring--and I was glad to work on her campaign back in the day--and there are just too many ideologues who are seeking office, as opposed to folks who want to pull up their sleeves and work at solutions.
 
2013-03-01 11:50:10 AM

dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?


The only thing that libertarian fiscal policy leads to is a failed nation?  That's a good enough reason for most.
 
2013-03-01 11:50:20 AM
I love that the advice to Republicans is always to look at the reality of their situation. This is the party that hates science, i.e. the practice of looking at reality systematically and rationally, so I don't think that's advice they're capable of taking even if they tried.
 
2013-03-01 11:50:35 AM

hubiestubert: winds of the Hell of Being Flayed Alive will still and stall


No way you just made this up. What Iron Maiden song is this a lyric from?
 
2013-03-01 11:50:49 AM
The GOP is really caught in a bind. The elite care for nothing but shoveling more money to rich people. They've used racial and cultural resentment and tribalism to scare up votes for 40 years. But demographic changes and the universe's long moral arc are slowly evaporating the majority they once commanded.
 
2013-03-01 11:50:50 AM

dittybopper: GAT_00: dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?

Because industrial feudalism is a really bad way to run the world.

The polar opposite is just as bad, if not worse.

You can always quit a job and work for someone else.  It's much harder to quit your government.

/Don't argue from the extremes.


I didn't, you did.  And a libertarian style government is in effect industrial feudalism.  It's not my fault if you view the truth as extreme because you don't like it.
 
2013-03-01 11:51:00 AM
College Republicans creep me out.

And they always remind me of PCU.
 
2013-03-01 11:51:07 AM

Sounds like the GOP needs someone hip and cool to reach out to the youngster. What happened to this guy?

3.bp.blogspot.com

 
2013-03-01 11:51:30 AM

TV's Vinnie: dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?


Hey, give her a break...
 
2013-03-01 11:52:49 AM

Solkar: Can you read my mind?


b.vimeocdn.com
 
2013-03-01 11:53:08 AM

dittybopper: GAT_00: dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?

Because industrial feudalism is a really bad way to run the world.

The polar opposite is just as bad, if not worse.

You can always quit a job and work for someone else.  It's much harder to quit your government.

/Don't argue from the extremes.


There are more options than "authoritarian capitalism" and "authoritarian communism". Profit-seeking private business vs. government is a completely false dichotomy (and is a very good summation as to why right-wing "libertarians" are authoritarians who stole their name from a bunch of French anarchists as a cover).
 
2013-03-01 11:53:35 AM

Mercutio74: dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?

The only thing that libertarian fiscal policy leads to is a failed nation?  That's a good enough reason for most.


Cite?
 
2013-03-01 11:53:41 AM

Solkar: hubiestubert: It's not just college kids, folks. Unless the party purges the Crazy Train, they're not going to get my vote either, and I'm in my early 40s. At this point, it's not just the social issues, but how economic issues are used to further those social issues, and how the refusal to contemplate prudent fiscal policy is draining the nation's coffers and impacting growth and opportunity. The party isn't just out of touch, the leadership is actively promoting an agenda that is curtailing the nation's future.

Not that a lot Libertarians are any better. The typical Libertarian candidate today promotes an agenda that is naught but a brand of NeoFeudalism that is even worse than their Republican counterparts. I had hopes for the Modern Whigs, but the TEA Party nonsense pretty much ate up their momentum, which is exactly what it was designed to do. The sad fact is, many Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke pot, and that is not the basis for real progress. We need better thinking, not just the same old, with a few whistles and bells to draw in the unwary...

Can you read my mind?


I see... mildly deviant smut, and early lunch cravings.
 
2013-03-01 11:53:50 AM

Mercutio74: dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?

The only thing that libertarian fiscal policy leads to is a failed nation?  That's a good enough reason for most.


What Libertarians/GOP (like there's a difference in this country) really want is to live in Somalia, except without all the black people.
 
2013-03-01 11:54:35 AM
You mean younger people don't hate gays, women, women's freedom to choose, minorities, non-Xtians, and people with less money.

that is fantastic!

You don't have to be an asshole to be a Republican. But it helps.
 
2013-03-01 11:54:41 AM

pdee: Mercutio74: dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?

The only thing that libertarian fiscal policy leads to is a failed nation?  That's a good enough reason for most.

Cite?


Laissez-faire capitalist economics have a miserable track record. The "citation" is all of the 20th century and every place these ideas have been tried.
 
2013-03-01 11:55:20 AM

busy chillin': You mean younger people don't hate gays, women, women's freedom to choose, minorities, non-Xtians, and people with less money.

that is fantastic!

You don't have to be an asshole to be a Republican. But it helps.


True, you can alternatively just be a moron.
 
2013-03-01 11:55:29 AM
Ah, good to see all the Fark libs and conservatives hating on the LP.  Republicans hate us because of our social liberalism and Democrats hate us because of our fiscal conservatism.     Both sides do everything they can to exclude the LP (and the Green Party) from the process.  Why?  Fear.  A party that promotes social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and smaller government will resonate with voters.
 
2013-03-01 11:56:08 AM

DamnYankees: hubiestubert: winds of the Hell of Being Flayed Alive will still and stall

No way you just made this up. What Iron Maiden song is this a lyric from?


Buddhists be mad creative with their Hells...
 
2013-03-01 11:56:18 AM

hubiestubert: It wasn't Romney.


In other words you voted for Obama.
 
2013-03-01 11:56:25 AM
FTFA: Sophomore Miranda Onnen says after graduation, fiscal realities will begin to take hold for her generation and priorities will shift. "We're also the ones who are going to have to pay for Obamacare," Onnen says. "A lot of people don't necessarily connect those things. They say, 'Oh, well, health care is great. I get to be on my parents' health-care plan until I'm 26.' Well, once you turn 27, you have to pay for that. And especially with the joblessness rates being what they are, I think that's going to hit kids our age pretty hard."


What does a sophomore at Ohio State University know about the financial situation of life? Nothing. Mommy and daddy or John Q. Public is paying for her way right now.

Guess what kid? I don't want to pay for your education, healthcare, protection or social services either over the course of your life, but I did, because I want to live in a 1st world society and not some 3rd world libertarian shiat-hole.
 
2013-03-01 11:56:46 AM

cubic_spleen: Mercutio74: dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?

The only thing that libertarian fiscal policy leads to is a failed nation?  That's a good enough reason for most.

What Libertarians/GOP (like there's a difference in this country) really want is to live in Somalia, except without all the black people.


And fewer pirates.
 
2013-03-01 11:56:53 AM

slayer199: Ah, good to see all the Fark libs and conservatives hating on the LP.  Republicans hate us because of our social liberalism and Democrats hate us because of our fiscal conservatism.     Both sides do everything they can to exclude the LP (and the Green Party) from the process.  Why?  Fear.  A party that promotes social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and smaller government will resonate with voters.


"Libertarians" are a bunch of authoritarian corporatist gasbags who pay lipservice to social issues as a vote-getting strategy.
 
2013-03-01 11:57:28 AM

A Dark Evil Omen: busy chillin': You mean younger people don't hate gays, women, women's freedom to choose, minorities, non-Xtians, and people with less money.

that is fantastic!

You don't have to be an asshole to be a Republican. But it helps.

True, you can alternatively just be a moron.


So hating people different than you is smart. Bless your heart.
 
2013-03-01 11:57:32 AM

pdee: Mercutio74: dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?

The only thing that libertarian fiscal policy leads to is a failed nation?  That's a good enough reason for most.

Cite?


Look at any country with a very conservative fiscal policy.
 
2013-03-01 11:58:27 AM

busy chillin': A Dark Evil Omen: busy chillin': You mean younger people don't hate gays, women, women's freedom to choose, minorities, non-Xtians, and people with less money.

that is fantastic!

You don't have to be an asshole to be a Republican. But it helps.

True, you can alternatively just be a moron.

So hating people different than you is smart. Bless your heart.


In what way could someone who is neither an asshole or a moron support anything the Republicans stand for?
 
2013-03-01 11:59:08 AM

GoldSpider: If the Republican Party stood by it's professed tenets of limited government, there wouldn't be a need for a Libertarian Party.


The seem to have forgotten that limited government applies to individuals and not just the size of government...though really, the GOP likes expanding the government as well..more on the police state side.
 
2013-03-01 11:59:16 AM

dittybopper: GAT_00: dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?

Because industrial feudalism is a really bad way to run the world.

The polar opposite is just as bad, if not worse.

You can always quit a job and work for someone else.  It's much harder to quit your government.

/Don't argue from the extremes.



Wait, the libertarian is telling someone to not argue from the extremes?

Bwaaaa haaaa haaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
 
2013-03-01 11:59:22 AM
And even then, "Libertarian" is often just a stop on the road to outright "liberal."  It'll probably take just a couple more years of college (and if not by then, certainly grad school) for some of these kids to realize that libertarianism is just a big of a crock as regular old Republicanism.
 
2013-03-01 12:00:06 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: busy chillin': A Dark Evil Omen: busy chillin': You mean younger people don't hate gays, women, women's freedom to choose, minorities, non-Xtians, and people with less money.

that is fantastic!

You don't have to be an asshole to be a Republican. But it helps.

True, you can alternatively just be a moron.

So hating people different than you is smart. Bless your heart.

In what way could someone who is neither an asshole or a moron support anything the Republicans stand for?


Oh, I misinterpreted your reply. I thought you were saying Democrats were morons...completely my bad.
 
2013-03-01 12:00:29 PM

HellRaisingHoosier: FTFA: Sophomore Miranda Onnen says after graduation, fiscal realities will begin to take hold for her generation and priorities will shift. "We're also the ones who are going to have to pay for Obamacare," Onnen says. "A lot of people don't necessarily connect those things. They say, 'Oh, well, health care is great. I get to be on my parents' health-care plan until I'm 26.' Well, once you turn 27, you have to pay for that. And especially with the joblessness rates being what they are, I think that's going to hit kids our age pretty hard."


What does a sophomore at Ohio State University know about the financial situation of life? Nothing. Mommy and daddy or John Q. Public is paying for her way right now.

Guess what kid? I don't want to pay for your education, healthcare, protection or social services either over the course of your life, but I did, because I want to live in a 1st world society and not some 3rd world libertarian shiat-hole.


I especially love "Well, once you turn 27, you have to pay for that." as an argument against Obamacare.  Because without it, you'd have to pay for that much earlier than 27.
 
2013-03-01 12:00:34 PM
The only "libertarian" principles these Libertarians have is drugs and samer weddings.
 
2013-03-01 12:01:20 PM
Conservatism, Real Conservatism, is strong in our nation's colleges and universities but the liberal media skewing the polls to make it seem like conservatism isn't strong.  In the 3 years I've been at Liberty University , not once has anyone asked what my political feelings are.  I bet the students at Stanford or the University of Michigan get asked all the time.
 
2013-03-01 12:01:20 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: hubiestubert: It wasn't Romney.

In other words you voted for Obama.


AHA!!!! Indisputable proof that hubie is a libby-libby-libby-lib and should never try to claim he is a moderate or conservative because ehe voted for the Kenyan socialist.  Get out of our party and never come back you traitor!!!
 
2013-03-01 12:01:24 PM
"May have" lost voters for the next 50 years?  I'm 24 years old, and I can speak for myself and the vast majority of my friends (most of whom weren't particularly politically inclined before) when I say that the GOP has, without question, lost voters for 50 years at a minimum.  I currently don't plan to vote for any Republican at any level of government for the rest of my life, period.   I'm not saying I'm an automatic Democratic vote, but I'll vote for anyone short of Neo-Nazis before I vote GOP.

The GOP is profoundly screwed when the old people start dying off in droves.
 
2013-03-01 12:01:26 PM

pdee: Mercutio74: dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?

The only thing that libertarian fiscal policy leads to is a failed nation?  That's a good enough reason for most.

Cite?


The entire third world.
 
2013-03-01 12:01:30 PM

dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?


Because libertarianism is about as politically viable as communism? Less viable, actually. There are communist countries, but no libertarian ones. Unless you argue that Somalia is a libertarian state.

Libertarians just may as well call themselves "shamed Republicans."
 
2013-03-01 12:01:46 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: "Libertarians" are a bunch of authoritarian corporatist gasbags who pay lipservice to social issues as a vote-getting strategy.


Citation please, otherwise, you're just coming off as an ignorant gasbag with zero understanding of the LP.

We're about as anti-authoritarian as you can get without being an anarchist.
 
2013-03-01 12:01:54 PM

The Name: And even then, "Libertarian" is often just a stop on the road to outright "liberal."  It'll probably take just a couple more years of college (and if not by then, certainly grad school) for some of these kids to realize that libertarianism is just a big of a crock as regular old Republicanism.


It takes about that long for someone to figure out that "the free market will police itself" is bullshiat.
 
2013-03-01 12:01:56 PM

slayer199: Ah, good to see all the Fark libs and conservatives hating on the LP.  Republicans hate us because of our social liberalism and Democrats hate us because of our fiscal conservatism.     Both sides do everything they can to exclude the LP (and the Green Party) from the process.  Why?  Fear.  A party that promotes social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and smaller government will resonate with voters.


It would, if such a party existed. The libretartian party thinks we can simply free market the poor into not existing, which has never worked in the history of humanity, and the majority of this country doesn't think Dickensian England would be a nice place to live.
 
2013-03-01 12:02:04 PM

DamnYankees: hubiestubert: winds of the Hell of Being Flayed Alive will still and stall

No way you just made this up. What Iron Maiden song is this a lyric from?


Former Republicans got a lot of hells.

// it's all in the reflexes
 
2013-03-01 12:03:38 PM

slayer199: We're about as anti-authoritarian as you can get without being an anarchist.


Except getting screwed over and lorded over can come from factions that *aren't* the government.
 
2013-03-01 12:04:19 PM

slayer199: Both sides do everything they can to exclude the LP (and the Green Party) from the process. Why? Fear.


No, it's because the Republicans already have the whole libertarian corporate will-to-power thing pretty well covered.  It's just redundant to have libertarians involved.

As for the Green Party, Republicans exclude them because they oppose the aforementioned corporate oligarchy, and the Democrats exclude them because they're largely a bunch of loons who don't even take politics seriously enough to try to compete.
 
2013-03-01 12:05:14 PM

slayer199: A Dark Evil Omen: "Libertarians" are a bunch of authoritarian corporatist gasbags who pay lipservice to social issues as a vote-getting strategy.

Citation please, otherwise, you're just coming off as an ignorant gasbag with zero understanding of the LP.

We're about as anti-authoritarian as you can get without being an anarchist.


And yet the LP has a long list of legislative demands and when it comes to public policy they're always behind the "fiscal conservatives" and never seem to have any interest in doing anything on social issues. They take endless corporatism and expansion of corporate power as simply read.

I aman anarchist and it is plainly obvious that the LP is as authoritarian as the Dems and Repubs, if not moreso. At least the Democratic party tries to take the edge off the violent capitalist policies they support.
 
2013-03-01 12:05:30 PM

Felgraf: Except getting screwed over and lorded over can come from factions that *aren't* the government.


Quiet you, or I'll wall you up in the old coke oven!
 
2013-03-01 12:05:42 PM

Felgraf: Except getting screwed over and lorded over can come from factions that *aren't* the government.


Libertarians would be more trustworthy if they advocated for protection against monopolies.
 
2013-03-01 12:06:04 PM

Libertarianism is often used as a rational for Social Darwinism which is hardly liberal on social issues.

These college students may be the subgroup where


Libertarian = Republican who likes marijuana and prostitutes.
 
2013-03-01 12:06:34 PM

HairBolus: Libertarianism is often used as a rational for Social Darwinism which is hardly liberal on social issues.

These college students may be the subgroup where


Libertarian = Republican who likes marijuana and prostitutes.


Bingo.
 
2013-03-01 12:06:55 PM

slayer199: Ah, good to see all the Fark libs and conservatives hating on the LP.  Republicans hate us because of our social liberalism and Democrats hate us because of our fiscal conservatism.     Both sides do everything they can to exclude the LP (and the Green Party) from the process.  Why?  Fear.  A party that promotes social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and smaller government will resonate with voters.


Actually, I'm a liberal and I voted for the Green Party in the last elections.
- The Republicans are crazy, so they're out
- The Democrats are moderately conservative, so they're not necessarily out but certainly not my first choice
- The Libertarians can't do math. Austrian economics and consumption taxes have not worked, do not work, and will not work. Money flows up in an efficient capitalist system, every single time.

That leaves a write in candidate. I was torn between Jill Stein and writing in Larry Ellison, because he's one of a few people who I agree with on economic issues and literally can't be bribed should he take office.
 
2013-03-01 12:06:57 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: hubiestubert: It wasn't Romney.

In other words you voted for Obama.


He was the only sane choice. And I've been fairly free about that for over four years now. I gave up my party affiliation this year, after the Primary, because the party has lost its way. I tried for years to try to help steer us out of the hole, but folks kept saying "DIG FASTER! IT'S THE ONLY WAY!"
 
2013-03-01 12:07:11 PM

Mercutio74: pdee: Mercutio74: dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?

The only thing that libertarian fiscal policy leads to is a failed nation?  That's a good enough reason for most.

Cite?

Look at any country with a very conservative fiscal policy.


you can't govern a large and diverse country with a anarchistic or even minarchistic government. It just won't work. However, folding aspects of libertarianism into our modern, largely statist government is not a bad thing.
 
2013-03-01 12:07:31 PM

Noam Chimpsky: The only "libertarian" principles these Libertarians have is drugs and samer weddings.


Deregulation is a big libertarian deal as well, and cuts to entitlements and military spending.  There's something of a division on infrastructure spending in the party, with many arguing that like a (smaller) military it's one of the things that voluntary, decentralized participation can't reasonably do, and the full-on nutters thinking every road should be a privately-owned toll road and municipal corporations should be barred from owning or managing utilities like water.

The fact that the latter group are the ones most of the actual candidates come from is sort of why the party's got a reputation as being more batshiat than it actually usually is.

//Albeit, "libertarian, but actually logical about it" is basically what the Green Party is, unlike the Libertarians they've fielded more than one or two candidates I've actually found worth voting for.
 
2013-03-01 12:08:41 PM

Jim_Callahan: Deregulation is a big libertarian deal as well, and cuts to entitlements and military spending. There's something of a division on infrastructure spending in the party, with many arguing that like a (smaller) military it's one of the things that voluntary, decentralized participation can't reasonably do, and the full-on nutters thinking every road should be a privately-owned toll road and municipal corporations should be barred from owning or managing utilities like water.

The fact that the latter group are the ones most of the actual candidates come from is sort of why the party's got a reputation as being more batshiat than it actually usually is.


That's a good summary.
 
2013-03-01 12:08:52 PM
I always thought it was for a different reason. College Republicans were my first experience with Republican talking-point spewing True Believers. Once you're exposed to those douche cadets, it really sours you on the party.
 
2013-03-01 12:08:57 PM

Car_Ramrod: College Republicans creep me out.


During the election one came to our house for polling and out reach stuff.  I couldn't help but wonder how stupid he was for supporting a political party with a platform that was sure to screw him over.  That said... if you want to move up in a political party, there are probably more long term opportunities for a college kid in the GOP.
 
2013-03-01 12:09:22 PM

slayer199: Ah, good to see all the Fark libs and conservatives hating on the LP.  Republicans hate us because of our social liberalism and Democrats hate us because of our fiscal conservatism.     Both sides do everything they can to exclude the LP (and the Green Party) from the process.  Why?  Fear.  A party that promotes social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and smaller government will resonate with voters.


Yes, you're all about liberty...as in, yours. Not someone else's, but you are all about yours. F*ck everyone else.

That's why I couldn't stay with the Libertarian Party. Nobody gave a f*ck about anyone beyond their own interests. Libertarians love renting hotel conference rooms, quoting Ludwig Von Mises and kissing each other's ass, but once that conference is over, it's back to ineffectually b*tching about how nobody votes for them.

Here's the clue: it's because your ideas are non-executable. They would lead to a situation no better than America in the Gilded Age. It would reinforce the power and privilege of the already powerful (See the Koch Bros., out and proud, staunch libertarians). Nobody in the middle class would end up better off having the libertarian vision imposed on the country.

It doesn't mean sh*t if you pay little to no taxes, but have no money anyway, because the elite have already blocked off all the resources, monopolized industries, and cut competition off at the knees, leaving labor with scraps. Voting with your dollar doesn't mean sh*t if that dollar has no choice on where to go.

"But the free market!" no it won't. You already have huge, multinational actors with considerable power over resources, labor and governments. What do you think would happen if we took the few chains we have off? You think they'd be gracious benedictors and disband so little guys could compete? No! They'd go to war and the only victors would be modern day Rockefellers. It'd be Standard Oil and Carnegie Steel all over again.
 
2013-03-01 12:09:57 PM

slayer199: A party that promotes social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and smaller government will resonate with voters.


Even though it never has.

Americans, for a variety of mostly stupid reasons, like the words "smaller government," but hate the reality of smaller government.
 
2013-03-01 12:10:01 PM

HellRaisingHoosier: FTFA: Sophomore Miranda Onnen says after graduation, fiscal realities will begin to take hold for her generation and priorities will shift. "We're also the ones who are going to have to pay for Obamacare," Onnen says. "A lot of people don't necessarily connect those things. They say, 'Oh, well, health care is great. I get to be on my parents' health-care plan until I'm 26.' Well, once you turn 27, you have to pay for that. And especially with the joblessness rates being what they are, I think that's going to hit kids our age pretty hard."


What does a sophomore at Ohio State University know about the financial situation of life? Nothing. Mommy and daddy or John Q. Public is paying for her way right now.

Guess what kid? I don't want to pay for your education, healthcare, protection or social services either over the course of your life, but I did, because I want to live in a 1st world society and not some 3rd world libertarian shiat-hole.


She certainly seems to have no idea what Obamacare is, if she thinks that her generation is going to somehow "have to pay for" my mandatory medical insurance 7 years from now.
 
2013-03-01 12:12:03 PM

Muta: Conservatism, Real Conservatism, is strong in our nation's colleges and universities but the liberal media skewing the polls to make it seem like conservatism isn't strong.  In the 3 years I've been at Liberty University , not once has anyone asked what my political feelings are.  I bet the students at Stanford or the University of Michigan get asked all the time.


If you mean "real conservatism" as in the actual meaning of the word 'conservative' instead of a shoddy synonym for 'right-wing', plenty of college folk are openly conservative.  Those people are also Democrats, because the primary conservative factions in US politics are currently subdivisions of the Democratic party, as the GOP has chased all theirs out in favor of hard-line radical reactionaries, which aren't remotely the same thing.

//I think at some point I said I'd stop pointing this out, I should stop drinking at work.  And message-boarding at work, I guess, but meh.
 
2013-03-01 12:12:17 PM
Libertarians these days aren't much different from mainstream Republicans except for their love of weed and bitcoins.
 
2013-03-01 12:13:33 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: hubiestubert: It wasn't Romney.

In other words you voted for Obama.


Why does it matter? What real conservative would vote for Romney?
 
2013-03-01 12:14:07 PM

skullkrusher: you can't govern a large and diverse country with a anarchistic or even minarchistic government.


Anarchistic government? Is that where you vote for a president and he never shows up to work or immediately quits after election?
 
2013-03-01 12:14:35 PM

skullkrusher: you can't govern a large and diverse country with a anarchistic or even minarchistic government. It just won't work. However, folding aspects of libertarianism into our modern, largely statist government is not a bad thing.


That's a different discussion altogether.

As far as that theory goes, one could argue that the US already has a disproportionately large amount of libertarianism already built into the system.  If it had a moderate to low amount of libertarianism class mobility wouldn't be as difficult as it is right now and there would be more than just the very rich prospering.

If anything, the US needs some more socialism... or more logically... reallocate some of  the socialist funding of the defense industry to infrastructure and the middle class.
 
2013-03-01 12:14:40 PM
They lost me, already. I was registered as an R as late as 2008. After the shiat they pulled with the first debt ceiling mess, I refuse to vote for anyone with an R next to their name.
 
2013-03-01 12:15:17 PM

IrateShadow: Libertarians these days aren't much different from mainstream Republicans except for their love of weed and bitcoins.


In Austin I saw a guy at a Ron Paul rally holding up a sign reading "SELF OWNERSHIP" on one side and "RAW MILK" on the other. If that doesn't get the kids fired up about Libertarianism, I don't know what will!
 
2013-03-01 12:16:21 PM

Jim_Callahan: Noam Chimpsky: The only "libertarian" principles these Libertarians have is drugs and samer weddings.

Deregulation is a big libertarian deal as well, and cuts to entitlements and military spending.  There's something of a division on infrastructure spending in the party, with many arguing that like a (smaller) military it's one of the things that voluntary, decentralized participation can't reasonably do, and the full-on nutters thinking every road should be a privately-owned toll road and municipal corporations should be barred from owning or managing utilities like water.

The fact that the latter group are the ones most of the actual candidates come from is sort of why the party's got a reputation as being more batshiat than it actually usually is.

//Albeit, "libertarian, but actually logical about it" is basically what the Green Party is, unlike the Libertarians they've fielded more than one or two candidates I've actually found worth voting for.


I never hear the Libertarian Party jump into these fiscal fights. They aren't making noise about the federal government's usurpation of state powers. "Defense of Women Act", and so forth. I bet if you polled all the self-proclaimed "Libertarians", they'd be all in favor of that shiat.
 
2013-03-01 12:16:49 PM

dr_blasto: skullkrusher: you can't govern a large and diverse country with a anarchistic or even minarchistic government.

Anarchistic government? Is that where you vote for a president and he never shows up to work or immediately quits after election?


Rick Perry and Sarah Palin would like a word...
 
2013-03-01 12:16:56 PM

dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?


What do you mean by libertarian?
 
2013-03-01 12:17:06 PM

slayer199: Ah, good to see all the Fark libs and conservatives hating on the LP.  Republicans hate us because of our social liberalism and Democrats hate us because of our fiscal conservatism.     Both sides do everything they can to exclude the LP (and the Green Party) from the process.  Why?  Fear.  A party that promotes social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and smaller government will resonate with voters.


Ok, let's see:

Social liberalism?  Down with that.
Fiscal Conservatism?  No, sorry.  I'm more of a fiscal moderate (spend when we need to, save for a rainy day when we don't) and this is not a political stance anybody sane should take.
Personal responsibility?  Yeah, sure, try and do that with human nature being what it is.  If anybody thinks for a moment that people in Washington (past or present) will take responsibility for something bad happening, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you, cheap.
Smaller government?  See Fiscal Conservatism; situations merit either significant involvement with the government or very little involvement.  It depends on the topic at hand.
 
2013-03-01 12:18:42 PM
Here's the thing that keeps me from voting for Libertarians.

I do like what a lot of Libertarians say, but there's also a lot of their platform that just strikes me as having a total disregard for those who, for whatever reason, aren't able to "pull themselves up by their boot straps" and "take care of themselves". Their ideology never seems to address that in any detail.

Also, the idea that we can trust the private sector to regulate themselves and not put their own profit over the greater good of the citizens strikes me as extremely naive and ideologically based. We've seen time and time again what happens when the private sector is left to their own devices. The idea that poor people, the disabled and the elderly can be provided for by private sector and the "free market" is also extremely naive... One need only look at how the poor were "cared for" prior to and during the industrial revolution to see the end result of that kind of ideology.

It just strikes me as too ideological... very similar to Communism. They just aren't that concerned with the reality that exists and what to focus on the ideal world they want to create.

My Libertarian friends get all bent out of shape when they can barely managed to get double digit numbers of support for their candidates, but they fail to see that they are the ones who have to convince the voters why they should support the LP. They spout platitudes and ideals, but hardly ever explain how these ideals will be achieved in the real world.

It also doesn't help that half the time "Libertarian" Candidates are either former GOP politicians or complete loons.

My opinion, of course, but I've yet to be convinced by any Libertarian why I should vote for their party or candidates. It's their job to convince me if the want my vote. So far, they haven't.
 
2013-03-01 12:18:43 PM
90% of Libertarians would never be arsed to vote if the government said "You can have all the drugs and guns and illegal porn you want".
 
2013-03-01 12:18:46 PM

Maud Dib: RexTalionis: hubiestubert: Not that a lot Libertarians are any better.

Libertarians are Republicans who are embarrassed to call themselves Republicans.

[i865.photobucket.com image 360x450]


*Shudder* Those pictures always make that lifestyle seem much easier than it looks. It's that kind of imagery that probably comes to mind in the average Tea party "patriot"--gun in hand, foot-on-a-ledge ala George Washington overlooking some kind of view with bald eagles flying overhead.

Buffalo chips is the first thing that comes to my mind. Horrible existence ... but to fair, very bootstrapy.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-01 12:18:50 PM

dr_blasto: skullkrusher: you can't govern a large and diverse country with a anarchistic or even minarchistic government.

Anarchistic government? Is that where you vote for a president and he never shows up to work or immediately quits after election?


heh yeah that should've been anarchism OR a minarchistic government though a system of governance is not necessarily antithetical to anarchism.
 
2013-03-01 12:19:03 PM

thurstonxhowell: I always thought it was for a different reason. College Republicans were my first experience with Republican talking-point spewing True Believers. Once you're exposed to those douche cadets, it really sours you on the party.


Though, in all fairness to the poor sods, you can say this about basically  any political, social, or philosophical opinion being expressed by an undergraduate (usually extremely stridently).  Basically if you're an undergraduate, you're having a political discussion, and you're sober you're probably both coming off as a holier-than-thou know-it-all douchebag and also factually incorrect on a number of important points.  Five minutes with an undergrad proclaiming its merits could probably sour most people on respiring Oxygen.

I don't except myself from this, or hold it against anyone; I was a stuck-up prick that knew everything as a teenager too.  Still just the raw truth, though.  "Sophomoric" is not a complimentary word for a good reason, it's a stage everyone goes through.

//The problem with the GOP is that most of the  adult adherents aren't measurably better.  I mean, some are (McCain's usually not that bad, though he's inconsistent and kinda senile, for instance) but most aren't and electing folks like TX's new senator isn't helping the average.
 
2013-03-01 12:19:05 PM

Dr Dreidel: DamnYankees: hubiestubert: winds of the Hell of Being Flayed Alive will still and stall

No way you just made this up. What Iron Maiden song is this a lyric from?

Former Republicans got a lot of hells.

// it's all in the reflexes


 If you have an influence over your youthful friend, you'd better exert it now. Otherwise, I will have you both sent to the hell where people are skinned alive it's that simple, understand?
 
2013-03-01 12:19:30 PM

Muta: Conservatism, Real Conservatism, is strong in our nation's colleges and universities but the liberal media skewing the polls to make it seem like conservatism isn't strong.  In the 3 years I've been at Liberty University , not once has anyone asked what my political feelings are.  I bet the students at Stanford or the University of Michigan get asked all the time.


Uh, right.  Keep telling yourself that.  Liberty (aka Jerry Falwell U)...right, keep telling yourself that.
 
2013-03-01 12:20:25 PM

dr_blasto: Anarchistic government? Is that where you vote for a president and he never shows up to work or immediately quits after election?


If he quits, you just up-twinkle somebody else for the job. It's all good, brah.
 
2013-03-01 12:20:29 PM

Mercutio74: skullkrusher: you can't govern a large and diverse country with a anarchistic or even minarchistic government. It just won't work. However, folding aspects of libertarianism into our modern, largely statist government is not a bad thing.

That's a different discussion altogether.

As far as that theory goes, one could argue that the US already has a disproportionately large amount of libertarianism already built into the system.  If it had a moderate to low amount of libertarianism class mobility wouldn't be as difficult as it is right now and there would be more than just the very rich prospering.

If anything, the US needs some more socialism... or more logically... reallocate some of  the socialist funding of the defense industry to infrastructure and the middle class.


abolition of corporations as we know them is entirely compatible with libertarianism and I'd argue necessary under it.
 
2013-03-01 12:20:40 PM

The Name: And even then, "Libertarian" is often just a stop on the road to outright "liberal."  It'll probably take just a couple more years of college (and if not by then, certainly grad school) for some of these kids to realize that libertarianism is just a big of a crock as regular old Republicanism.


Personally, I found leaving college and getting a job to be far more effective at shattering any "libertarian" illusions about how the world is run. It's one thing to sit around and talk about how the government is going to take your money and slow down your talents, but once you become a corporate drone and realise that your employer is going to use you and screw you the earliest chance they get, you learn to appreciate some of these "socialist" ideas like workers rights, and social insurance.
 
2013-03-01 12:21:33 PM

Jim_Callahan: Deregulation is a big libertarian deal as well, and cuts to entitlements and military spending. There's something of a division on infrastructure spending in the party, with many arguing that like a (smaller) military it's one of the things that voluntary, decentralized participation can't reasonably do, and the full-on nutters thinking every road should be a privately-owned toll road and municipal corporations should be barred from owning or managing utilities like water.


Depends on where the deregulation is going to take place.  Any area expected to police itself has to be one where lots of people have easy access to full disclosure about the topic, otherwise the assumptions of the free-market won't hold true and the model collapses.  One can be in favor of stem cell research and drug legalization while acknowledging something like the EPA is needed.
 
2013-03-01 12:21:35 PM

skullkrusher: Mercutio74: skullkrusher: you can't govern a large and diverse country with a anarchistic or even minarchistic government. It just won't work. However, folding aspects of libertarianism into our modern, largely statist government is not a bad thing.

That's a different discussion altogether.

As far as that theory goes, one could argue that the US already has a disproportionately large amount of libertarianism already built into the system.  If it had a moderate to low amount of libertarianism class mobility wouldn't be as difficult as it is right now and there would be more than just the very rich prospering.

If anything, the US needs some more socialism... or more logically... reallocate some of  the socialist funding of the defense industry to infrastructure and the middle class.

abolition of corporations as we know them is entirely compatible with libertarianism and I'd argue necessary under it.


submitted before completing that thought. Abolition of corporations could do a great deal towards reducing income inequality
 
2013-03-01 12:22:02 PM
I feel like the Congressional gridlock is like a zit, with the GOP at the head. It's really painful and ugly right now, but there's no way it can stand the pressure. We just have to suffer through the pain a little longer until the gridlock pops and lets all that juicy freedom flow forth.
 
2013-03-01 12:22:08 PM
Hey, I'm still a registered repub, have been for nearly 40 years. I did it so that I can vote for the worst possible candidate in the primaries (I was "Massachusetts Jew for Huckabee" in 2008) and it's sooo easy to say no when they call up and ask for money.
 
2013-03-01 12:22:58 PM

verbaltoxin: "But the free market!" no it won't. You already have huge, multinational actors with considerable power over resources, labor and governments. What do you think would happen if we took the few chains we have off? You think they'd be gracious benedictors and disband so little guys could compete? No! They'd go to war and the only victors would be modern day Rockefellers. It'd be Standard Oil and Carnegie Steel all over again.


Any Libertarian that says "but the free market!" is, in actuality saying "but the free market except when I'm losing money, then it shouldn't be a free market!"
 
2013-03-01 12:23:26 PM

Renart: IrateShadow: Libertarians these days aren't much different from mainstream Republicans except for their love of weed and bitcoins.

In Austin I saw a guy at a Ron Paul rally holding up a sign reading "SELF OWNERSHIP" on one side and "RAW MILK" on the other. If that doesn't get the kids fired up about Libertarianism, I don't know what will!


Dude, there is a certain segment of the hipster population that is absolutely up in arms about non pasteurized cheese products.
 
2013-03-01 12:23:29 PM

skullkrusher: abolition of corporations as we know them is entirely compatible with libertarianism and I'd argue necessary under it.


Please proceed governor...

/I am truly interested in hearing you elaborate on that point, even though this is Fark
//I mean actually do elaborate, how would you stop people from making de facto corporations, even if you couldn't form them under law
 
2013-03-01 12:25:35 PM

busy chillin': You mean younger people don't hate gays, women, women's freedom to choose, minorities, non-Xtians, and people with less money.

that is fantastic!

You don't have to be an asshole to be a Republican. But it helps.


And when they look past the rhetoric to see that Republican is not the party of fiscal responsibility either...
 
2013-03-01 12:25:37 PM
So, based on the headline, am I to infer that libertarians aren't midieval on social issues?
 
2013-03-01 12:26:28 PM

Noam Chimpsky: I never hear the Libertarian Party jump into these fiscal fights. They aren't making noise about the federal government's usurpation of state powers. "Defense of Women Act", and so forth. I bet if you polled all the self-proclaimed "Libertarians", they'd be all in favor of that shiat.


Well, the fundamental problem of the Libertarians in organizational terms (as opposed to philosophical terms) is that they're fundamentally about every person doing what they can do, up to the line where certain things  cannot be done by private enterprise.

Since the whole point is to not rely on centralized anything, and experts are experts by common consensus and thus actively denied by the party's functional philosophy... well, where that "this can't be done by private industry" line is becomes kind of a matter of the individual's personal opinion or knowledge.

The problem (again, from an organizational/vote-getting perspective, not a philosophical perspective, by the libertarian philosophy this is fine) is not that if you asked a libertarian whether (your example) the VAWAct falls under the government overreach category they wouldn't have an answer.  It's that if you asked five libertarians the question, you'd get eight mutually-exclusive answers.
 
2013-03-01 12:26:31 PM
My cockles are warming up.
 
2013-03-01 12:26:41 PM

MisterTweak: dr_blasto: skullkrusher: you can't govern a large and diverse country with a anarchistic or even minarchistic government.

Anarchistic government? Is that where you vote for a president and he never shows up to work or immediately quits after election?

Rick Perry and Sarah Palin would like a word...


You're mistaking "Autistic government" for "Anarchistic government" it seems.
 
2013-03-01 12:27:13 PM

hubiestubert: The sad fact is, many Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke pot, and that is not the basis for real progress.


A large majority of my close friends are Libertarian for this reason. They think Democrats are hippies and Republicans are bat-shiat insane so they vote Libertarian/Independent.

Their mostly musicians... they can't help it. Well, they could, but there's pot to smoke!
 
2013-03-01 12:27:23 PM

Mercutio74: skullkrusher: abolition of corporations as we know them is entirely compatible with libertarianism and I'd argue necessary under it.

Please proceed governor...

/I am truly interested in hearing you elaborate on that point, even though this is Fark
//I mean actually do elaborate, how would you stop people from making de facto corporations, even if you couldn't form them under law



I too would like to see your newsletter SK...
 
2013-03-01 12:27:26 PM

slayer199: Ah, good to see all the Fark libs and conservatives hating on the LP.  Republicans hate us because of our social liberalism and Democrats hate us because of our fiscal conservatism.     Both sides do everything they can to exclude the LP (and the Green Party) from the process.  Why?  Fear.  A party that promotes social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and smaller government will resonate with voters.


If there's a viable third party, I'd like to see it. The LP is a disastrous collection of Randians and stoners that have an increasingly loose grip on how politics and economics work. The Greens will never be more than they were under Nader because public perception of the party is, it's a bunch of hippies, PETA folks, and radical environmentalists. Both parties are damaged goods at this point.

/was a member of LP until they went off the deep end in early 2009
 
2013-03-01 12:27:54 PM
*they're

Motherf*cker, when will I learn to use preview?
 
2013-03-01 12:28:14 PM

skullkrusher: skullkrusher: Mercutio74: skullkrusher: you can't govern a large and diverse country with a anarchistic or even minarchistic government. It just won't work. However, folding aspects of libertarianism into our modern, largely statist government is not a bad thing.

That's a different discussion altogether.

As far as that theory goes, one could argue that the US already has a disproportionately large amount of libertarianism already built into the system.  If it had a moderate to low amount of libertarianism class mobility wouldn't be as difficult as it is right now and there would be more than just the very rich prospering.

If anything, the US needs some more socialism... or more logically... reallocate some of  the socialist funding of the defense industry to infrastructure and the middle class.

abolition of corporations as we know them is entirely compatible with libertarianism and I'd argue necessary under it.

submitted before completing that thought. Abolition of corporations could do a great deal towards reducing income inequality


It could, but I'd have to hear what you're going to replace it with first.  There does need to be a way to recognize, in a legal fashion, when individuals choose to work collectively.  There's a number of things we'd expect the free market to provide (as it should) that only become profitable/efficient when done on a scale out of reach of most individuals.
 
2013-03-01 12:28:38 PM

hubiestubert: . I tried for years to try to help steer us out of the hole, but folks kept saying "DIG FASTER! IT'S THE ONLY WAY!"


No, no, dig UP, stupid!

i3.ytimg.com
 
2013-03-01 12:29:13 PM

keylock71: My Libertarian friends get all bent out of shape when they can barely managed to get double digit numbers of support for their candidates, but they fail to see that they are the ones who have to convince the voters why they should support the LP. They spout platitudes and ideals, but hardly ever explain how these ideals will be achieved in the real world.


It doesn't help that they're smug, condescending bastards, even when their arguments are bottom-of-the-barrel retarded.
 
2013-03-01 12:29:13 PM

Renart: In Austin I saw a guy at a Ron Paul rally holding up a sign reading "SELF OWNERSHIP" on one side and "RAW MILK" on the other. If that doesn't get the kids fired up about Libertarianism, I don't know what will!


I'm kind of in favor of raw milk, but only because I want really good cheese.  Current law kind of mucks that up.  But what's "self ownership?"  Is that a reference to the conspiracy theory about the fed taking owning you because they out a loan in your name when you're born?
 
2013-03-01 12:30:21 PM
I'm 34.  In my life time I've moved from voting mostly Republican to trying to avoid voting Republican in any race at any level.
 
2013-03-01 12:31:14 PM

Zerochance: keylock71: My Libertarian friends get all bent out of shape when they can barely managed to get double digit numbers of support for their candidates, but they fail to see that they are the ones who have to convince the voters why they should support the LP. They spout platitudes and ideals, but hardly ever explain how these ideals will be achieved in the real world.

It doesn't help that they're smug, condescending bastards, even when their arguments are bottom-of-the-barrel retarded.


img.photobucket.com

Image attachment FAIL
 
2013-03-01 12:32:14 PM

Satanic_Hamster: I'm 34.  In my life time I've moved from voting mostly Republican to trying to avoid voting Republican in any race at any level.


You sound college educated and middle class.
 
2013-03-01 12:32:49 PM

slayer199: Ah, good to see all the Fark libs and conservatives hating on the LP.  Republicans hate us because of our social liberalism and Democrats hate us because of our fiscal conservatism.     Both sides do everything they can to exclude the LP (and the Green Party) from the process.  Why?  Fear.  A party that promotes social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and smaller government will resonate with voters.


"F-you, I got mine" is social liberalism?
 
2013-03-01 12:33:21 PM

CapeFearCadaver: hubiestubert: The sad fact is, many Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke pot, and that is not the basis for real progress.

A large majority of my close friends are Libertarian for this reason. They think Democrats are hippies and Republicans are bat-shiat insane so they vote Libertarian/Independent.

Their mostly musicians... they can't help it. Well, they could, but there's pot to smoke!


Being a musician myself, I also know a good deal of Libertarians.  Not all are drug users, but all are self-important narcissists who seem to feel any sort of communal living is a HUGE infringement on their liberties.
 
2013-03-01 12:33:45 PM

Arkanaut: dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?

What do you mean by libertarian?


I guess I should explain myself -- my impression is that in general people say they're "libertarian" to mean they're social liberals but economic conservatives (and possible foreign-policy doves / isolationists), but I think from a philosophical perspective there's no necessary basis for that second part.  After all you're calling yourself a "libertarian" and not an "anarchist" -- you must believe in some role for government, and some level of taxation to support those functions.  To a certain extent, a "libertarian" government will over time end up resembling a representative democracy -- at some point, elected representatives from all over society will have to come together to decide what powers or responsibilities to give or take away from government, in response to the world evolving around them, and IMO that could very well include some liberal policies.

Also, as an aside, I'm not sure how a libertarian government would deal with issues of corruption, which I feel is one of the major problems with our current form of government.
 
2013-03-01 12:34:12 PM

UNC_Samurai: If there's a viable third party, I'd like to see it.


Might look into the Greens.  They're sort of focused on the local/regional level, so their POTUS and congressional candidates are usually the only farkers nuts enough to actually want to run, but the actual local and regional candidates are actually... usually very solid, and aware that they have to build enough cachet to essentially run as an independent candidate, so they often have a lot more practical experience in what they're trying for than the big party candidates.

Not necessarily your cup of tea, but viable enough in context so long as you're willing to actually be politically informed and look at candidates instead of party line.

/was a member of LP until they went off the deep end in early 2009

Um, speaking as someone that's been moderately active in politics since I was an asshole teenager, a better wording for that might be "since I  realized they were off the deep end in early 2009".  They... haven't actually changed substantially in character or craziness since at least the '90s.

No real distinct turning points or platform changes a la the GOP's gradual transition post-big-tent.
 
2013-03-01 12:34:30 PM
i796.photobucket.com
mission accomplished
 
2013-03-01 12:34:45 PM
Muta: "... In the 3 years I've been at Liberty University , not once has anyone asked what my political feelings are...."

>implying Liberty University is a real college to anyone but bible thumpers.
 
2013-03-01 12:35:11 PM

palelizard: Solkar: hubiestubert: It's not just college kids, folks. Unless the party purges the Crazy Train, they're not going to get my vote either, and I'm in my early 40s. At this point, it's not just the social issues, but how economic issues are used to further those social issues, and how the refusal to contemplate prudent fiscal policy is draining the nation's coffers and impacting growth and opportunity. The party isn't just out of touch, the leadership is actively promoting an agenda that is curtailing the nation's future.

Not that a lot Libertarians are any better. The typical Libertarian candidate today promotes an agenda that is naught but a brand of NeoFeudalism that is even worse than their Republican counterparts. I had hopes for the Modern Whigs, but the TEA Party nonsense pretty much ate up their momentum, which is exactly what it was designed to do. The sad fact is, many Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke pot, and that is not the basis for real progress. We need better thinking, not just the same old, with a few whistles and bells to draw in the unwary...

Can you read my mind?

I see... mildly deviant smut, and early lunch cravings.


Only *mildly* deviant? Other than that, pretty much spot on.
 
2013-03-01 12:35:41 PM

skullkrusher: Mercutio74: skullkrusher: you can't govern a large and diverse country with a anarchistic or even minarchistic government. It just won't work. However, folding aspects of libertarianism into our modern, largely statist government is not a bad thing.

That's a different discussion altogether.

As far as that theory goes, one could argue that the US already has a disproportionately large amount of libertarianism already built into the system.  If it had a moderate to low amount of libertarianism class mobility wouldn't be as difficult as it is right now and there would be more than just the very rich prospering.

If anything, the US needs some more socialism... or more logically... reallocate some of  the socialist funding of the defense industry to infrastructure and the middle class.

abolition of corporations as we know them is entirely compatible with libertarianism and I'd argue necessary under it.


Abolition in favor of what, though? Elimination of corporate "personhood" or possibly making their board criminally liable for their actions? Replacement with collectives? I know there's probably a lot of alternatives out there, but no method to implement them exists without spilling lots and lots of blood.

I get some of the libertarian ideals, I can understand the desire to be left alone--especially from those who are already moderately successful. I do, though, believe in heavy regulation of industry and business, which requires a healthy and likely somewhat large (at least not "small") government. Oversight and managed markets, to me, is very much better than laisses-faire capitalism any day. Look back to the last financial crisis and imagine how much more often and how much worse those incidents would be without the very light regulation we have today. I think that would be awful.
 
2013-03-01 12:35:43 PM
To be fair, a lot of people are self-described libertarians because they think the GOP does not punish the poors sufficiently.
 
2013-03-01 12:36:23 PM
libertarianism is fine as a personal political philosophy, it makes little sense as a governing philosophy.
 
2013-03-01 12:37:11 PM

Zerochance: img.photobucket.com

Image attachment FAIL


shiat like that makes me want to punch a baby. I had a libertarian cousin post that exact same thing on their wall and I couldn't resit a response, so I posted

"Yes because the City of Chicago has a giant 50 yard wide moat and 50 foot high steel walls around it, with robotic sentries at all entry points, and laser xray scanning detection equipment that vaporizes any gun it detects"
 
2013-03-01 12:38:02 PM

Rwa2play: verbaltoxin: "But the free market!" no it won't. You already have huge, multinational actors with considerable power over resources, labor and governments. What do you think would happen if we took the few chains we have off? You think they'd be gracious benedictors and disband so little guys could compete? No! They'd go to war and the only victors would be modern day Rockefellers. It'd be Standard Oil and Carnegie Steel all over again.

Any Libertarian that says "but the free market!" is, in actuality saying "but the free market except when I'm losing money, then it shouldn't be a free market!"


A whole pile of those same people are fully in support of privitization of profit and socialization of risk. The rich fully expect to stay rich, at any cost--it is their right.
 
2013-03-01 12:38:30 PM

dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?


Because they're nothing more than tea party dicks who smoke pot.
 
2013-03-01 12:38:39 PM

Zerochance: keylock71: My Libertarian friends get all bent out of shape when they can barely managed to get double digit numbers of support for their candidates, but they fail to see that they are the ones who have to convince the voters why they should support the LP. They spout platitudes and ideals, but hardly ever explain how these ideals will be achieved in the real world.

It doesn't help that they're smug, condescending bastards, even when their arguments are bottom-of-the-barrel retarded.


Some of them certainly are... I keep telling a friend of mine that calling people "ignorant, lazy statist leaches" because they won't vote the way you want them to isn't really the best way to get them to accept your political ideologies. They're really good at telling you what is wrong with Democratic and Republican policies, what is wrong with Socialism etc., yet their rhetoric is amazingly light regarding how they plan to put their ideology in place in the democratic republic we currently live in.
 
2013-03-01 12:39:07 PM

Mercutio74: skullkrusher: abolition of corporations as we know them is entirely compatible with libertarianism and I'd argue necessary under it.

Please proceed governor...

/I am truly interested in hearing you elaborate on that point, even though this is Fark
//I mean actually do elaborate, how would you stop people from making de facto corporations, even if you couldn't form them under law


the aspect of corporations that is incompatible with libertarianism, imo, is the limited liability of the ownership. If you own a plumbing contractor that is set up as an llc and you flood a person's house destroying their priceless collection of Beanie Babies, barring criminal negligence, they can only hope to recoup from the business and not you and your partners. This is incompatible with libertarianism in my view as it hinders a person's recourse in response to a rights violation. People should not be able to shield themselves from liability in that way. Making the corporation a separate entity from the people who own and run it is contrary to the most basic right-libertarian principle of protection of property rights.
 
2013-03-01 12:39:33 PM
FTFA: Leone is a fiscal conservative, but when it comes to the GOP, he thinks the party needs to take a different approach to some issues.
 "They need to change their outlook, especially on social issues, which is why I identify myself more as Libertarian," Leone says. "But I think that they are still very much in the right in terms of economic issues, the Republicans are."

So in other words, you're a moran.
 
2013-03-01 12:39:54 PM
Tea Party, Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, etc... They're all just regressives that are ashamed of the Republican label.
 
2013-03-01 12:40:01 PM

dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?



I can't think of a single reason.
It might be refreshing to vote for a candidate, rather than vote against one. I've been going the "lesser of two evils" route for the last 30 years.
 
2013-03-01 12:40:43 PM

RexTalionis: hubiestubert: Not that a lot Libertarians are any better.

Libertarians are Republicans who are embarrassed to call themselves Republicans.


Libertarians are what Republicans should be. Instead, it got hijacked by the Christian Right
 
2013-03-01 12:40:48 PM

TV's Vinnie: dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?

[i46.tinypic.com image 400x618]


http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ar_libertarianism_qa
 
2013-03-01 12:41:12 PM

Mercutio74: skullkrusher: abolition of corporations as we know them is entirely compatible with libertarianism and I'd argue necessary under it.

Please proceed governor...

/I am truly interested in hearing you elaborate on that point, even though this is Fark
//I mean actually do elaborate, how would you stop people from making de facto corporations, even if you couldn't form them under law


The problem with corporatism as it relates to libertarianism is that there's no personal responsibility or accountability.

If a CEO was held legally and criminally liable for the actions of corporate misconduct, we'd see a lot less corporate misconduct. As it stands a company is only responsible to their stockholders and the stockholder's primary interest is to see the stock increase and/or pay dividends.
 
2013-03-01 12:42:19 PM

what_now: slayer199: Ah, good to see all the Fark libs and conservatives hating on the LP.  Republicans hate us because of our social liberalism and Democrats hate us because of our fiscal conservatism.     Both sides do everything they can to exclude the LP (and the Green Party) from the process.  Why?  Fear.  A party that promotes social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and smaller government will resonate with voters.

It would, if such a party existed. The libretartian party thinks we can simply free market the poor into not existing, which has never worked in the history of humanity, and the majority of this country doesn't think Dickensian England would be a nice place to live.


Well, that's always where the idea tends to go sideways.

We have this collective myth in America- partially embedded in the persuasion rhetoric of the founders- that whenever you remove a measure of power or control from an entity, it automagically defaults back to that nebulous thing called "the People."  It'd be lovely if there was a mechanism by which that would actually happen.  Instead, power does what it usually does- fill a vacuum by defaulting to the next most powerful in line, those best-positioned to take advantage of it with the resources they already have.  That is almost never "the People," at least not as most people would use the term.

To an extent the Republicans and Democrats both acknowledge this, even as they mostly dance around saying it; the argument is which of the two heaviest powermongers, big government or big business, presents the greatest threat to the liberty of the individual and needs to be reigned in.  (Or put another way, the choice is which is the lesser of two authoritarian-leaning approaches to settle for.  And, yes, they also define some of these terms and goals a little differently; but one flu-medication fueled rant at a time, here...)  Libertarians acknowledge the authoritarian leanings of the whole system, rail against it at length...  and then leave us waiting to hear where the magical redistribution of power and liberty will come from, without simply relabeling authoritarianism.

There's an idea that ultimate freedom is actually a pretty good recipe for Hell: do as you please, but brace yourself for a million other unbound devils doing as they please to you.  If there's a core "fear of Libertarianism," it's that unchaining all the giants at once will only drop us all squarely in The Hell of Do As Thou Will, surrounded by the older kids with the bigger sticks.  Their answers as to what might keep that from happening tend to be unconvincing.
 
2013-03-01 12:43:02 PM

dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?


Well you wouldn't if you want to see less Democrats in office.

Seriously, third party votes are a waste of time nationally. So if you want to see the opposite ideology in office then by all means vote the third rail. I don't mind, it works for those of us who work towards more and better dems.
 
2013-03-01 12:43:13 PM

Bad_Seed: The Name: And even then, "Libertarian" is often just a stop on the road to outright "liberal."  It'll probably take just a couple more years of college (and if not by then, certainly grad school) for some of these kids to realize that libertarianism is just a big of a crock as regular old Republicanism.

Personally, I found leaving college and getting a job to be far more effective at shattering any "libertarian" illusions about how the world is run. It's one thing to sit around and talk about how the government is going to take your money and slow down your talents, but once you become a corporate drone and realise that your employer is going to use you and screw you the earliest chance they get, you learn to appreciate some of these "socialist" ideas like workers rights, and social insurance.


Pretty much that.  Nothing disabuses you of any notions of being a Randian superman like the real world.
 
2013-03-01 12:43:47 PM

keylock71: Here's the thing that keeps me from voting for Libertarians.I do like what a lot of Libertarians say, but there's also a lot of their platform that just strikes me as having a total disregard for those who, for whatever reason, aren't able to "pull themselves up by their boot straps" and "take care of themselves". Their ideology never seems to address that in any detail.


The funny thing is that right wingers will mock participation awards and "everyones a winner" attitudes in schools or wherever. And then claim that in the economy if everyone tried hard enough everyone would be a winner, so their would be no need for socialist welfare payments and the like.

The economy isn't a zero sum game of course, but there will always be people that end up with little marketable skills, and with no negotiating power their wages will be pushed down by the market until they have just enough to survive and no more   (as long as no disasters occur like health problems), the only solution is either unions (which can never cover everything) or government intervention to limit how much advantage can be taken of the economically powerless at the bottom of the system.
 
2013-03-01 12:44:07 PM

GAT_00: Because industrial feudalism is a really bad way to run the world.


Not all Libertarianism is equivalent to some Randian dystopia. There are many flavors and varieties of Libertarianism as there are of other kinds of American politics.

/registered Green
 
2013-03-01 12:44:12 PM
deathstarpr.com

You have done THAT to yourself.
 
2013-03-01 12:45:14 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, etc... They're all just regressives that are ashamed of the Republican label.


I for one would like to see a debate between Libertarian and Constitution party candidates. I think there might be more differences than commonly assumed.
 
2013-03-01 12:45:35 PM
Oh, and this...

i301.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-01 12:46:03 PM

Zerochance: Being a musician myself, I also know a good deal of Libertarians. Not all are drug users, but all are self-important narcissists who seem to feel any sort of communal living is a HUGE infringement on their liberties.


I've seen this phenomenon, as well. Been in bands since I was 16, and a band is pretty much a perfect example of communist philosophy in practice. Every member working towards a singular goal, pooling their resources and earnings for the "greater good"... Sometimes even living and eating communally, especially on road trips. There's usually a leader, of course, but I've never seen a situation where "the leader" gets more cash from a gig than any other member, even if they write all the songs.

I guess that changes once you start making a lot of money and record companies get involve... Never been in that situation, myself. : ) Every band I've been in that has parted ways was usually because of clashing egos and one member thinking they're more important than the others.
 
2013-03-01 12:46:07 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: libertarianism is fine as a personal political philosophy, it makes little sense as a governing philosophy.


Maybe if you are one who believes that all social relations are business relations. But then you wind up with no real friends and have to buy friends. Maybe this is why Libertarians favor prostitution.
 
2013-03-01 12:46:57 PM

skullkrusher: the aspect of corporations that is incompatible with libertarianism, imo, is the limited liability of the ownership. If you own a plumbing contractor that is set up as an llc and you flood a person's house destroying their priceless collection of Beanie Babies, barring criminal negligence, they can only hope to recoup from the business and not you and your partners. This is incompatible with libertarianism in my view as it hinders a person's recourse in response to a rights violation. People should not be able to shield themselves from liability in that way. Making the corporation a separate entity from the people who own and run it is contrary to the most basic right-libertarian principle of protection of property rights.


Ahhhh... ok, I gotcha.  It's interesting but it makes me wonder what would happen to the cost of everyday services.  For example, would the price of a plumber be very high because so many plumbers would have lost their shirts in court (making supply lower) and that existing plumbers would have to charge more to build up a reserve fund in case they're ever sued?

I guess there's nothing about libertarianism that would prevent insurance companies from existing so it might end up coming out in the wash.
 
2013-03-01 12:47:43 PM

slayer199: Mercutio74: skullkrusher: abolition of corporations as we know them is entirely compatible with libertarianism and I'd argue necessary under it.

Please proceed governor...

/I am truly interested in hearing you elaborate on that point, even though this is Fark
//I mean actually do elaborate, how would you stop people from making de facto corporations, even if you couldn't form them under law

The problem with corporatism as it relates to libertarianism is that there's no personal responsibility or accountability.

If a CEO was held legally and criminally liable for the actions of corporate misconduct, we'd see a lot less corporate misconduct. As it stands a company is only responsible to their stockholders and the stockholder's primary interest is to see the stock increase and/or pay dividends.


right. Shareholders should also be liable for misconduct or damages of the companies they own stock in. Theoretically. This would probably hinder growth a metric shiatton though
 
2013-03-01 12:48:14 PM

slayer199: If a CEO was held legally and criminally liable for the actions of corporate misconduct, we'd see a lot less corporate misconduct.


I don't know if that conclusion necessarily follows from your premise but I don't know of any Libertarian candidates who have advocated that CEO's should somehow be above the law. I would suggest its political cronyism that makes them untouchable, and I can certainly think of manifestations of that in both Republican and Democratic political machines in American history.
 
2013-03-01 12:48:59 PM

Somacandra: GAT_00: Because industrial feudalism is a really bad way to run the world.

Not all Libertarianism is equivalent to some Randian dystopia. There are many flavors and varieties of Libertarianism as there are of other kinds of American politics.

/registered Green


Well, yes, there are.  24, to be exact.

www.leftycartoons.com
 
2013-03-01 12:50:33 PM

Somacandra: I don't know if that conclusion necessarily follows from your premise but I don't know of any Libertarian candidates who have advocated that CEO's should somehow be above the law.


You can't have a successful party in the US that openly wants to make life harder for corporations.  The Super PACs would buy more tv time than can exist in the space time continuum.
 
2013-03-01 12:50:45 PM

dr_blasto: Look back to the last financial crisis and imagine how much more often and how much worse those incidents would be without the very light regulation we have today.


You people do not get it, do you?
 
2013-03-01 12:51:24 PM

keylock71: Some of them certainly are... I keep telling a friend of mine that calling people "ignorant, lazy statist leaches" because they won't vote the way you want them to isn't really the best way to get them to accept your political ideologies. They're really good at telling you what is wrong with Democratic and Republican policies, what is wrong with Socialism etc., yet their rhetoric is amazingly light regarding how they plan to put their ideology in place in the democratic republic we currently live in.


That's the beauty of Libertarianism.  They keep trying to make the party viable from the top down, rather than from the ground up, an approach that pretty much dooms them to single-digit irrelevancy.  But, since their precious ideology can never actually be put into practice, it cannot be fully disproven, and that allows them to endlessly speculate about how much better off everything and everyone would be if we operated on what is pretty much the Honor System.
 
2013-03-01 12:51:34 PM
FTFA:


Sophomore Miranda Onnen says after graduation, fiscal realities will begin to take hold for her generation and priorities will shift.

"We're also the ones who are going to have to pay for Obamacare," Onnen says. "A lot of people don't necessarily connect those things. They say, 'Oh, well, health care is great. I get to be on my parents' health-care plan until I'm 26.' Well, once you turn 27, you have to pay for that. And especially with the joblessness rates being what they are, I think that's going to hit kids our age pretty hard."
How does the existence of HCR or not change this reality?  Regardless of whether or not it existed, you would still be facing a time in your life when you would not be able to be on your parents healthcare, you would need it yourself and you would have to pay for it.  Obamacare gives you an opportunity to not be raped by the for-profit industry by applying controls and exchanges.

/she be a kollage stoodent
 
2013-03-01 12:54:59 PM

Somacandra: /registered Green


A green is just a left-winger too embarrassed to call themselves a Democrat.

am i doing this right?
 
2013-03-01 12:56:43 PM

Mercutio74: skullkrusher: the aspect of corporations that is incompatible with libertarianism, imo, is the limited liability of the ownership. If you own a plumbing contractor that is set up as an llc and you flood a person's house destroying their priceless collection of Beanie Babies, barring criminal negligence, they can only hope to recoup from the business and not you and your partners. This is incompatible with libertarianism in my view as it hinders a person's recourse in response to a rights violation. People should not be able to shield themselves from liability in that way. Making the corporation a separate entity from the people who own and run it is contrary to the most basic right-libertarian principle of protection of property rights.

Ahhhh... ok, I gotcha.  It's interesting but it makes me wonder what would happen to the cost of everyday services.  For example, would the price of a plumber be very high because so many plumbers would have lost their shirts in court (making supply lower) and that existing plumbers would have to charge more to build up a reserve fund in case they're ever sued?

I guess there's nothing about libertarianism that would prevent insurance companies from existing so it might end up coming out in the wash.


right. Insurance would be big(ger) business
 
2013-03-01 12:58:04 PM

Glenford: Sounds like the GOP needs someone hip and cool to reach out to the youngster. What happened to this guy?[3.bp.blogspot.com image 700x556]


He apparently got his brain out of escrow after stepping down and is at MSNBC.

/no really, the guy makes a bit of sense every now and then, far more than when he was chair of the RNC
 
2013-03-01 12:58:28 PM

Somacandra: GAT_00: Because industrial feudalism is a really bad way to run the world.

Not all Libertarianism is equivalent to some Randian dystopia. There are many flavors and varieties of Libertarianism as there are of other kinds of American politics.

/registered Green


Every single candidate I have ever seen run as a Libertarian, including some actual libertarians, has supported significant de-regulation for corporations. Every one of them. They usually argue that the government has too much power and limits freedom and de-regulation will change that.

I would like to say, outside of my time in the military, the government has never bother to give me a piss test to find out what I've done over the last few weeks. Corporate invasion of my free time is already way too much and, in order to participate in this market, I have no choice but to comply. The government seems to have a reactionary take on violations, corporations have a pre-emptive "prove you're innocent" approach and get away with it. I'd hate to give them another picogram of power.
 
2013-03-01 01:00:22 PM

HMS_Blinkin: "May have" lost voters for the next 50 years?  I'm 24 years old, and I can speak for myself and the vast majority of my friends (most of whom weren't particularly politically inclined before) when I say that the GOP has, without question, lost voters for 50 years at a minimum.  I currently don't plan to vote for any Republican at any level of government for the rest of my life, period.   I'm not saying I'm an automatic Democratic vote, but I'll vote for anyone short of Neo-Nazis before I vote GOP.

The GOP is profoundly screwed when the old people start dying off in droves.


I dunno, poor white people tend to vote republican because Jesus, the illusion of being "middle class", and race issues.

Sadly there the ones that get farked the most from these policies but follow the new GOP like it was a religion.

/Democrats ain't better
//The banks have bought out congress and we're too socially isolated to give a damn
 
2013-03-01 01:01:15 PM

Mercutio74: skullkrusher: the aspect of corporations that is incompatible with libertarianism, imo, is the limited liability of the ownership. If you own a plumbing contractor that is set up as an llc and you flood a person's house destroying their priceless collection of Beanie Babies, barring criminal negligence, they can only hope to recoup from the business and not you and your partners. This is incompatible with libertarianism in my view as it hinders a person's recourse in response to a rights violation. People should not be able to shield themselves from liability in that way. Making the corporation a separate entity from the people who own and run it is contrary to the most basic right-libertarian principle of protection of property rights.

Ahhhh... ok, I gotcha.  It's interesting but it makes me wonder what would happen to the cost of everyday services.  For example, would the price of a plumber be very high because so many plumbers would have lost their shirts in court (making supply lower) and that existing plumbers would have to charge more to build up a reserve fund in case they're ever sued?

I guess there's nothing about libertarianism that would prevent insurance companies from existing so it might end up coming out in the wash.


Everyone would maintain malpractice insurance, and services would cost more.  Alternately, there'd be legal clauses in the contract you sign to get service that eliminates their liability, or caps it at a certain amount.

Eventually, though, it could be difficult to get some services, because the risk to reward ratio is too high.  If you could only afford $200 for services, but there's a 1% chance he'd screw up and flood things, owing $30K, it's just not worth it.
 
2013-03-01 01:03:04 PM

The Name: And even then, "Libertarian" is often just a stop on the road to outright "liberal."  It'll probably take just a couple more years of college (and if not by then, certainly grad school) for some of these kids to realize that libertarianism is just a big of a crock as regular old Republicanism.


Truth.
 
2013-03-01 01:03:23 PM

jigger: dr_blasto: Look back to the last financial crisis and imagine how much more often and how much worse those incidents would be without the very light regulation we have today.

You people do not get it, do you?


Get what? Get that I believe there's too much leeway and we need to regulate? I know many think regulations are too stiff already, I simply disagree. De-regulation has led to failure for society throughout history while empowering the already powerful. If that's your thing, fine. I just don't like that kind of a future.
 
2013-03-01 01:03:44 PM

slayer199: Ah, good to see all the Fark libs and conservatives hating on the LP.  Republicans hate us because of our social liberalism and Democrats hate us because of our fiscal conservatism.     Both sides do everything they can to exclude the LP (and the Green Party) from the process.  Why?  Fear.  A party that promotes social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and smaller government will resonate with voters.

 Oh sure, especially when it's populated by lunatics.
 
2013-03-01 01:04:55 PM

jigger: Somacandra: /registered Green

A green is just a left-winger too embarrassed to call themselves a Democrat.

am i doing this right?


Nah, it just doesn't work the same way over on the left, sorry.

If anything, that's backwards.  A lot of nominal Democrats are at base Greens, but either too embarrassed or too pragmatic to vote (or register) that way.
 
2013-03-01 01:06:17 PM

Noam Chimpsky: The only "libertarian" principles these Libertarians have is drugs and samer weddings.


And abortions
 
2013-03-01 01:07:22 PM

HeartBurnKid: Somacandra: GAT_00: Because industrial feudalism is a really bad way to run the world.

Not all Libertarianism is equivalent to some Randian dystopia. There are many flavors and varieties of Libertarianism as there are of other kinds of American politics.

/registered Green

Well, yes, there are.  24, to be exact.

[www.leftycartoons.com image 650x976]


24 kinds, all beating each other over the head with "No True Scotsman" sticks in internet forums.

An internet, by the way, that exists because of the government.
 
2013-03-01 01:07:39 PM

Wadded Beef: "F-you, I got mine" is social liberalism?


You're confused between social liberalism and fiscal conservatism.

Social liberalism means you can do whatever you'd like so long as you don't infringe on someone else's rights to do whatever they'd like.  Who you sleep with, who you marry, what drugs you like to do...is not a concern of a libertarian.  An individual is ultimately responsible for the choices they make, NOT the government.  That also extends to the poor choices as well.  If an individual makes poor life choices, that's on them...not on other citizens vis a vis the government bailing them out (and it also applies to corporations).

Fiscal conservatism relates to government spending.  Libertarians recognize the need for government when it comes to things like infrastructure, defense (though FAR smaller than it is now), and enforcement of laws/contracts.  The government is FAR too large, inefficient, and yes...we have a spending problem.

Your "Fark you, I got mine" is nothing more than an appeal to emotion.  Libertarians believe that people should be able to reap the rewards of success and if they so choose, donate their time or money to any cause they'd like.  Being are forced to do so at gunpoint (government) that is something libertarians would object to.  There will always be poor people but pretending that more government or government redistribution of wealth leads to prosperity is naive.  There's been a War on Poverty going on for 80 years and it hasn't made a dent in the average 14-15% that live in poverty.  In short, dramatically reduce spending and taxes across the board.
 
2013-03-01 01:08:38 PM

RexTalionis: Libertarians are Republicans who are embarrassed to call themselves Republicans.


This is scarily close to the actual truth. From the blinding arrogance they displayed towards Ron Paul at the RNC, to their support of Draconian ideals on social issues, to the utter cluelessness they displayed in unabashedly running the veritable poster-child for corporate greed as their presidential candidate, they managed to lose my vote as well.
 
2013-03-01 01:09:45 PM

Somacandra: I don't know if that conclusion necessarily follows from your premise but I don't know of any Libertarian candidates who have advocated that CEO's should somehow be above the law. I would suggest its political cronyism that makes them untouchable, and I can certainly think of manifestations of that in both Republican and Democratic political machines in American history.


True.  On occasion CEO's are held accountable for fiscal misconduct.  I was referring more to criminal negligence.  Making a product that they know to be harmful because it's profitable.
 
2013-03-01 01:10:02 PM

verbaltoxin: 24 kinds, all beating each other over the head with "No True Scotsman" sticks in internet forums.


Eventually any large group of libertarians ends up with the More Libertarian Than Thou types calling everyone else statists
 
2013-03-01 01:10:20 PM

give me doughnuts: It might be refreshing to vote for a candidate, rather than vote against one.


Yeah, I thought it would be refreshing too. I once supported a guy who had no real chance, but he was a likeable guy with solid centrist ideas and a refreshing background story.

But then he got some traction, pulled an upset victory in the primaries and won the general election. So I've spent the past 4 years being labeled a thoughtless 'bot and a starry-eyed cultist. At best.

So, yeah... less refreshing than you might imagine.
 
2013-03-01 01:11:02 PM
graphics8.nytimes.com
Says all you need to know about the Libertarian Party.
 
2013-03-01 01:11:36 PM

dr_blasto: jigger: dr_blasto: Look back to the last financial crisis and imagine how much more often and how much worse those incidents would be without the very light regulation we have today.

You people do not get it, do you?

Get what? Get that I believe there's too much leeway and we need to regulate? I know many think regulations are too stiff already, I simply disagree. De-regulation has led to failure for society throughout history while empowering the already powerful. If that's your thing, fine. I just don't like that kind of a future.


You don't get that because of and despite the massive piles of regulations, shiat like this is going to happen when banks and huge corporations run the government. How did these banks get so farking big and powerful? farking government. They got so big because they own congressmen, they send their cronies into the regulatory agencies (only the big ones get to do this), they have the explicit guarantees from the government (and the winks and nods) that their assets will be protected, so gamble away, we've got your back. You think deregulation empowers the already powerful? You think they want deregulation? Hell no, they love regulations. That's what gives the powerful few the most power.
 
2013-03-01 01:13:18 PM

palelizard: cubic_spleen: Mercutio74: dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?

The only thing that libertarian fiscal policy leads to is a failed nation?  That's a good enough reason for most.

What Libertarians/GOP (like there's a difference in this country) really want is to live in Somalia, except without all the black people.

And fewer pirates.


No - they'd just be corporations.
 
2013-03-01 01:13:38 PM

BSABSVR: verbaltoxin: 24 kinds, all beating each other over the head with "No True Scotsman" sticks in internet forums.

Eventually any large group of libertarians ends up with the More Libertarian Than Thou types calling everyone else statists



At the end of the day there are only three kinds of Libertarians: corporatists, crypto-racists and weed-smokers.
 
2013-03-01 01:13:48 PM

BSABSVR: verbaltoxin: 24 kinds, all beating each other over the head with "No True Scotsman" sticks in internet forums.

Eventually any large group of libertarians ends up with the More Libertarian Than Thou types calling everyone else statists


well, anarcho-capitalists are pretty much the only "pure" right-libertarians. That is taking the ideology to the logical conclusion. They kinda have the right to call everyone who is not an AC not libertarian
 
2013-03-01 01:14:06 PM

Wasteland: jigger: Somacandra: /registered Green

A green is just a left-winger too embarrassed to call themselves a Democrat.

am i doing this right?

Nah, it just doesn't work the same way over on the left, sorry.


Ah, well, you say so. You must be right.
 
2013-03-01 01:15:51 PM

slayer199: Wadded Beef: "F-you, I got mine" is social liberalism?

You're confused between social liberalism and fiscal conservatism.

Social liberalism means you can do whatever you'd like so long as you don't infringe on someone else's rights to do whatever they'd like.  Who you sleep with, who you marry, what drugs you like to do...is not a concern of a libertarian.  An individual is ultimately responsible for the choices they make, NOT the government.  That also extends to the poor choices as well.  If an individual makes poor life choices, that's on them...not on other citizens vis a vis the government bailing them out (and it also applies to corporations).

Fiscal conservatism relates to government spending.  Libertarians recognize the need for government when it comes to things like infrastructure, defense (though FAR smaller than it is now), and enforcement of laws/contracts.  The government is FAR too large, inefficient, and yes...we have a spending problem.

Your "Fark you, I got mine" is nothing more than an appeal to emotion.  Libertarians believe that people should be able to reap the rewards of success and if they so choose, donate their time or money to any cause they'd like.  Being are forced to do so at gunpoint (government) that is something libertarians would object to.  There will always be poor people but pretending that more government or government redistribution of wealth leads to prosperity is naive.  There's been a War on Poverty going on for 80 years and it hasn't made a dent in the average 14-15% that live in poverty.  In short, dramatically reduce spending and taxes across the board.


That is exactly what, "F*ck you, got mine," means. Someone's poor choices can add up and have catastrophic effects on others' well being. So after awhile, it can affect you and yours. Hence I do give a sh*t about people shooting themselves up with guns and/or heroin, or defaulting on their loans, because eventually those bad choices f*ck with everyone's ability to own guns, buy drugs and borrow money.

You just proved my f*cking point.
 
2013-03-01 01:17:04 PM

slayer199: Ah, good to see all the Fark libs and conservatives hating on the LP.  Republicans hate us because of our social liberalism and Democrats hate us because of our fiscal conservatism.     Both sides do everything they can to exclude the LP (and the Green Party) from the process.  Why?  Fear.  A party that promotes social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and smaller government will resonate with voters.


In 2008, Libertarians picked a nominee whose pinnacle of public service was trying to remove a sitting president for a blowjob.

I don't think that made your party look socially liberal. Sure, you say you are, but Republicans also say they're fiscally responsible.
 
2013-03-01 01:18:09 PM

verbaltoxin: That is exactly what, "F*ck you, got mine," means. Someone's poor choices can add up and have catastrophic effects on others' well being. So after awhile, it can affect you and yours. Hence I do give a sh*t about people shooting themselves up with guns and/or heroin, or defaulting on their loans, because eventually those bad choices f*ck with everyone's ability to own guns, buy drugs and borrow money.

You just proved my f*cking point.


So we should ban drugs and guns so that people can't fark with other's decision to buy guns and drugs.
 
2013-03-01 01:18:56 PM

jigger: dr_blasto: jigger: dr_blasto: Look back to the last financial crisis and imagine how much more often and how much worse those incidents would be without the very light regulation we have today.

You people do not get it, do you?

Get what? Get that I believe there's too much leeway and we need to regulate? I know many think regulations are too stiff already, I simply disagree. De-regulation has led to failure for society throughout history while empowering the already powerful. If that's your thing, fine. I just don't like that kind of a future.

You don't get that because of and despite the massive piles of regulations, shiat like this is going to happen when banks and huge corporations run the government. How did these banks get so farking big and powerful? farking government. They got so big because they own congressmen, they send their cronies into the regulatory agencies (only the big ones get to do this), they have the explicit guarantees from the government (and the winks and nods) that their assets will be protected, so gamble away, we've got your back. You think deregulation empowers the already powerful? You think they want deregulation? Hell no, they love regulations. That's what gives the powerful few the most power.


Legislative capture is bad. So let's make it easier and deregulate some more!

That's your argument.

If you want corruption ended, then you need laws that will punish the powerful. To enforce those laws, you need..............government.

Not the magical free market that grants wishes and makes dreams come true.
 
2013-03-01 01:19:09 PM

Zerochance: That's the beauty of Libertarianism. They keep trying to make the party viable from the top down, rather than from the ground up, an approach that pretty much dooms them to single-digit irrelevancy. But, since their precious ideology can never actually be put into practice, it cannot be fully disproven, and that allows them to endlessly speculate about how much better off everything and everyone would be if we operated on what is pretty much the Honor System.


It's brilliant... If you prefer to sit around mentally masturbating with like-minded college students instead of getting drunk/stoned and trying to get laid. : )
 
2013-03-01 01:20:05 PM

jigger: How did these banks get so farking big and powerful? farking government. They got so big because they own congressmen, they send their cronies into the regulatory agencies (only the big ones get to do this), they have the explicit guarantees from the government (and the winks and nods) that their assets will be protected, so gamble away, we've got your back. You think deregulation empowers the already powerful? You think they want deregulation? Hell no, they love regulations. That's what gives the powerful few the most power.


I often see this type of open-ended rant. Here's where it always evaporates into thin air...

Please name for me the specific financial regulations whose elimination would result in a government less (not more) beholden to the banking industry. Pretty please. With mutherfarking sugar on top.
 
2013-03-01 01:20:51 PM

verbaltoxin: Legislative capture is bad. So let's make it easier and deregulate some more!


Make it easier to do what? Make regulations?

verbaltoxin: If you want corruption ended, then you need laws that will punish the powerful. To enforce those laws, you need..............government.


I guess it's watchers all the way down.
 
2013-03-01 01:22:28 PM

jigger: verbaltoxin: That is exactly what, "F*ck you, got mine," means. Someone's poor choices can add up and have catastrophic effects on others' well being. So after awhile, it can affect you and yours. Hence I do give a sh*t about people shooting themselves up with guns and/or heroin, or defaulting on their loans, because eventually those bad choices f*ck with everyone's ability to own guns, buy drugs and borrow money.

You just proved my f*cking point.

So we should ban drugs and guns so that people can't fark with other's decision to buy guns and drugs.


No, that's not what I said; it's what you pretend liberals think, like we're all one hivemind.

I can find you liberals that want to ban assault rifles, or what are really just semiautomatic rifles with high capacity magazines. I can also find you liberals that don't. It isn't hard to do. Advocating background checks, mental healthcare access for more people and things pro-gun advocates already agree with and aren't controversial at all is not, "We're gonna take your guns away."

In the end though, liberals tend to compromise and adjust as scenarios change.

I'd like for you libertarians to just ONCE explain to me how the buddy system would actually work in terms of governance.
 
2013-03-01 01:22:39 PM
I know I will never vote Republican again, and the nature of our voting system means I'll be voting Democratic for the foreseeable future because the reality of third parties is that you put the option you like least into power.

Sorry, that's just how it is.

Get some instant runoff voting in place, and I'd have put Jill Stein as my first choice and Obama as my second in 2012.

//Might have instant runoff voting confused with something else, my brain is burnt out after a long week of coding at the moment.
 
2013-03-01 01:24:04 PM

jigger: verbaltoxin: Legislative capture is bad. So let's make it easier and deregulate some more!

Make it easier to do what? Make regulations?

verbaltoxin: If you want corruption ended, then you need laws that will punish the powerful. To enforce those laws, you need..............government.

I guess it's watchers all the way down.


"Waa, I can't get my way whenever."

Welcome to being an adult. Your choices have consequences, and yes they affect others. When that happens, guess what? You face the consequences.

Unless you're a bank, apparently, and then in libertarian world, they should just get to do whatever they want.
 
2013-03-01 01:25:08 PM

Mr_Fabulous: Please name for me the specific financial regulations whose elimination would result in a government less (not more) beholden to the banking industry. Pretty please. With mutherfarking sugar on top.


Oh you want a list? Here let me thumb through the Title 12 of the US Code.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12

It's no sweat. I've got all day to hang out on Fark with you good people.

Chapter 3 would be a start though.
 
2013-03-01 01:26:39 PM

verbaltoxin: jigger: verbaltoxin: That is exactly what, "F*ck you, got mine," means. Someone's poor choices can add up and have catastrophic effects on others' well being. So after awhile, it can affect you and yours. Hence I do give a sh*t about people shooting themselves up with guns and/or heroin, or defaulting on their loans, because eventually those bad choices f*ck with everyone's ability to own guns, buy drugs and borrow money.

You just proved my f*cking point.

So we should ban drugs and guns so that people can't fark with other's decision to buy guns and drugs.

No, that's not what I said; it's what you pretend liberals think, like we're all one hivemind.

I can find you liberals that want to ban assault rifles, or what are really just semiautomatic rifles with high capacity magazines. I can also find you liberals that don't. It isn't hard to do. Advocating background checks, mental healthcare access for more people and things pro-gun advocates already agree with and aren't controversial at all is not, "We're gonna take your guns away."

In the end though, liberals tend to compromise and adjust as scenarios change.

I'd like for you libertarians to just ONCE explain to me how the buddy system would actually work in terms of governance.


Well, since we're all putting words into each other's mouths, tell me what my "buddy system" entails?
 
2013-03-01 01:28:40 PM
Drew Stroemple, 20, also a Republican, says the party has lagged behind Democrats in use of social media and technology - two things critical to reaching potential voters. But he says that can be fixed. He argues that no big policy changes are needed as long as the focus is on fiscal responsibility. And he says potential candidates Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan and others give the GOP a DERP bench.

FTFY, Mr. Stroemple.

Fact is--Young people aren't religious, think that petroleum usage harms the environment, have no problems with gays or weed, and don't think fighting pre-emptive wars are a good idea, especially since they have to fight said wars. Oh yeah, they are also usually crippled with student loan debt RIGHT OFF THE BAT with very little job prospects or security. That and they believe in things like Science and that Mexicans and Muslims aren't bad people. And let's not forget they are not exactly pro-gun either.

No amount of "Major Overhaul" will convince people under the age of 25 to vote GOP for at least a generation.
 
2013-03-01 01:29:13 PM

jigger: verbaltoxin: jigger: verbaltoxin: That is exactly what, "F*ck you, got mine," means. Someone's poor choices can add up and have catastrophic effects on others' well being. So after awhile, it can affect you and yours. Hence I do give a sh*t about people shooting themselves up with guns and/or heroin, or defaulting on their loans, because eventually those bad choices f*ck with everyone's ability to own guns, buy drugs and borrow money.

You just proved my f*cking point.

So we should ban drugs and guns so that people can't fark with other's decision to buy guns and drugs.

No, that's not what I said; it's what you pretend liberals think, like we're all one hivemind.

I can find you liberals that want to ban assault rifles, or what are really just semiautomatic rifles with high capacity magazines. I can also find you liberals that don't. It isn't hard to do. Advocating background checks, mental healthcare access for more people and things pro-gun advocates already agree with and aren't controversial at all is not, "We're gonna take your guns away."

In the end though, liberals tend to compromise and adjust as scenarios change.

I'd like for you libertarians to just ONCE explain to me how the buddy system would actually work in terms of governance.

Well, since we're all putting words into each other's mouths, tell me what my "buddy system" entails?


Well to start, it involves getting rid of Title XII.

Brilliant.
 
2013-03-01 01:30:01 PM

meat0918: I know I will never vote Republican again, and the nature of our voting system means I'll be voting Democratic for the foreseeable future because the reality of third parties is that you put the option you like least into power.

Sorry, that's just how it is.

Get some instant runoff voting in place, and I'd have put Jill Stein as my first choice and Obama as my second in 2012.

//Might have instant runoff voting confused with something else, my brain is burnt out after a long week of coding at the moment.


heh how does one go from being a Republican to voting for Jill Stein? :)
 
2013-03-01 01:31:15 PM

verbaltoxin: No, that's not what I said; it's what you pretend liberals think, like we're all one hivemind.


to be fair, no one pretends liberals think anything except other liberals

/jk
 
2013-03-01 01:32:46 PM

skullkrusher: meat0918: I know I will never vote Republican again, and the nature of our voting system means I'll be voting Democratic for the foreseeable future because the reality of third parties is that you put the option you like least into power.

Sorry, that's just how it is.

Get some instant runoff voting in place, and I'd have put Jill Stein as my first choice and Obama as my second in 2012.

//Might have instant runoff voting confused with something else, my brain is burnt out after a long week of coding at the moment.

heh how does one go from being a Republican to voting for Jill Stein? :)


By spending a few years in college maybe? I was a Republican back when I didn't know dick about politics (teenager) because my parents were.
But when I started actually paying attention several years later, I realized I wasn't really a Republican at all.
 
2013-03-01 01:32:47 PM

slayer199: Social liberalism means you can do whatever you'd like so long as you don't infringe on someone else's rights to do whatever they'd like. Who you sleep with, who you marry, what drugs you like to do...is not a concern of a libertarian. An individual is ultimately responsible for the choices they make, NOT the government. That also extends to the poor choices as well. If an individual makes poor life choices, that's on them...not on other citizens vis a vis the government bailing them out (and it also applies to corporations).


So if a company sells a drug they know is more dangerous than they're advertising, should the CEO be held accountable under Libertarian philosophy?

Would you advocate, then, thousands of charges of reckless endangerment (and at the very least, negligent manslaughter) to, say, the CEO of Bayer for the stuff that happened regarding Yaz?
 
2013-03-01 01:33:49 PM

skullkrusher: well, anarcho-capitalists are pretty much the only "pure" right-libertarians. That is taking the ideology to the logical conclusion. They kinda have the right to call everyone who is not an AC not libertarian


True enough, but when your party is small and your influence is consistently below what you expect it to be, perfect is the enemy of the good
 
2013-03-01 01:36:05 PM

jigger: Mr_Fabulous: Please name for me the specific financial regulations whose elimination would result in a government less (not more) beholden to the banking industry. Pretty please. With mutherfarking sugar on top.

Oh you want a list? Here let me thumb through the Title 12 of the US Code.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12

It's no sweat. I've got all day to hang out on Fark with you good people.

Chapter 3 would be a start though.


"Which regulations?"  "All of them."

Are you Sarah Palin?
 
2013-03-01 01:36:42 PM

Via Infinito: skullkrusher: meat0918: I know I will never vote Republican again, and the nature of our voting system means I'll be voting Democratic for the foreseeable future because the reality of third parties is that you put the option you like least into power.

Sorry, that's just how it is.

Get some instant runoff voting in place, and I'd have put Jill Stein as my first choice and Obama as my second in 2012.

//Might have instant runoff voting confused with something else, my brain is burnt out after a long week of coding at the moment.

heh how does one go from being a Republican to voting for Jill Stein? :)

By spending a few years in college maybe? I was a Republican back when I didn't know dick about politics (teenager) because my parents were.
But when I started actually paying attention several years later, I realized I wasn't really a Republican at all.


I got the impression that Meat had sworn off the GOP because they're off the deep end now, not that he had a radical reconsideration of his core political beliefs. Could be wrong.

my econ adviser in college was an anarcho-capitalist and he sold me. I've certainly reconsidered quite a bit since then and would definitely vote Dem over Rep for national office as things are currently going.

/was never a Randian
 
2013-03-01 01:37:13 PM
Who wants to play a one item scavenger hunt?  It goes like this: find a Libertarian website, literally any one, that doesn't have a loony conspiracy theory on it.  I don't think it can be done.  Here's a tip, try searching the site for "Agenda 21" first, just to save on time
 
2013-03-01 01:37:40 PM

slayer199: Ah, good to see all the Fark libs and conservatives hating on the LP.  Republicans hate us because of our social liberalism and Democrats hate us because of our fiscal conservatism.     Both sides do everything they can to exclude the LP (and the Green Party) from the process.  Why?  Fear.  A party that promotes social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and smaller government will resonate with voters.


If libertarian-ism is so smart how come it loses so god damn always?
 
2013-03-01 01:37:52 PM

Felgraf: Would you advocate, then, thousands of charges of reckless endangerment (and at the very least, negligent manslaughter) to, say, the CEO of Bayer for the stuff that happened regarding Yaz?


was much more of a Erasure fan myself
 
2013-03-01 01:37:59 PM

verbaltoxin: slayer199: Wadded Beef: "F-you, I got mine" is social liberalism?

You're confused between social liberalism and fiscal conservatism.

Social liberalism means you can do whatever you'd like so long as you don't infringe on someone else's rights to do whatever they'd like.  Who you sleep with, who you marry, what drugs you like to do...is not a concern of a libertarian.  An individual is ultimately responsible for the choices they make, NOT the government.  That also extends to the poor choices as well.  If an individual makes poor life choices, that's on them...not on other citizens vis a vis the government bailing them out (and it also applies to corporations).

Fiscal conservatism relates to government spending.  Libertarians recognize the need for government when it comes to things like infrastructure, defense (though FAR smaller than it is now), and enforcement of laws/contracts.  The government is FAR too large, inefficient, and yes...we have a spending problem.

Your "Fark you, I got mine" is nothing more than an appeal to emotion.  Libertarians believe that people should be able to reap the rewards of success and if they so choose, donate their time or money to any cause they'd like.  Being are forced to do so at gunpoint (government) that is something libertarians would object to.  There will always be poor people but pretending that more government or government redistribution of wealth leads to prosperity is naive.  There's been a War on Poverty going on for 80 years and it hasn't made a dent in the average 14-15% that live in poverty.  In short, dramatically reduce spending and taxes across the board.

That is exactly what, "F*ck you, got mine," means. Someone's poor choices can add up and have catastrophic effects on others' well being. So after awhile, it can affect you and yours. Hence I do give a sh*t about people shooting themselves up with guns and/or heroin, or defaulting on their loans, because eventually those bad choices f*ck with everyone's abi ...


Not just that: If someone wants to get their life back together and being a productive member of society again, that attitude basically wastes an opportunity to do so.
 
2013-03-01 01:38:11 PM

hubiestubert: The sad fact is, many Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke pot


THIS. And I will also add: Libertarians are just Republicans who want to have sex.
 
2013-03-01 01:38:49 PM

slayer199: Ah, good to see all the Fark libs and conservatives hating on the LP.  Republicans hate us because of our social liberalism and Democrats hate us because of our fiscal conservatism.     Both sides do everything they can to exclude the LP (and the Green Party) from the process.  Why?  Fear.  A party that promotes social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and smaller government will resonate with voters.


I am a libertarian (for lack of a more accurate description) and I hate the LP for the most part.
 
2013-03-01 01:38:50 PM

Car_Ramrod: College Republicans creep me out.

And they always remind me of PCU.



"Oooh madras ties....."
 
2013-03-01 01:39:28 PM

verbaltoxin: No, that's not what I said; it's what you pretend liberals think, like we're all one hivemind.

I can find you liberals that want to ban assault rifles, or what are really just semiautomatic rifles with high capacity magazines. I can also find you liberals that don't. It isn't hard to do. Advocating background checks, mental healthcare access for more people and things pro-gun advocates already agree with and aren't controversial at all is not, "We're gonna take your guns away."

In the end though, liberals tend to compromise and adjust as scenarios change.

I'd like for you libertarians to just ONCE explain to me how the buddy system would actually work in terms of governance.


Libertarians aren't a hive-mind either.  Some of us recognize a certain amount of government is beneficial to society on a holistic level.  It's just where the line is drawn is often different.
 
2013-03-01 01:40:11 PM

skullkrusher: was much more of a Erasure fan myself


I am assuming this was a music joke that I am missing.

/The question was serious, though. Suffice to say, I admit I have a rather *personal* reason for asking the question I did...
 
2013-03-01 01:40:27 PM

jigger: verbaltoxin: Legislative capture is bad. So let's make it easier and deregulate some more!

Make it easier to do what? Make regulations?


Dancing around that mine isn't going to make things easier.

verbaltoxin: If you want corruption ended, then you need laws that will punish the powerful. To enforce those laws, you need..............government.

I guess it's watchers all the way down.


Not necessarily.
 
2013-03-01 01:41:22 PM

shortymac: HMS_Blinkin: "May have" lost voters for the next 50 years?  I'm 24 years old, and I can speak for myself and the vast majority of my friends (most of whom weren't particularly politically inclined before) when I say that the GOP has, without question, lost voters for 50 years at a minimum.  I currently don't plan to vote for any Republican at any level of government for the rest of my life, period.   I'm not saying I'm an automatic Democratic vote, but I'll vote for anyone short of Neo-Nazis before I vote GOP.

The GOP is profoundly screwed when the old people start dying off in droves.

I dunno, poor white people tend to vote republican because Jesus, the illusion of being "middle class", and race issues.

Sadly there the ones that get farked the most from these policies but follow the new GOP like it was a religion.

/Democrats ain't better
//The banks have bought out congress and we're too socially isolated to give a damn


I'm gonna have to disagree there.  The Democrats, on the whole, ain't good, but they're a damn sight better than the GOP.
 
2013-03-01 01:42:06 PM

verbaltoxin: jigger: verbaltoxin: Legislative capture is bad. So let's make it easier and deregulate some more!

Make it easier to do what? Make regulations?

verbaltoxin: If you want corruption ended, then you need laws that will punish the powerful. To enforce those laws, you need..............government.

I guess it's watchers all the way down.

"Waa, I can't get my way whenever."

Welcome to being an adult. Your choices have consequences, and yes they affect others. When that happens, guess what? You face the consequences.

Unless you're a bank, apparently, and then in libertarian world, they should just get to do whatever they want.


Is it just me or Libertarianism just another buzzword for eugenics.
 
2013-03-01 01:42:31 PM

dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?


The same reason you shouldn't vote for your grandmother.
 
2013-03-01 01:42:47 PM

jigger: Mr_Fabulous: Please name for me the specific financial regulations whose elimination would result in a government less (not more) beholden to the banking industry. Pretty please. With mutherfarking sugar on top.

Oh you want a list? Here let me thumb through the Title 12 of the US Code.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12

It's no sweat. I've got all day to hang out on Fark with you good people.

Chapter 3 would be a start though.



"All of them"

Yep. Totally not predictable in any way. No siree.

As I said... the "principled libertarian stand" never fails to evaporate when a single specific fact is requested.
 
2013-03-01 01:42:54 PM

partisan222: hubiestubert: The sad fact is, many Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke pot

THIS. And I will also add: Libertarians are just Republicans who want to have sex with women.


FTFA.
 
2013-03-01 01:43:08 PM

Mr_Fabulous: give me doughnuts: It might be refreshing to vote for a candidate, rather than vote against one.

Yeah, I thought it would be refreshing too. I once supported a guy who had no real chance, but he was a likeable guy with solid centrist ideas and a refreshing background story.

But then he got some traction, pulled an upset victory in the primaries and won the general election. So I've spent the past 4 years being labeled a thoughtless 'bot and a starry-eyed cultist. At best.

So, yeah... less refreshing than you might imagine.



But the more people who abandon the GOP for the Libertarians, the easier it is to unseat the GOP.
 
2013-03-01 01:43:39 PM

slayer199: Ah, good to see all the Fark libs and conservatives hating on the LP.  Republicans hate us because of our social liberalism and Democrats hate us because of our fiscal conservatism.     Both sides do everything they can to exclude the LP (and the Green Party) from the process.  Why?  Fear.  A party that promotes social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and smaller government will resonate with voters.


AHAHAHA. Libertarians? Socially liberal? Your 'best' politicians are Ron and Rand Paul- the eldest of which is an ob-gyn who is anti-abortion. You can't call yourself 'socially liberal' if personal choice only extends to people with a penis.
 
2013-03-01 01:46:10 PM

Felgraf: skullkrusher: was much more of a Erasure fan myself

I am assuming this was a music joke that I am missing.

/The question was serious, though. Suffice to say, I admit I have a rather *personal* reason for asking the question I did...


heh Yaz was a euro-pop band in the 80s too
 
2013-03-01 01:48:40 PM

Lemurknits: slayer199: Ah, good to see all the Fark libs and conservatives hating on the LP.  Republicans hate us because of our social liberalism and Democrats hate us because of our fiscal conservatism.     Both sides do everything they can to exclude the LP (and the Green Party) from the process.  Why?  Fear.  A party that promotes social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and smaller government will resonate with voters.

AHAHAHA. Libertarians? Socially liberal? Your 'best' politicians are Ron and Rand Paul- the eldest of which is an ob-gyn who is anti-abortion. You can't call yourself 'socially liberal' if personal choice only extends to people with a penis.


Also: People that call themselves "Libertarians" who start spouting theocratic propaganda...are no longer libertarian

So the Pauls are just closet neo-conservatives that start yelling "I'M A LIBERTARIAN" when people get wise to their BS.
 
2013-03-01 01:49:17 PM
I recall during the debate about HRC, every single libertarian I spoke to had these 2 talking points, and that's it:

1) I should be able to buy my insurance in a state where it's cheaper!
2) We need tort reform so those doctors don't have to pay anything for malpractice insurance.

Not a single one of them understood what risk pools were, or the repercussions of expanding the risk pool of a state by flooding it with more beneficiaries.

And they magically believed that health care costs would go down if a doctor wouldn't have to pay for malpractice insurance.  Sure, they wouldn't just pocket the difference, and besides, malpractice insurance is not the number one driving force in health care costs.

Really, that's the mental capacity of a libertarian.
 
2013-03-01 01:50:18 PM

Rwa2play: So the Pauls are just closet neo-conservatives confederates that start yelling "I'M A LIBERTARIAN" when people get wise to their BS.

 
2013-03-01 01:50:33 PM

Rwa2play: Is it just me or Libertarianism just another buzzword for eugenics.



Nothing wrong with eugenics as an idea. It's just the implementation that always gets screwed up.
 
2013-03-01 01:51:51 PM
Oh, yeah, I had another libertarian tell me that he 100% believed that "the poor" should be able to sell their organs.
 
2013-03-01 01:52:42 PM
verbaltoxin: slayer199: Wadded Beef: "F-you, I got mine" is social liberalism?

You're confused between social liberalism and fiscal conservatism.

Social liberalism means you can do whatever you'd like so long as you don't infringe on someone else's rights to do whatever they'd like. Who you sleep with, who you marry, what drugs you like to do...is not a concern of a libertarian. An individual is ultimately responsible for the choices they make, NOT the government. That also extends to the poor choices as well. If an individual makes poor life choices, that's on them...not on other citizens vis a vis the government bailing them out (and it also applies to corporations).

Fiscal conservatism relates to government spending. Libertarians recognize the need for government when it comes to things like infrastructure, defense (though FAR smaller than it is now), and enforcement of laws/contracts. The government is FAR too large, inefficient, and yes...we have a spending problem.

Your "Fark you, I got mine" is nothing more than an appeal to emotion. Libertarians believe that people should be able to reap the rewards of success and if they so choose, donate their time or money to any cause they'd like. Being are forced to do so at gunpoint (government) that is something libertarians would object to. There will always be poor people but pretending that more government or government redistribution of wealth leads to prosperity is naive. There's been a War on Poverty going on for 80 years and it hasn't made a dent in the average 14-15% that live in poverty. In short, dramatically reduce spending and taxes across the board.

That is exactly what, "F*ck you, got mine," means. Someone's poor choices can add up and have catastrophic effects on others' well being. So after awhile, it can affect you and yours. Hence I do give a sh*t about people shooting themselves up with guns and/or heroin, or defaulting on their loans, because eventually those bad choices f*ck with everyone's abi ...



Not just that: If someone wants to get their life back together and being a productive member of society again, that attitude basically wastes an opportunity to do so.

It's libertarian obfuscation. "Look, we're happy to give to charities of our choice for society! I just don't want the government to make us do it" translates to "I'm not going to do shiat. Let somebody else contribute. F-you...I got mine." That they bring up everyone having to contribute and pooling funds (re: healthcare) "by gunpoint" is the real culprit in an appeal to emotion.
 
2013-03-01 01:53:10 PM

tripleseven: Oh, yeah, I had another libertarian tell me that he 100% believed that "the poor" should be able to sell their organs.


I guess that does sort of fit in with the libertarian ideology, as you're not hurting anyone but yourself...
 
2013-03-01 01:54:03 PM

tripleseven: Oh, yeah, I had another libertarian tell me that he 100% believed that "the poor" should be able to sell their organs.


Agrees

houseofgeekery.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-03-01 01:54:16 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again: My generation  does not like bigotry. Run on a platform that  earns you a reputation for bigotry, not to mention the nickname 'Party of Rape', and my generation will treat you like the walking jokes you are.
 
2013-03-01 01:54:25 PM

cchris_39: Noam Chimpsky: The only "libertarian" principles these Libertarians have is drugs and samer weddings.

And abortions


I think we've found a couple of good candidates for the RNC's new Youth Vote Outreach Program.
 
2013-03-01 01:54:52 PM

tripleseven: Oh, yeah, I had another libertarian tell me that he 100% believed that "the poor" should be able to sell their organs.


Sounds as if he already sold his brain.
Since it was unused, he probably got a good price for it.
 
2013-03-01 01:55:13 PM

tripleseven: I recall during the debate about HRC, every single libertarian I spoke to had these 2 talking points, and that's it:

1) I should be able to buy my insurance in a state where it's cheaper!
2) We need tort reform so those doctors don't have to pay anything for malpractice insurance.

Not a single one of them understood what risk pools were, or the repercussions of expanding the risk pool of a state by flooding it with more beneficiaries.

And they magically believed that health care costs would go down if a doctor wouldn't have to pay for malpractice insurance.  Sure, they wouldn't just pocket the difference, and besides, malpractice insurance is not the number one driving force in health care costs.

Really, that's the mental capacity of a libertarian.


Oh, and speaking of "personal responsibility":  One would think that tort reform wouldn't be necessary when individuals/corporations (instead of pocketing the money or spending it on less important matters) would actually go through with it when it comes to creating conditions that lead to lawsuits amirite?
 
2013-03-01 01:56:39 PM

tripleseven: Oh, yeah, I had another libertarian tell me that he 100% believed that "the poor" should be able to sell their organs.


and you presumably don't think people should be allowed to do this? Someone can volunteer to donate an organ but they cannot be compensated for it?
 
2013-03-01 01:56:48 PM
How can anyone be conservative, particularly in college? I was farking and taking bong hits and other drugs. Man, college was fun.
 
2013-03-01 01:58:29 PM

skullkrusher: meat0918: I know I will never vote Republican again, and the nature of our voting system means I'll be voting Democratic for the foreseeable future because the reality of third parties is that you put the option you like least into power.

Sorry, that's just how it is.

Get some instant runoff voting in place, and I'd have put Jill Stein as my first choice and Obama as my second in 2012.

//Might have instant runoff voting confused with something else, my brain is burnt out after a long week of coding at the moment.

heh how does one go from being a Republican to voting for Jill Stein? :)


I was very, very confused.

So much so, that when I first started caring about politics in 2000 (I was 20), I was under the impression Republicans wanted gun control (yes, even with the 1994 assault weapons ban; I wasn't paying attention at 14), you couldn't vote in an election unless you were a registered Democrat or Republican, and you also couldn't get an absentee ballot unless you'd voted in person at least once.

Although I was paying attention to the GOP tantrum over Bill's BJ/Perjury, and that was the start of my dislike of the GOP.

I've gotten better.

//I still don't know why I equated gun control with Republicans.
 
2013-03-01 01:59:53 PM
Saved this from a thread here almost a year ago, releveant as ever:

 AntiNerd                 2012-04-11 09:37:11 AM

The one thing that the libertarian free-market-solves-everything ideology never explains is how to deal with the powerful business interest that is ALWAYS willing to trade your long-term interests in exchange for their short-term interests.

Environment? Sure I'll extract a few billion out of that forest, that mine, that ocean and destroy it in the process. If you don't like it don't do business with me and I'll go out of business. In the mean time there are lots of hungry folk out of there that WILL do business with me because they don't know any better and they are as greedy as me. If you sue I'll be on the islands retired while you deal with my $500/hour lawyers. Good luck collecting if you win.
 
2013-03-01 02:01:47 PM

Rwa2play: Is it just me or Libertarianism just another buzzword for eugenics.


More generally it is a two step process - Libertarianism in part is an attempt to theoretically justify Social Darwinism while eugenics helps along the natural results of Social Darwinism by preventing the "un-fit" from wasting resources.
 
2013-03-01 02:04:47 PM

dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?


It's a retarded ideology that doesn't take into account human nature?
 
2013-03-01 02:06:15 PM

skullkrusher: tripleseven: Oh, yeah, I had another libertarian tell me that he 100% believed that "the poor" should be able to sell their organs.

and you presumably don't think people should be allowed to do this? Someone can volunteer to donate an organ but they cannot be compensated for it?


No, they should not, because it means the organ goes to the highest bidder.  Thereby skewing the recipients based on wealth.

Did you really need that explained to you?
 
2013-03-01 02:06:31 PM

hubiestubert: It's not just college kids, folks. Unless the party purges the Crazy Train, they're not going to get my vote either, and I'm in my early 40s. At this point, it's not just the social issues, but how economic issues are used to further those social issues, and how the refusal to contemplate prudent fiscal policy is draining the nation's coffers and impacting growth and opportunity. The party isn't just out of touch, the leadership is actively promoting an agenda that is curtailing the nation's future.

Not that a lot Libertarians are any better. The typical Libertarian candidate today promotes an agenda that is naught but a brand of NeoFeudalism that is even worse than their Republican counterparts. I had hopes for the Modern Whigs, but the TEA Party nonsense pretty much ate up their momentum, which is exactly what it was designed to do. The sad fact is, many Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke pot, and that is not the basis for real progress. We need better thinking, not just the same old, with a few whistles and bells to draw in the unwary...



ALL OF THIS!

I voted Libertarian in the last election only because I'm in Maryland, which there is no chance will go any way but Democrat, and wanted to take my usual dependable Republican vote and protest the insanity of the Republican party by giving it to the Libertarians.

Not to say I support the Libertarians... they're nuts too, in a different way and LESS than the Republicans. But I would really, really, really like a sane 3rd party to vote for, and I have other ex-Republican friends who would like to as well.
 
2013-03-01 02:06:50 PM
50 years from now, everyone calling themselves "libertarians" right now will belong to the democratic party, and those of us who self-identify as liberals will belong to some kind of yet-to-emerge labor and environmental coalition.
 
2013-03-01 02:07:43 PM

HairBolus: Rwa2play: Is it just me or Libertarianism just another buzzword for eugenics.

More generally it is a two step process - Libertarianism in part is an attempt to theoretically justify Social Darwinism while eugenics helps along the natural results of Social Darwinism by preventing the "un-fit" from wasting resources.


Ah, so that's how it works.  Yeah...I'll be happy being a Progressive Democrat, thank you very much.
 
2013-03-01 02:08:50 PM

thisisyourbrainonFark: How can anyone be conservative, particularly in college? I was farking and taking bong hits and other drugs. Man, college was fun.


Because some of us worked and commuted while going to college and didn't have that much time to do those sorts of things.

Some grow up and realize there is more than 'my interests' in the world and some become paranoid and cranky.  I have almost nothing in common with a friend of mine who went to college and worked when I did because he hasn't grown up yet.  He turned into a teatard and me into a dirty lib.
 
2013-03-01 02:08:51 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?

It's a retarded ideology that doesn't take into account human nature?


*DING*DING*DING*DING*DING*DING*DING*DING*  We have a winnah!
 
2013-03-01 02:11:08 PM

tripleseven: I recall during the debate about HRC, every single libertarian I spoke to had these 2 talking points, and that's it:

1) I should be able to buy my insurance in a state where it's cheaper!
2) We need tort reform so those doctors don't have to pay anything for malpractice insurance.

Not a single one of them understood what risk pools were, or the repercussions of expanding the risk pool of a state by flooding it with more beneficiaries.

And they magically believed that health care costs would go down if a doctor wouldn't have to pay for malpractice insurance.  Sure, they wouldn't just pocket the difference, and besides, malpractice insurance is not the number one driving force in health care costs.

Really, that's the mental capacity of a libertarian.


What gets me about 1) is that it flies in the face of everything Republicans/libertarians claim to believe about federal vs. state power.  Don't they realize that insurance varies by state because states have had the *freedom* to make their own laws about insurance?  Are they really suggesting that the federal government nullify state law to make insurance cheaper?  Sounds not only like tyranny, but also socialism, if you ask me.
 
2013-03-01 02:12:24 PM

tripleseven: skullkrusher: tripleseven: Oh, yeah, I had another libertarian tell me that he 100% believed that "the poor" should be able to sell their organs.

and you presumably don't think people should be allowed to do this? Someone can volunteer to donate an organ but they cannot be compensated for it?

No, they should not, because it means the organ goes to the highest bidder.  Thereby skewing the recipients based on wealth.

Did you really need that explained to you?


Why should anyone but the donor or the recipient have any say in the matter?  If you want to donate your organs upon death, you can.  If someone else wishes to sell a kidney to pay for college, they should be allowed to as well.

Or do you think everyone should be forced to donate their organs into a shared pool?
 
2013-03-01 02:15:15 PM

dr_blasto: MisterTweak: dr_blasto: skullkrusher: you can't govern a large and diverse country with a anarchistic or even minarchistic government.

Anarchistic government? Is that where you vote for a president and he never shows up to work or immediately quits after election?

Rick Perry and Sarah Palin would like a word...

You're mistaking "Autistic government" for "Anarchistic government" it seems.


It's the price I pay for not cleaning my glasses more often. My mistake, Sir.
 
2013-03-01 02:15:35 PM

tripleseven: skullkrusher: tripleseven: Oh, yeah, I had another libertarian tell me that he 100% believed that "the poor" should be able to sell their organs.

and you presumably don't think people should be allowed to do this? Someone can volunteer to donate an organ but they cannot be compensated for it?

No, they should not, because it means the organ goes to the highest bidder.  Thereby skewing the recipients based on wealth.

Did you really need that explained to you?


You sound like you want to control what people do with their bodies.
 
2013-03-01 02:15:44 PM

Rwa2play: Crotchrocket Slim: dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?

It's a retarded ideology that doesn't take into account human nature?

*DING*DING*DING*DING*DING*DING*DING*DING*  We have a winnah!


You can say the same thing about communism.  We're social animals with a pack structure, whether we want to admit it or not.  Having a leader is a natural state of affairs.
 
2013-03-01 02:16:48 PM

palelizard: tripleseven: skullkrusher: tripleseven: Oh, yeah, I had another libertarian tell me that he 100% believed that "the poor" should be able to sell their organs.

and you presumably don't think people should be allowed to do this? Someone can volunteer to donate an organ but they cannot be compensated for it?

No, they should not, because it means the organ goes to the highest bidder.  Thereby skewing the recipients based on wealth.

Did you really need that explained to you?

Why should anyone but the donor or the recipient have any say in the matter?  If you want to donate your organs upon death, you can.  If someone else wishes to sell a kidney to pay for college, they should be allowed to as well.

Or do you think everyone should be forced to donate their organs into a shared pool?


Buying an organ from someone because they "need the money" is also exploitative of the less fortunate.
It's not like they're selling a car or a piece of jewelry to make rent or something, it's irreplaceable.
If you cannot see the problem in that, you may be a "libertarian"

Goes along with the "I got mines, fark you" mantra.
 
2013-03-01 02:17:07 PM

udhq: 50 years from now, everyone calling themselves "libertarians" right now will belong to the democratic party, and those of us who self-identify as liberals will belong to some kind of yet-to-emerge labor and environmental coalition.


I should explain;  the conventional wisdom in the media is that our country has taken a hard right turn in the last 40 years.  This is not the case.

What has happened is that the right has radicalized, and the media has realized that reporting on fringe positions is good for business. To site a recent example, the headline "Some Still Believe a Woman's Place is in the Home" gets more clicks than something like "Role of Women in Society Gradually Changing."  The recent article on the business model of the Daily Mail highlighted this dynamic quite well:  they make the same amount of ad revenue from a commenter who says "Right On!" that they do from a commenter who says "The entire premise of your article is objectively false and here's why."
 
2013-03-01 02:17:35 PM

palelizard: tripleseven: skullkrusher: tripleseven: Oh, yeah, I had another libertarian tell me that he 100% believed that "the poor" should be able to sell their organs.

and you presumably don't think people should be allowed to do this? Someone can volunteer to donate an organ but they cannot be compensated for it?

No, they should not, because it means the organ goes to the highest bidder.  Thereby skewing the recipients based on wealth.

Did you really need that explained to you?

Why should anyone but the donor or the recipient have any say in the matter?  If you want to donate your organs upon death, you can.  If someone else wishes to sell a kidney to pay for college, they should be allowed to as well.

Or do you think everyone should be forced to donate their organs into a shared pool?


exactly. Very few people are just donating organs while they are alive. Allowing people to sell organs will almost assuredly increase the number of organs available on the market. You want to continue anatomical gifts upon death, fine. I don't see why a person shouldn't be allowed to sell a kidney while they're alive.
 
2013-03-01 02:18:43 PM

skullkrusher: tripleseven: skullkrusher: tripleseven: Oh, yeah, I had another libertarian tell me that he 100% believed that "the poor" should be able to sell their organs.

and you presumably don't think people should be allowed to do this? Someone can volunteer to donate an organ but they cannot be compensated for it?

No, they should not, because it means the organ goes to the highest bidder.  Thereby skewing the recipients based on wealth.

Did you really need that explained to you?

You sound like you want to control what people do with their bodies.


You sound like you believe that somehow, wealth makes you above others.

Republican, or libertarian?
 
2013-03-01 02:19:26 PM

Rwa2play: Not just that: If someone wants to get their life back together and being a productive member of society again, that attitude basically wastes an opportunity to do so.


Or, what is happening in my house, as we speak, for the last four months and for the foreseeable future.

Mrs. Nuisance has a friend.  Friend is not terribly well educated, but can hold down a job and pay rent and put a little money in the bank as a bus driver for a private transportation service.  Works long hours to make up for the low pay.  One night after a late run, she is leaving the lot and gets mugged.  She surrenders her purse without resistance, yet mugger feels the need to crack her on the head with the butt of his pistol, as a parting gift.

  Employer will not allow her to drive without a full medical check.  (Fair enough, don't want her to have a cerebral hemorrhage while driving.)  CAT scan reveals a mass at the base of her brain.  Further tests ensue: she has a benign tumor the size of a clementine surrounding her brain stem.

  Attempts are made to remove it.  Turns out the mass which was expected to be soft and cheesy is hard, like wood, and cannot be extracted via needle, and taking it out physically is ruled out as far too risky.  She can aford none of this without her employer's insurance. Tumor continues to grow, albeit very slowly, and manifests itself in impaired vision and cognitive skills.  She cannot work, and is reduced to Disability and no insurance.

  She moves in with her aunt (immediate family are far away, and unable to help, as they are in worse shape than she, in some ways) and helps take care of Aunt's house in return for a room.  This goes on for a few years.  Uncle dies.  Aunt starts fading from Alzheimer's.  Aunt's children decide that Aunt must be moved to an ongoing care facility.  Since the house is her main asset, it must be sold to allow this, to cause the impoverishment that will allow for Medicaid.  Friend is given two weeks to vacate premises.

  Having nowhere else to go, she moves in with us.  She has no money, and cannot pay rent (although we will be accepting a token amount from her in the coming months).  She's increased our food bill and utilities.  Her cognitive difficulties are becoming more obvious as she has trouble completing simple tasks, and gets confused sometimes ("Dirty dishes into cabinet, rather than dishwasher" sort of things)  It is becoming increasingly clear that she will be unable to care for herself alone.  Nearby Section 8 housing has a nearly year-long waiting list.  It's looking like she will be here permanently, which has already put a serious crimp in the marital lifestyle.

  So, I ask you, my Libertarian friends, what the hell do "poor decisions" have to do with any of this?  Our friend's illness is not her fault, her Aun't illness is not that poor woman's fault, being forced into the poorhouse is not her or her Aunt's fault, the unavailability of suitable housing isn't her fault, our being sympathetic to a friend's plight isn't our fault, the fact that I'm about to be furloughed and lose 20% of my pay is not my fault...

  Everyone in this story is being screwed, well and proper.

  WTF is your system going to do about it?  None of us did a thing wrong, but you'd leave us all in the goddam street.

  Up yours, you heartless, entitled buttmunches.  I've never met a one of you who wasn't a product of middle-class entitlement in the first place.

  I look forward to hearing of your enlightenment when your farking "benign" brain tumor shows up.
 
2013-03-01 02:19:32 PM

tripleseven: Buying an organ from someone because they "need the money" is also exploitative of the less fortunate.


whew, good thing you're here making that decision for them, Generalissimo. Shall I put "prevent the less fortunate from donating organs for free" on your docket as well?
 
2013-03-01 02:20:39 PM

Petey4335: thisisyourbrainonFark: How can anyone be conservative, particularly in college? I was farking and taking bong hits and other drugs. Man, college was fun.

Because some of us worked and commuted while going to college and didn't have that much time to do those sorts of things.

Some grow up and realize there is more than 'my interests' in the world and some become paranoid and cranky.  I have almost nothing in common with a friend of mine who went to college and worked when I did because he hasn't grown up yet.  He turned into a teatard and me into a dirty lib.


I know a libertarian who dropped out of college because he was playing too much WoW.  Daddy moneybags was paying his rent, he wasn't working (had hardly ever worked, actually) and he still couldn't muster the bootstrappiness to make it to class more than once every two weeks.  And this guy still had the nerve to suggest that rich people shouldn't be taxed because they've worked hard and scrimped and saved to get where they are.

You want a libertarian?  That's a libertarian in a nutshell.

/no longer friends with that asshole
 
2013-03-01 02:21:23 PM
skullkrusher:

exactly. Very few people are just donating organs while they are alive.

For some pretty good reasons, too.  Like, I may need it?  Hell, after I am dead, sure take what you need and toss it into the pool where it will be used based upon need.
 
2013-03-01 02:22:40 PM

partisan222: hubiestubert: The sad fact is, many Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke pot

THIS. And I will also add: Libertarians are just Republicans who want to have sex.


So...better than Republicans.
 
2013-03-01 02:23:18 PM

tripleseven: skullkrusher: tripleseven: skullkrusher: tripleseven: Oh, yeah, I had another libertarian tell me that he 100% believed that "the poor" should be able to sell their organs.

and you presumably don't think people should be allowed to do this? Someone can volunteer to donate an organ but they cannot be compensated for it?

No, they should not, because it means the organ goes to the highest bidder.  Thereby skewing the recipients based on wealth.

Did you really need that explained to you?

You sound like you want to control what people do with their bodies.

You sound like you believe that somehow, wealth makes you above others.

Republican, or libertarian?


not sure why you're taking this sort of tone. No one is being an intolerable assfark to you, why are you being an intolerable assfark to others?

See, anyone can make a donation of an organ while they're alive. Thing is, few do unless they know the person who needs it because it is quite an ordeal. If we allow people to sell organs while they're alive, we increase the pool of available organs thereby saving MORE lives. That's only a side benefit, however. The main benefit is not being an authoritarian douche who likes to lord over people under the guise of their best interests.
 
2013-03-01 02:24:37 PM

tripleseven: skullkrusher:

exactly. Very few people are just donating organs while they are alive.

For some pretty good reasons, too.  Like, I may need it?  Hell, after I am dead, sure take what you need and toss it into the pool where it will be used based upon need.


I am sure the person who could really use that $50k is over the moon that you care so much for them that you, a stranger, is willing to tell them what they may do with their own bodies.
 
2013-03-01 02:25:23 PM

tripleseven: Buying an organ from someone because they "need the money" is also exploitative of the less fortunate.
It's not like they're selling a car or a piece of jewelry to make rent or something, it's irreplaceable.
If you cannot see the problem in that, you may be a "libertarian"

Goes along with the "I got mines, fark you" mantra.


So if they don't 'need' the money, it'd be okay?  Being poor, or less fortunate, doesn't make you any better than being rich.  It's their decision.  I hope they get a good market rate, and can use the seed money to change their life.  I'll note you want to keep them poor rather than provide another method to advance.  The purity of the downtrodden must be preserved!
 
2013-03-01 02:25:56 PM

slayer199: Wadded Beef: "F-you, I got mine" is social liberalism?

You're confused between social liberalism and fiscal conservatism.

Social liberalism means you can do whatever you'd like so long as you don't infringe on someone else's rights to do whatever they'd like.  Who you sleep with, who you marry, what drugs you like to do...is not a concern of a libertarian.  An individual is ultimately responsible for the choices they make, NOT the government.  That also extends to the poor choices as well.  If an individual makes poor life choices, that's on them...not on other citizens vis a vis the government bailing them out (and it also applies to corporations).

Fiscal conservatism relates to government spending.  Libertarians recognize the need for government when it comes to things like infrastructure, defense (though FAR smaller than it is now), and enforcement of laws/contracts.  The government is FAR too large, inefficient, and yes...we have a spending problem.

Your "Fark you, I got mine" is nothing more than an appeal to emotion.  Libertarians believe that people should be able to reap the rewards of success and if they so choose, donate their time or money to any cause they'd like.  Being are forced to do so at gunpoint (government) that is something libertarians would object to.  There will always be poor people but pretending that more government or government redistribution of wealth leads to prosperity is naive.  There's been a War on Poverty going on for 80 years and it hasn't made a dent in the average 14-15% that live in poverty.  In short, dramatically reduce spending and taxes across the board.


I don't have the facts on me, but my guess is that you are very, very, very wrong on the bolded point above.
 
2013-03-01 02:26:32 PM

The Name: Petey4335: thisisyourbrainonFark: How can anyone be conservative, particularly in college? I was farking and taking bong hits and other drugs. Man, college was fun.

Because some of us worked and commuted while going to college and didn't have that much time to do those sorts of things.

Some grow up and realize there is more than 'my interests' in the world and some become paranoid and cranky.  I have almost nothing in common with a friend of mine who went to college and worked when I did because he hasn't grown up yet.  He turned into a teatard and me into a dirty lib.

I know a libertarian who dropped out of college because he was playing too much WoW.  Daddy moneybags was paying his rent, he wasn't working (had hardly ever worked, actually) and he still couldn't muster the bootstrappiness to make it to class more than once every two weeks.  And this guy still had the nerve to suggest that rich people shouldn't be taxed because they've worked hard and scrimped and saved to get where they are.

You want a libertarian?  That's a libertarian in a nutshell.

/no longer friends with that asshole


As I said I was pretty much an anarcho-capitalist in college. I graduated with a 3.5 and worked part time during the year and fulltime in the summers. So much for that generalization, huh?
 
2013-03-01 02:27:24 PM
This is true.  The influence of Big Religion on the GOP is it's biggest albatross.  Young people are fleeing from religion because of its anachronistic views on sex, sexuality, women, etc., and so the political party that panders to Big Religion is going to see a similar exodus (pardon the pun).
 
2013-03-01 02:29:48 PM
When the GOP stops believing in an economic policy that Marx himself supported, then they may get my vote. Oh wait, I like human beings, so they won't be for a while.

Seriously, I used to consider myself a college conservative, but then I realized that I was wrong.
 
2013-03-01 02:30:12 PM

skullkrusher: I am sure the person who could really use that $50k is over the moon that you care so much for them that you, a stranger, is willing to tell them what they may do with their own bodies.


OMG I laughed. Thanks for that. I luvs me some skullkrusher!
 
2013-03-01 02:31:36 PM

palelizard: The exploitation of the downtrodden must be preserved!


Seems about right.
 
2013-03-01 02:32:12 PM

Via Infinito: skullkrusher: I am sure the person who could really use that $50k is over the moon that you care so much for them that you, a stranger, is willing to tell them what they may do with their own bodies.

OMG I laughed. Thanks for that. I luvs me some skullkrusher!


mutual as always, m'lady
 
2013-03-01 02:32:14 PM

palelizard: tripleseven: Buying an organ from someone because they "need the money" is also exploitative of the less fortunate.
It's not like they're selling a car or a piece of jewelry to make rent or something, it's irreplaceable.
If you cannot see the problem in that, you may be a "libertarian"

Goes along with the "I got mines, fark you" mantra.

So if they don't 'need' the money, it'd be okay?  Being poor, or less fortunate, doesn't make you any better than being rich.  It's their decision.  I hope they get a good market rate, and can use the seed money to change their life.  I'll note you want to keep them poor rather than provide another method to advance.  The purity of the downtrodden must be preserved!


Should I be able to sell myself to be killed for the amusement of a rich person so my children can live in relative comfort?  Is there not a legitimate social interest in government preventing such arrangements?
 
2013-03-01 02:32:47 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: "Libertarians" are a bunch of authoritarian corporatist gasbags who pay lipservice to social issues as a vote-getting strategy.


So they are politicians? Get outta here.
 
2013-03-01 02:33:35 PM

Petey4335: thisisyourbrainonFark: How can anyone be conservative, particularly in college? I was farking and taking bong hits and other drugs. Man, college was fun.

Because some of us worked and commuted while going to college and didn't have that much time to do those sorts of things.

Some grow up and realize there is more than 'my interests' in the world and some become paranoid and cranky.  I have almost nothing in common with a friend of mine who went to college and worked when I did because he hasn't grown up yet.  He turned into a teatard and me into a dirty lib.


Oh, I worked in college. And don't worry, I did enough partying for both of us. For a Viking raiding party, in fact.
 
2013-03-01 02:33:44 PM

skullkrusher: tripleseven: skullkrusher:

exactly. Very few people are just donating organs while they are alive.

For some pretty good reasons, too.  Like, I may need it?  Hell, after I am dead, sure take what you need and toss it into the pool where it will be used based upon need.

I am sure the person who could really use that $50k is over the moon that you care so much for them that you, a stranger, is willing to tell them what they may do with their own bodies.


We don't allow it because allowing the selling of organs opens some NASTY floodgates and a shiat-ton of unintended consequences.

If organs can be sold, people can be pressured to sell organs, even if they themselves don't want to. Whether it's a "Nice family you got there. It would be a *shame* if they all got killed, unless you wanted to sell a kidney, eh?" coercement, plain old kidnapping and organselling, or a crapton of other stuff. Yes, those things are illegal. So's murder.

By banning organ selling, it prevents *any* of those from occuring, because there's no profit in doing them, because the organs can't be sold.

Repo: The Genetic Opera is not a how-to book.
 
2013-03-01 02:34:06 PM

meat0918: Rwa2play: Crotchrocket Slim: dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?

It's a retarded ideology that doesn't take into account human nature?

*DING*DING*DING*DING*DING*DING*DING*DING*  We have a winnah!

You can say the same thing about communism.  We're social animals with a pack structure, whether we want to admit it or not.  Having a leader is a natural state of affairs.


Oh, of course!  For anyone to try to admit different would be to dismiss human nature as a whole.  Such things have a way of biting back quite hard!
 
2013-03-01 02:34:44 PM

Deucednuisance:
Mrs. Nuisance has a friend...



That sucks, man... Though, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a Libertarian to get back to you.
Real world applications of their philosophy really isn't their forté.
 
m00
2013-03-01 02:35:42 PM

dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?


Because the Republican Party has claimed your vote, and you are a thief if you try to vote for whom you want rather than whom the Republican Party tells you.
 
2013-03-01 02:35:56 PM

udhq: palelizard: tripleseven: Buying an organ from someone because they "need the money" is also exploitative of the less fortunate.
It's not like they're selling a car or a piece of jewelry to make rent or something, it's irreplaceable.
If you cannot see the problem in that, you may be a "libertarian"

Goes along with the "I got mines, fark you" mantra.

So if they don't 'need' the money, it'd be okay?  Being poor, or less fortunate, doesn't make you any better than being rich.  It's their decision.  I hope they get a good market rate, and can use the seed money to change their life.  I'll note you want to keep them poor rather than provide another method to advance.  The purity of the downtrodden must be preserved!

Should I be able to sell myself to be killed for the amusement of a rich person so my children can live in relative comfort?  Is there not a legitimate social interest in government preventing such arrangements?


similarly, a debate exists among the right anarchists about whether one should (or can philosophically even accomplish) selling oneself into slavery.
Rothbard says nay, more recent ones like Walter Block say yes.

/nay
 
2013-03-01 02:37:43 PM
it's fascinating watching the Republican party implode.
 
2013-03-01 02:37:49 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: slayer199: Ah, good to see all the Fark libs and conservatives hating on the LP.  Republicans hate us because of our social liberalism and Democrats hate us because of our fiscal conservatism.     Both sides do everything they can to exclude the LP (and the Green Party) from the process.  Why?  Fear.  A party that promotes social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and smaller government will resonate with voters.

"Libertarians" are a bunch of authoritarian corporatist gasbags who pay lipservice to social issues as a vote-getting strategy.



Indeed... Libertarians oppose the initiation of force against others... You know, except for the idea of attempting to -force- libertarianism on them by claiming it's the only morally-valid means of government.

This is one of the best critiques of libertarianism that I've seen.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/marxism-of-the-right /

One of my favorite bits:

"Empirically, most people don't actually want absolute freedom, which is why democracies don't elect libertarian governments. Irony of ironies, people don't choose absolute freedom. But this refutes libertarianism by its own premise, as libertarianism defines the good as the freely chosen, yet people do not choose it. Paradoxically, people exercise their freedom not to be libertarians. "
 
2013-03-01 02:38:06 PM

Felgraf: skullkrusher: tripleseven: skullkrusher:

exactly. Very few people are just donating organs while they are alive.

For some pretty good reasons, too.  Like, I may need it?  Hell, after I am dead, sure take what you need and toss it into the pool where it will be used based upon need.

I am sure the person who could really use that $50k is over the moon that you care so much for them that you, a stranger, is willing to tell them what they may do with their own bodies.

We don't allow it because allowing the selling of organs opens some NASTY floodgates and a shiat-ton of unintended consequences.

If organs can be sold, people can be pressured to sell organs, even if they themselves don't want to. Whether it's a "Nice family you got there. It would be a *shame* if they all got killed, unless you wanted to sell a kidney, eh?" coercement, plain old kidnapping and organselling, or a crapton of other stuff. Yes, those things are illegal. So's murder.

By banning organ selling, it prevents *any* of those from occuring, because there's no profit in doing them, because the organs can't be sold.

Repo: The Genetic Opera is not a how-to book.


I suppose that danger does exist but how is it any more real than "Nice family you got there. It would be a shame if they got killed if you didn't whore yourself out for me/work in my factory for minimum wage/date my syphilitic cousin".

Besides, there IS a black market for organs. Making it a regulated white market would reduce the dangers, not increase them.
 
2013-03-01 02:38:42 PM

tripleseven: skullkrusher: tripleseven: Oh, yeah, I had another libertarian tell me that he 100% believed that "the poor" should be able to sell their organs.

and you presumably don't think people should be allowed to do this? Someone can volunteer to donate an organ but they cannot be compensated for it?

No, they should not, because it means the organ goes to the highest bidder.  Thereby skewing the recipients based on wealth.

Did you really need that explained to you?


Yes. Yes she did.
 
2013-03-01 02:39:20 PM

udhq: Should I be able to sell myself to be killed for the amusement of a rich person so my children can live in relative comfort? Is there not a legitimate social interest in government preventing such arrangements?


There is a social interest, certainly.  But it's a matter of degree.  Letting someone sell an extra portion of their body (kidney, hand, length of colon, etc) for whatever reason is going to have significantly less detrimental impact than death pacts for money, could have a reasonably beneficial result (assuming those poor people didn't spend it all on hookers and blow), and leans towards allowing people to be responsible for themselves rather than controlling them.  We're rational people--we can draw a line to stop without carrying an idea out to the furthest flung conclusion.
 
2013-03-01 02:40:45 PM

technicolor-misfit: A Dark Evil Omen: slayer199: Ah, good to see all the Fark libs and conservatives hating on the LP.  Republicans hate us because of our social liberalism and Democrats hate us because of our fiscal conservatism.     Both sides do everything they can to exclude the LP (and the Green Party) from the process.  Why?  Fear.  A party that promotes social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and smaller government will resonate with voters.

"Libertarians" are a bunch of authoritarian corporatist gasbags who pay lipservice to social issues as a vote-getting strategy.


Indeed... Libertarians oppose the initiation of force against others... You know, except for the idea of attempting to -force- libertarianism on them by claiming it's the only morally-valid means of government.

This is one of the best critiques of libertarianism that I've seen.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/marxism-of-the-right /

One of my favorite bits:

"Empirically, most people don't actually want absolute freedom, which is why democracies don't elect libertarian governments. Irony of ironies, people don't choose absolute freedom. But this refutes libertarianism by its own premise, as libertarianism defines the good as the freely chosen, yet people do not choose it. Paradoxically, people exercise their freedom not to be libertarians. "


another reason why the anarcho-capitalists are the ideologically pure ones. Giving people the freedom to choose their own governance. Free market for government, as it were. Terribly impractical but hey, there's a reason why most of us stop drawing Circle As on our Trapper Keepers sometime in middle school
 
2013-03-01 02:41:24 PM

Jackpot777: tripleseven: skullkrusher: tripleseven: Oh, yeah, I had another libertarian tell me that he 100% believed that "the poor" should be able to sell their organs.

and you presumably don't think people should be allowed to do this? Someone can volunteer to donate an organ but they cannot be compensated for it?

No, they should not, because it means the organ goes to the highest bidder.  Thereby skewing the recipients based on wealth.

Did you really need that explained to you?

Yes. Yes she did.


do you actually think I am female or was that one of your misogynistic attempts at an insult?
 
2013-03-01 02:44:36 PM

skullkrusher: similarly, a debate exists among the right anarchists about whether one should (or can philosophically even accomplish) selling oneself into slavery.
Rothbard says nay, more recent ones like Walter Block say yes.

/nay


Philisophically, I would think you could.  By having the (anarchist) freedom to do as you will, you could theoretically remove your ability to do so, or more specifically, submit yourself to absolute control by another.

I mean, you shouldn't, but I think from a thought exercise perspective, you could.
 
m00
2013-03-01 02:45:50 PM

tripleseven: Oh, yeah, I had another libertarian tell me that he 100% believed that "the poor" should be able to sell their organs.


Anybody should be able to sell their organs. Why not? Don't people have ownership over their own bodies? I think do many people confuse permission with endorsement. If someone wants to hack off their own hand and eat it for dinner, I can't say I agree with that -- but what business is it of mine? I find it disturbing and offensive, but who am I to impose my judgement and tastes on another person?

I understand the point made a bit down-thread, that something is seriously wrong if we live in a society where people are so poor they are forced to sell their organs. But the solution isn't to make organ-selling illegal. The solution is to improve the economic situation so that people are not forced to sell their organs.
 
2013-03-01 02:47:27 PM

keylock71: Deucednuisance:
Mrs. Nuisance has a friend...


That sucks, man... Though, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a Libertarian to get back to you.
Real world applications of their philosophy really isn't their forté.


Current example: foreign contaminants such as horse meat in European meat products, thanks to government food regulators. In a Libertarian world, such checks would be non-existent as, or they say, government just gets in the way of business (and it's business that has our well-being at heart because they wouldn't have an audience otherwise).
 
2013-03-01 02:48:34 PM

palelizard: We're rational people--we can draw a line to stop without carrying an idea out to the furthest flung conclusion.


Let's propose a non-extreme example.

Say I'm broke.  I decide to sell both kidneys to fund a whirlwind tour of all the orange countries on the map.
I'll spend the rest of my life on dialysis on the state's dime.  Should I be allowed to do it?
 
2013-03-01 02:49:50 PM

skullkrusher: Jackpot777: tripleseven: skullkrusher: tripleseven: Oh, yeah, I had another libertarian tell me that he 100% believed that "the poor" should be able to sell their organs.

and you presumably don't think people should be allowed to do this? Someone can volunteer to donate an organ but they cannot be compensated for it?

No, they should not, because it means the organ goes to the highest bidder.  Thereby skewing the recipients based on wealth.

Did you really need that explained to you?

Yes. Yes she did.

do you actually think I am female or was that one of your misogynistic attempts at an insult?


It's close to a 50:50 choice so I tossed a coin. You seem awfully defensive about what you see as an insult.

Should we not toss coins now? Is that too outrageous for you?
 
2013-03-01 02:50:57 PM

thrasherrr: palelizard: We're rational people--we can draw a line to stop without carrying an idea out to the furthest flung conclusion.

Let's propose a non-extreme example.

Say I'm broke.  I decide to sell both kidneys to fund a whirlwind tour of all the orange countries on the map.
I'll spend the rest of my life on dialysis on the state's dime.  Should I be allowed to do it?


Given the state of our dialysis system, you'll only be a burden for a year or so.
 
2013-03-01 02:51:14 PM
Deucednuisance:   So, I ask you, my Libertarian friends, what the hell do "poor decisions" have to do with any of this?  Our friend's illness is not her fault, her Aun't illness is not that poor woman's fault, being forced into the poorhouse is not her or her Aunt's fault, the unavailability of suitable housing isn't her fault, our being sympathetic to a friend's plight isn't our fault, the fact that I'm about to be furloughed and lose 20% of my pay is not my fault...

Everyone in this story is being screwed, well and proper.

WTF is your system going to do about it?  None of us did a thing wrong, but you'd leave us all in the goddam street.

Up yours, you heartless, entitled buttmunches.  I've never met a one of you who wasn't a product of middle-class entitlement in the first place.

I look forward to hearing of your enlightenment when your farking "benign" brain tumor shows up.


Sorry to hear about your situation brah; I'm not exactly in a better place myself.  I'm just starting to pay back rent that's been overdue for 3 months because money's very tight.  I wouldn't wish that type of situation on anyone; sadly, that's exactly what those on the right (and yes, some on the left as well) continue to miss.  Then when they lose, they biatch and moan about how they lost but don't realize that the very people they ignored are the very people that made them lose.  You don't take care of them, they'll take care of you (and not in a nice way).  I wonder what the hoverround-riding tea tards would feel like if all of the government's benefits were taken away from them in a fit of Ayn Rand-esque pique.

More and more it seems that "Libertarianism" is a phrase meaning "forcing a square peg in a round hole and ignoring the consequences".
 
2013-03-01 02:51:41 PM

palelizard: skullkrusher: similarly, a debate exists among the right anarchists about whether one should (or can philosophically even accomplish) selling oneself into slavery.
Rothbard says nay, more recent ones like Walter Block say yes.

/nay

Philisophically, I would think you could.  By having the (anarchist) freedom to do as you will, you could theoretically remove your ability to do so, or more specifically, submit yourself to absolute control by another.

I mean, you shouldn't, but I think from a thought exercise perspective, you could.


IIRC, Rothbard argued against it saying that enslavement meant surrendering one's will to the slaveowner and the moment you no longer wanted to be a slave, your reclamation of your will made the contract null... or something.
 
2013-03-01 02:52:01 PM

palelizard: tripleseven: Buying an organ from someone because they "need the money" is also exploitative of the less fortunate.
It's not like they're selling a car or a piece of jewelry to make rent or something, it's irreplaceable.
If you cannot see the problem in that, you may be a "libertarian"

Goes along with the "I got mines, fark you" mantra.

So if they don't 'need' the money, it'd be okay?  Being poor, or less fortunate, doesn't make you any better than being rich.  It's their decision.  I hope they get a good market rate, and can use the seed money to change their life.  I'll note you want to keep them poor rather than provide another method to advance.  The purity of the downtrodden must be preserved!



I don't want to put words in tripleseven's mouth, but I'd be willing to bet that he actually supports a social safety net that will help someone change their life WITHOUT forcing them to endanger it and endure a lifetime of medical problems as a result of unfortunate financial difficulties.

"How come that girl can't suck a dick for food money if she wants to? Come 'ere, baby... Daddy will help you outta your troubles! What's the problem? I'm just trying to help her!"
 
2013-03-01 02:52:17 PM

Weaver95: it's fascinating watching the Republican party implode.


Hey, the faster it happens (and the less damage resulting from it), the better of the country will be long-term.
 
2013-03-01 02:53:15 PM

Jackpot777: skullkrusher: Jackpot777: tripleseven: skullkrusher: tripleseven: Oh, yeah, I had another libertarian tell me that he 100% believed that "the poor" should be able to sell their organs.

and you presumably don't think people should be allowed to do this? Someone can volunteer to donate an organ but they cannot be compensated for it?

No, they should not, because it means the organ goes to the highest bidder.  Thereby skewing the recipients based on wealth.

Did you really need that explained to you?

Yes. Yes she did.

do you actually think I am female or was that one of your misogynistic attempts at an insult?

It's close to a 50:50 choice so I tossed a coin. You seem awfully defensive about what you see as an insult.

Should we not toss coins now? Is that too outrageous for you?


It was a question. See, I don't believe you thought there was any significant chance that I am female so makes one wonder why you'd use the feminine pronoun.
 
2013-03-01 02:53:45 PM

HellRaisingHoosier: FTFA: Sophomore Miranda Onnen says after graduation, fiscal realities will begin to take hold for her generation and priorities will shift. "We're also the ones who are going to have to pay for Obamacare," Onnen says. "A lot of people don't necessarily connect those things. They say, 'Oh, well, health care is great. I get to be on my parents' health-care plan until I'm 26.' Well, once you turn 27, you have to pay for that. And especially with the joblessness rates being what they are, I think that's going to hit kids our age pretty hard."


What does a sophomore at Ohio State University know about the financial situation of life? Nothing. Mommy and daddy or John Q. Public is paying for her way right now.

Guess what kid? I don't want to pay for your education, healthcare, protection or social services either over the course of your life, but I did, because I want to live in a 1st world society and not some 3rd world libertarian shiat-hole.


I'm a Junior in college, pay for my school, work for my healthcare, live on my own, have purchased my own means of protection and don't draw from any social services, and I'm a Libertarian but have always hated Republicans. There's a lot of people like me. I don't think you know what you're talking about
 
2013-03-01 02:54:56 PM

technicolor-misfit: palelizard: tripleseven: Buying an organ from someone because they "need the money" is also exploitative of the less fortunate.
It's not like they're selling a car or a piece of jewelry to make rent or something, it's irreplaceable.
If you cannot see the problem in that, you may be a "libertarian"

Goes along with the "I got mines, fark you" mantra.

So if they don't 'need' the money, it'd be okay?  Being poor, or less fortunate, doesn't make you any better than being rich.  It's their decision.  I hope they get a good market rate, and can use the seed money to change their life.  I'll note you want to keep them poor rather than provide another method to advance.  The purity of the downtrodden must be preserved!


I don't want to put words in tripleseven's mouth, but I'd be willing to bet that he actually supports a social safety net that will help someone change their life WITHOUT forcing them to endanger it and endure a lifetime of medical problems as a result of unfortunate financial difficulties.

"How come that girl can't suck a dick for food money if she wants to? Come 'ere, baby... Daddy will help you outta your troubles! What's the problem? I'm just trying to help her!"


Government so big that it cannot fit in your uterus but can certainly serve as a chastity belt when there's money involved.
 
2013-03-01 02:55:49 PM

Elvis Presleys Death Throne: HellRaisingHoosier: FTFA: Sophomore Miranda Onnen says after graduation, fiscal realities will begin to take hold for her generation and priorities will shift. "We're also the ones who are going to have to pay for Obamacare," Onnen says. "A lot of people don't necessarily connect those things. They say, 'Oh, well, health care is great. I get to be on my parents' health-care plan until I'm 26.' Well, once you turn 27, you have to pay for that. And especially with the joblessness rates being what they are, I think that's going to hit kids our age pretty hard."


What does a sophomore at Ohio State University know about the financial situation of life? Nothing. Mommy and daddy or John Q. Public is paying for her way right now.

Guess what kid? I don't want to pay for your education, healthcare, protection or social services either over the course of your life, but I did, because I want to live in a 1st world society and not some 3rd world libertarian shiat-hole.

I'm a Junior in college, pay for my school, work for my healthcare, live on my own, have purchased my own means of protection and don't draw from any social services, and I'm a Libertarian but have always hated Republicans. There's a lot of people like me. I don't think you know what you're talking about


are you studying at the University of Somalia? This is Fark, remember.
 
2013-03-01 02:57:33 PM

Rwa2play: Sorry to hear about your situation brah;


Well, to be fair, I'd say an inconvenient roommate, higher expenses and less pay are pretty minor compared to, you know, actually losing my livelihood to a farking tumor, or my mind to Alzheimer's.  So....
 
2013-03-01 02:57:54 PM

Mercutio74: skullkrusher: the aspect of corporations that is incompatible with libertarianism, imo, is the limited liability of the ownership. If you own a plumbing contractor that is set up as an llc and you flood a person's house destroying their priceless collection of Beanie Babies, barring criminal negligence, they can only hope to recoup from the business and not you and your partners. This is incompatible with libertarianism in my view as it hinders a person's recourse in response to a rights violation. People should not be able to shield themselves from liability in that way. Making the corporation a separate entity from the people who own and run it is contrary to the most basic right-libertarian principle of protection of property rights.

Ahhhh... ok, I gotcha.  It's interesting but it makes me wonder what would happen to the cost of everyday services.  For example, would the price of a plumber be very high because so many plumbers would have lost their shirts in court (making supply lower) and that existing plumbers would have to charge more to build up a reserve fund in case they're ever sued?

I guess there's nothing about libertarianism that would prevent insurance companies from existing so it might end up coming out in the wash.


The problem of removing the limited liability within society is it means almost no one is willing to take a risk - if everything you own is on the line every time you go in to someones house to fix their plumbing you are much more likely to take a safe job with a plumbing company that pools the risk. Of course it would need lots of money to skim off the earnings of the actual people doing the work, and a management structure, and a CEO, etc. And of course to get started it would need a chunk of money in case things go bad - so the company will likely be started by someone who is already rich.

This is the reason LL was seen to be needed in the first place - you had all these great inventors, but almost none of them got rich, it was the already wealthy who bought up the rights to make and sell their inventions that got even richer. Basically limited liability increases social and economic mobility, and boosts the economy, and rewards those with good ideas while limiting the damage to those whose ideas weren't so good.

My current boss is an example - the corporate who had bought out our company and screwed it up and pissed off all the customers sold him the rights to the software for a neglible fee to get rid of the ongoing support obligations, but he would never have risked doing so if his house and families future would be on the line by doing so, he would have just got a sales/management job at some other corporate and the software would have died off (instead in the last 5-6 years we have gone from 2 to about 10 employees, and <100k revenue to around a million).
 
2013-03-01 02:58:22 PM

m00: tripleseven: Oh, yeah, I had another libertarian tell me that he 100% believed that "the poor" should be able to sell their organs.

Anybody should be able to sell their organs. Why not? Don't people have ownership over their own bodies? I think do many people confuse permission with endorsement. If someone wants to hack off their own hand and eat it for dinner, I can't say I agree with that -- but what business is it of mine? I find it disturbing and offensive, but who am I to impose my judgement and tastes on another person?

I understand the point made a bit down-thread, that something is seriously wrong if we live in a society where people are so poor they are forced to sell their organs. But the solution isn't to make organ-selling illegal. The solution is to improve the economic situation so that people are not forced to sell their organs.



Whereas the practical reality is that, if you permit the poor to carve themselves up for sale piece by piece, it becomes one more excuse for people to claim that the poor are only poor because they're lazy/not dedicated enough- so let's dismantle a little more of those evil collectivist/authoritarian social safety nets.  Social permission becomes de facto economic endorsement.

"Why are you asking for a handout, you damn bum?  You still have both hands!"


btw, if you think this is hyperbole?  Think back to the poor and their refrigerators.  That's an actual argument that we have right now- that you can't really be poor if the shiathole trailer you rent comes with a refrigerator that's old enough to run for office.  "A pound of flesh" would be an economic reform slogan before all was said and done.  Book it.
 
2013-03-01 02:59:30 PM

thrasherrr: Let's propose a non-extreme example.

Say I'm broke. I decide to sell both kidneys to fund a whirlwind tour of all the orange countries on the map.
I'll spend the rest of my life on dialysis on the state's dime. Should I be allowed to do it?



I'd say no, same as donating a non-extraneous piece of your body, like heart, brain, spine, etc, since at that point you're selling your life (since without external support, you'd die).  I think the living/dying differentiation is a reasonable place to draw the line.  It may not be the best place, but that's where I draw it.

What you do with the money is irrelevant to the concept.  You shouldn't be able to sell both and donate the money to cancer kids.

On the other hand, if you sell a kidney and get in a car wreck and lose the other, I don't think there should be a penalty since we wouldn't have to pay for you if you hadn't sold the first kidney.  It's bad luck, sometimes that happens, and we just have to absorb the loss.  I doubt it would lead to a glut of kidneys on the market, with everyone thinking "Hehe, I'll get my cash and then if anything happens, the government will be on the hook for the tab".  I'm not saying no one would think that, I just don't think it would be a widespread issue.
 
m00
2013-03-01 03:01:12 PM

slayer199: Why?


Both Democrats and Republicans are completely invested in their two party duopoly. Each side makes its living convincing you to vote for them (no matter what flaws they might possess), because the other is the greater evil. A viable 3rd party destroys that dynamic.

I imagine if there was a viable 3rd party right now, nobody in Congress would be Democrat or Republican. Because they couldn't pull the "sure, our guys are corrupt and insane but that's nothing compared to how corrupt and insane THEIR guys are." The media dynamic also reinforces this, as it benefits the small number of megacorportations (I think 7?) which own all mainstream media.
 
2013-03-01 03:01:24 PM

meat0918: Rwa2play: Crotchrocket Slim: dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?

It's a retarded ideology that doesn't take into account human nature?

*DING*DING*DING*DING*DING*DING*DING*DING*  We have a winnah!

You can say the same thing about communism.  We're social animals with a pack structure, whether we want to admit it or not.  Having a leader is a natural state of affairs.


Yes, that's exactly true.  In fact, it's true of a great many -isms.
 
2013-03-01 03:01:30 PM

palelizard: thrasherrr: Let's propose a non-extreme example.

Say I'm broke. I decide to sell both kidneys to fund a whirlwind tour of all the orange countries on the map.
I'll spend the rest of my life on dialysis on the state's dime. Should I be allowed to do it?


I'd say no, same as donating a non-extraneous piece of your body, like heart, brain, spine, etc, since at that point you're selling your life (since without external support, you'd die).  I think the living/dying differentiation is a reasonable place to draw the line.  It may not be the best place, but that's where I draw it.

What you do with the money is irrelevant to the concept.  You shouldn't be able to sell both and donate the money to cancer kids.

On the other hand, if you sell a kidney and get in a car wreck and lose the other, I don't think there should be a penalty since we wouldn't have to pay for you if you hadn't sold the first kidney.  It's bad luck, sometimes that happens, and we just have to absorb the loss.  I doubt it would lead to a glut of kidneys on the market, with everyone thinking "Hehe, I'll get my cash and then if anything happens, the government will be on the hook for the tab".  I'm not saying no one would think that, I just don't think it would be a widespread issue.


not to mention that this argument could be made against the donation of living tissue. Whether you get paid for it or not isn't relevant to this scenario. It just increases the likelihood that the scenario might happen
 
2013-03-01 03:01:37 PM

palelizard: udhq: Should I be able to sell myself to be killed for the amusement of a rich person so my children can live in relative comfort? Is there not a legitimate social interest in government preventing such arrangements?

There is a social interest, certainly.  But it's a matter of degree.  Letting someone sell an extra portion of their body (kidney, hand, length of colon, etc) for whatever reason is going to have significantly less detrimental impact than death pacts for money, could have a reasonably beneficial result (assuming those poor people didn't spend it all on hookers and blow), and leans towards allowing people to be responsible for themselves rather than controlling them.  We're rational people--we can draw a line to stop without carrying an idea out to the furthest flung conclusion.


Selling one's kidney statistically shortens one's life significantly.  (Note that I say "statistically", because most medical sources say living with 1 kidney does not shorten one's life, but the risk of the actual surgery leads to lower average life expectancy due to those who die on the operating table.)

There is a a HUGE collective benefit in socializing the potentially negative consequences of some risky behaviors, i.e. starting a business.  You can argue against that fact on libertarian philosophical grounds, but not in terms of objective practicality.  That said, there is a corresponding interest in limiting the potential financial incentives to taking risks that have no potential upside to society.

You can argue as a libertarian that the benefits of society should not be considered, only the potential benefits to the individual, but in order to make such an argument work, you have to assume a society that allows such a risk, and then allows the individual to die as a result.  And any society that allows the death sentence for the crime of being born poor is not a "society" at all in the traditional sense, but simply a socially-Darwinistic, eugenic living arrangement.

In short, there are some basic principles that do separate man from the animals.  When you argue these principles away, that's where you arrive at libertarianism.
 
2013-03-01 03:02:35 PM
hubiestubert:

There's a reason you're farkied as "insightful".
 
2013-03-01 03:03:36 PM

Lando Lincoln: dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?

Because libertarianism is about as politically viable as communism? Less viable, actually. There are communist countries, but no libertarian ones. Unless you argue that Somalia is a libertarian state.


Then again, Fark threads on communism don't generate nearly as many page views.
 
2013-03-01 03:04:17 PM

Deucednuisance: Rwa2play: Sorry to hear about your situation brah;

Well, to be fair, I'd say an inconvenient roommate, higher expenses and less pay are pretty minor compared to, you know, actually losing my livelihood to a farking tumor, or my mind to Alzheimer's.  So....


Yeah, but still, that's farked up either way.  No one should be forced to be put in such a situation; there should be the necessary social services to help people stay on their feet or get on their feet when crap like that happens.  So that whole "to each his/her own" attitude is missing the point of getting people to be productive members of society, which helps better the economy, et. al.
 
2013-03-01 03:04:42 PM
technicolor-misfit:

I don't want to put words in tripleseven's mouth, but I'd be willing to bet that he actually supports a social safety net that will help someone change their life WITHOUT forcing them to endanger it and endure a lifetime of medical problems as a result of unfortunate financial difficulties.


Correct.  I believe that should go without saying, but I forgot, I am debating libertarians.

Skull probably thinks that the 50c a day workers dispersed around the lesser developed countries are just OVER THE MOON to be working for that money, while living in squalor, usually getting debilitating injuries form that work, and with no social safety net at all.

Also, I think his 50K payout for a kidney is skewed, because once you open organs to the free market, price gonna drop.  Drastically.  I am thinking maybe 2k for an organ, cause the market will be flooded.  I am sure they'll be OVER THE MOON with being able to get a months expenses for a lifetime of one kidney.
 
2013-03-01 03:06:51 PM

technicolor-misfit: I don't want to put words in tripleseven's mouth, but I'd be willing to bet that he actually supports a social safety net that will help someone change their life WITHOUT forcing them to endanger it and endure a lifetime of medical problems as a result of unfortunate financial difficulties.


I do as well.  Having a tremendous number of poor people with no choice but to be poor isn't good for a society.  No one said people should have to sell organs, but they should be allowed to.
 
2013-03-01 03:08:28 PM

skullkrusher: IIRC, Rothbard argued against it saying that enslavement meant surrendering one's will to the slaveowner and the moment you no longer wanted to be a slave, your reclamation of your will made the contract null... or something.


Yeah, you'd have to have some theoretical mind-control technology that supressed your will for the duration of the contract.
 
m00
2013-03-01 03:08:59 PM

Wasteland: Whereas the practical reality is that, if you permit the poor to carve themselves up for sale piece by piece, it becomes one more excuse for people to claim that the poor are only poor because they're lazy/not dedicated enough- so let's dismantle a little more of those evil collectivist/authoritarian social safety nets.  Social permission becomes de facto economic endorsement.

"Why are you asking for a handout, you damn bum?  You still have both hands!"


What is the difference between telling a woman what she can and can't do with her reproductive organs, and telling a person what they can and can't do with their other organs? The only difference is nobody is making the argument that a kidney is a person.

Who are you to tell a person they can't sell their kidney? Just like who are  youto tell a woman she can't/must have an abortion (depending on whether "you" are Mississippi or China).

To draw a parallel here, if hypothetically it were discovered poor women were having abortions because they couldn't feed an extra child, the solution isn't to outlaw abortion. The solution is to fix the economic situation.

It's like... the King is offended the peasants are eating mud because they have nothing else to eat... that's horrible! ban the eating of mud!
 
2013-03-01 03:10:15 PM

palelizard: technicolor-misfit: I don't want to put words in tripleseven's mouth, but I'd be willing to bet that he actually supports a social safety net that will help someone change their life WITHOUT forcing them to endanger it and endure a lifetime of medical problems as a result of unfortunate financial difficulties.

I do as well.  Having a tremendous number of poor people with no choice but to be poor isn't good for a society.  No one said people should have to sell organs, but they should be allowed to.


But, as with many things affected by human nature, there will be those individuals that want to be one step ahead of you in the social ladder.  Because they have to make up for the fact that they're hung like a hamster.
 
2013-03-01 03:11:00 PM

Felgraf: skullkrusher: tripleseven: skullkrusher:

exactly. Very few people are just donating organs while they are alive.

For some pretty good reasons, too.  Like, I may need it?  Hell, after I am dead, sure take what you need and toss it into the pool where it will be used based upon need.

I am sure the person who could really use that $50k is over the moon that you care so much for them that you, a stranger, is willing to tell them what they may do with their own bodies.

We don't allow it because allowing the selling of organs opens some NASTY floodgates and a shiat-ton of unintended consequences.

If organs can be sold, people can be pressured to sell organs, even if they themselves don't want to. Whether it's a "Nice family you got there. It would be a *shame* if they all got killed, unless you wanted to sell a kidney, eh?" coercement, plain old kidnapping and organselling, or a crapton of other stuff. Yes, those things are illegal. So's murder.

By banning organ selling, it prevents *any* of those from occuring, because there's no profit in doing them, because the organs can't be sold.

Repo: The Genetic Opera is not a how-to book.


I felt really awful when I found out that "A Modest Proposal" wasn't a cook-book.
/My kids felt even worse.
//The British aristocrats I sold them to are keeping a stiff upper lips about the whole thing.
 
2013-03-01 03:11:45 PM

verbaltoxin: slayer199: Ah, good to see all the Fark libs and conservatives hating on the LP.  Republicans hate us because of our social liberalism and Democrats hate us because of our fiscal conservatism.     Both sides do everything they can to exclude the LP (and the Green Party) from the process.  Why?  Fear.  A party that promotes social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and smaller government will resonate with voters.

Yes, you're all about liberty...as in, yours. Not someone else's, but you are all about yours. F*ck everyone else.

That's why I couldn't stay with the Libertarian Party. Nobody gave a f*ck about anyone beyond their own interests. Libertarians love renting hotel conference rooms, quoting Ludwig Von Mises and kissing each other's ass, but once that conference is over, it's back to ineffectually b*tching about how nobody votes for them.

Here's the clue: it's because your ideas are non-executable. They would lead to a situation no better than America in the Gilded Age. It would reinforce the power and privilege of the already powerful (See the Koch Bros., out and proud, staunch libertarians). Nobody in the middle class would end up better off having the libertarian vision imposed on the country.

It doesn't mean sh*t if you pay little to no taxes, but have no money anyway, because the elite have already blocked off all the resources, monopolized industries, and cut competition off at the knees, leaving labor with scraps. Voting with your dollar doesn't mean sh*t if that dollar has no choice on where to go.

"But the free market!" no it won't. You already have huge, multinational actors with considerable power over resources, labor and governments. What do you think would happen if we took the few chains we have off? You think they'd be gracious benedictors and disband so little guys could compete? No! They'd go to war and the only victors would be modern day Rockefellers. It'd be Standard Oil and Carnegie Steel all over again.


The powerful government enables Standard Oil/Enron/Google/widgetco to do those things we hate. A libertarian mindset in government would mean big business gets no help from them either.
 
2013-03-01 03:12:15 PM

skullkrusher: Jackpot777: skullkrusher: Jackpot777: tripleseven: skullkrusher: tripleseven: Oh, yeah, I had another libertarian tell me that he 100% believed that "the poor" should be able to sell their organs.

and you presumably don't think people should be allowed to do this? Someone can volunteer to donate an organ but they cannot be compensated for it?

No, they should not, because it means the organ goes to the highest bidder.  Thereby skewing the recipients based on wealth.

Did you really need that explained to you?

Yes. Yes she did.

do you actually think I am female or was that one of your misogynistic attempts at an insult?

It's close to a 50:50 choice so I tossed a coin. You seem awfully defensive about what you see as an insult.

Should we not toss coins now? Is that too outrageous for you?

It was a question. See, I don't believe you thought there was any significant chance that I am female so makes one wonder why you'd use the feminine pronoun.


This is good. Are you suggesting you exude some kind of gender through text that would identify your sex as male now? Because you seem to think there's no significant chance that anyone would think you're a female based on your emotional content.

blog.zap2it.com
 
2013-03-01 03:15:19 PM

Deucednuisance: Rwa2play: Not just that: If someone wants to get their life back together and being a productive member of society again, that attitude basically wastes an opportunity to do so.

Or, what is happening in my house, as we speak, for the last four months and for the foreseeable future.


First let me say that you and your wife are awesome people.  I have a benign brain tumor just up behind my left eye that is expected to do the same to me.    I'm 50 and single, and doing pretty well right now, but lost two years of gainful employment to layoffs.  Long story, basically 10 years at this job, less than $15K in my 401K, medical bills are stiff to keep up with even with pretty decent insurance through work.

Anyway, I have no doubt I will end up like your friend.  Except my closest friends are also 900 miles away and not as well off as I am at the moment.  No family to speak of, this tumor is unremoveable, and unstoppable.  I'll be blind in 20 or so years, and most likely lose all function in one side of my face and possible upper body. So I'm not getting a kick.  And yes, they will let me die in the street before I'll get into a state funded nursing home.  Yay libertarians.

I hope things get better for, I truly do.
 
2013-03-01 03:16:16 PM
So, when will they finally be out of power then?
 
2013-03-01 03:20:48 PM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: First let me say that you and your wife are awesome people.


Thanks, but now I feel like a real puss for whining.  You've got real troubles, dude, not me.

Congrats to you for being so rational.  I think I'd be all Hulk Smash! if I were you.

Best to ya.  There's a beer with your name on it should our paths ever cross.
 
2013-03-01 03:21:39 PM

Jackpot777: This is good. Are you suggesting you exude some kind of gender through text that would identify your sex as male now? Because you seem to think there's no significant chance that anyone would think you're a female based on your emotional content.


politics tab. Mostly men. I have never given any indication of being female and have referenced my wife and child on a number of occasions. You were just playing the odds though, of course... I mean, it's possible I am a lesbian with an adopted child. Likely even.
 
2013-03-01 03:22:26 PM

Deucednuisance: Rwa2play: Not just that: If someone wants to get their life back together and being a productive member of society again, that attitude basically wastes an opportunity to do so.

Or, what is happening in my house, as we speak, for the last four months and for the foreseeable future.

Mrs. Nuisance has a friend.  Friend is not terribly well educated, but can hold down a job and pay rent and put a little money in the bank as a bus driver for a private transportation service.  Works long hours to make up for the low pay.  One night after a late run, she is leaving the lot and gets mugged.  She surrenders her purse without resistance, yet mugger feels the need to crack her on the head with the butt of his pistol, as a parting gift.

  Employer will not allow her to drive without a full medical check.  (Fair enough, don't want her to have a cerebral hemorrhage while driving.)  CAT scan reveals a mass at the base of her brain.  Further tests ensue: she has a benign tumor the size of a clementine surrounding her brain stem.

  Attempts are made to remove it.  Turns out the mass which was expected to be soft and cheesy is hard, like wood, and cannot be extracted via needle, and taking it out physically is ruled out as far too risky.  She can aford none of this without her employer's insurance. Tumor continues to grow, albeit very slowly, and manifests itself in impaired vision and cognitive skills.  She cannot work, and is reduced to Disability and no insurance.

  She moves in with her aunt (immediate family are far away, and unable to help, as they are in worse shape than she, in some ways) and helps take care of Aunt's house in return for a room.  This goes on for a few years.  Uncle dies.  Aunt starts fading from Alzheimer's.  Aunt's children decide that Aunt must be moved to an ongoing care facility.  Since the house is her main asset, it must be sold to allow this, to cause the impoverishment that will allow for Medicaid.  Friend is given two weeks to vacate premises. ...


THIS is the reason why we need Universal Health Care, no one should have to suffer like this.

/Hugs
 
2013-03-01 03:23:28 PM

Jackpot777: This is good. Are you suggesting you exude some kind of gender through text that would identify your sex as male now? Because you seem to think there's no significant chance that anyone would think you're a female based on your emotional content.


Girls don't make me wet. skullkrusher is a dude.
 
2013-03-01 03:23:58 PM

palelizard: skullkrusher: IIRC, Rothbard argued against it saying that enslavement meant surrendering one's will to the slaveowner and the moment you no longer wanted to be a slave, your reclamation of your will made the contract null... or something.

Yeah, you'd have to have some theoretical mind-control technology that supressed your will for the duration of the contract.


if interested, here's old Murray's argument:

"The distinction between a man's alienable labor service and his inalienable will may be further explained: a man can alienate his labor service, but he cannot sell the capitalized future value of that service. In short, he cannot, in nature, sell himself into slavery and have this sale enforced-for this would mean that his future will over his own person was being surrendered in advance. In short, a man can naturally expend his labor currently for someone else's benefit, but he cannot transfer himself, even if he wished, into another man's permanent capital good. For he cannot rid himself of his own will, which may change in future years and repudiate the current arrangement. The concept of "voluntary slavery" is indeed a contradictory one, for so long as a laborer remains totally subservient to his master's will voluntarily, he is not yet a slave since his submission is voluntary; whereas, if he later changed his mind and the master enforced his slavery by violence, the slavery would not then be voluntary. But more of coercion later on. "

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/seven.asp
 
2013-03-01 03:24:02 PM

m00: Wasteland: Whereas the practical reality is that, if you permit the poor to carve themselves up for sale piece by piece, it becomes one more excuse for people to claim that the poor are only poor because they're lazy/not dedicated enough- so let's dismantle a little more of those evil collectivist/authoritarian social safety nets.  Social permission becomes de facto economic endorsement.
"Why are you asking for a handout, you damn bum?  You still have both hands!"

What is the difference between telling a woman what she can and can't do with her reproductive organs, and telling a person what they can and can't do with their other organs? The only difference is nobody is making the argument that a kidney is a person.

Who are you to tell a person they can't sell their kidney? Just like who are  youto tell a woman she can't/must have an abortion (depending on whether "you" are Mississippi or China).

To draw a parallel here, if hypothetically it were discovered poor women were having abortions because they couldn't feed an extra child, the solution isn't to outlaw abortion. The solution is to fix the economic situation.

It's like... the King is offended the peasants are eating mud because they have nothing else to eat... that's horrible! ban the eating of mud!



No, the practical difference is that- at least so far- no one is seriously advocating we actively establish a market for aborted fetuses... and thereby provide the poor with a financial incentive for both higher pregnancy and abortion rates, with all that entails.  I have the right to piss in a Dixie Cup in the privacy of my own bathroom; the right to sell it at Kroger as a refreshing beverage is not a logical consequence of that right.

As for who I am, I'm one of the people who'd be living with the secondary effects of your little hypothetical society shift- and yeah, that means I get to have an opinion and a voice in public policy on what is or is not generally permitted.  It's a little thing we call civilization.
 
2013-03-01 03:24:37 PM

Lemurknits: slayer199: Ah, good to see all the Fark libs and conservatives hating on the LP.  Republicans hate us because of our social liberalism and Democrats hate us because of our fiscal conservatism.     Both sides do everything they can to exclude the LP (and the Green Party) from the process.  Why?  Fear.  A party that promotes social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and smaller government will resonate with voters.

AHAHAHA. Libertarians? Socially liberal? Your 'best' politicians are Ron and Rand Paul- the eldest of which is an ob-gyn who is anti-abortion. You can't call yourself 'socially liberal' if personal choice only extends to people with a penis.


Ron Paul is not a libertarian.  He's a Republican with a few libertarian ideas.
 
2013-03-01 03:25:43 PM

udhq: There is a a HUGE collective benefit in socializing the potentially negative consequences of some risky behaviors, i.e. starting a business. You can argue against that fact on libertarian philosophical grounds, but not in terms of objective practicality. That said, there is a corresponding interest in limiting the potential financial incentives to taking risks that have no potential upside to society.


You're ignoring the possibility that benefitting an individual may have a beneficial impact on society.  It's possible the donor uses the money to educate themselves, pulling themselves out of the cycle of poverty.  They could open a business, contribute to the economy.  You claim there's no potential upside to society, and that's simply not true.  If nothing else, it would increase the availability of organs for those who need one.  If there's no upside to people doing it for pay, why is there an upside to doing it for free?
 
2013-03-01 03:27:16 PM

m00: A viable 3rd party destroys that dynamic.


No, it doesn't; it just adds one to all the numbers. The parties will still be trying to convince you to vote for them because the other parties (instead of party) are the greater evil.
 
2013-03-01 03:28:01 PM

Deucednuisance: Satan's Bunny Slippers: First let me say that you and your wife are awesome people.

Thanks, but now I feel like a real puss for whining.  You've got real troubles, dude, not me.

Congrats to you for being so rational.  I think I'd be all Hulk Smash! if I were you.

Best to ya.  There's a beer with your name on it should our paths ever cross.



Not at all, you're dealing with someone else's problems by choice, I just have my own that I can't duck out of or I would.  :)  But I'll hold you to that beer should we ever get the opportunity.  I've always been a pragmatist, but trust me, the first few years I was a mess.  8 years in, my neurologist and I call it Larry.  But you can only wail and gnash your teeth for so long, it's not going to change a thing, yanno?
 
2013-03-01 03:29:30 PM

Felgraf: So if a company sells a drug they know is more dangerous than they're advertising, should the CEO be held accountable under Libertarian philosophy?

Would you advocate, then, thousands of charges of reckless endangerment (and at the very least, negligent manslaughter) to, say, the CEO of Bayer for the stuff that happened regarding Yaz?


Not familiar with Yaz.

Let's say you use drug A that supposed to do whatever but there's a 5% risk of heart attack.  If you KNOW that risk you can choose to take that drug or not.  If the company KNOWS the risk and ignores it, then the CEO should be held accountable.  The point is if the people in charge KNOW they can spend time in the slam for criminal negligence, they're more likely to NOT act in a criminal manner.
 
2013-03-01 03:30:25 PM

HeartBurnKid: shortymac: HMS_Blinkin: "May have" lost voters for the next 50 years?  I'm 24 years old, and I can speak for myself and the vast majority of my friends (most of whom weren't particularly politically inclined before) when I say that the GOP has, without question, lost voters for 50 years at a minimum.  I currently don't plan to vote for any Republican at any level of government for the rest of my life, period.   I'm not saying I'm an automatic Democratic vote, but I'll vote for anyone short of Neo-Nazis before I vote GOP.

The GOP is profoundly screwed when the old people start dying off in droves.

I dunno, poor white people tend to vote republican because Jesus, the illusion of being "middle class", and race issues.

Sadly there the ones that get farked the most from these policies but follow the new GOP like it was a religion.

/Democrats ain't better
//The banks have bought out congress and we're too socially isolated to give a damn

I'm gonna have to disagree there.  The Democrats, on the whole, ain't good, but they're a damn sight better than the GOP.


Dems give lip service to the poor and that's about it.

Congress is run by a bunch of millionaire lawyers who get everything handed to them and are completely out of touch with the rest of us.
 
2013-03-01 03:32:06 PM

shortymac: HeartBurnKid: shortymac: HMS_Blinkin: "May have" lost voters for the next 50 years?  I'm 24 years old, and I can speak for myself and the vast majority of my friends (most of whom weren't particularly politically inclined before) when I say that the GOP has, without question, lost voters for 50 years at a minimum.  I currently don't plan to vote for any Republican at any level of government for the rest of my life, period.   I'm not saying I'm an automatic Democratic vote, but I'll vote for anyone short of Neo-Nazis before I vote GOP.

The GOP is profoundly screwed when the old people start dying off in droves.

I dunno, poor white people tend to vote republican because Jesus, the illusion of being "middle class", and race issues.

Sadly there the ones that get farked the most from these policies but follow the new GOP like it was a religion.

/Democrats ain't better
//The banks have bought out congress and we're too socially isolated to give a damn

I'm gonna have to disagree there.  The Democrats, on the whole, ain't good, but they're a damn sight better than the GOP.

Dems give lip service to the poor and that's about it.

Congress is run by a bunch of millionaire lawyers who get everything handed to them and are completely out of touch with the rest of us.

False equivalency is false.
 
m00
2013-03-01 03:33:44 PM

Wasteland: No, the practical difference is that- at least so far- no one is seriously advocating we actively establish a market for aborted fetuses... and thereby provide the poor with a financial incentive for both higher pregnancy and abortion rates, with all that entails.  I have the right to piss in a Dixie Cup in the privacy of my own bathroom; the right to sell it at Kroger as a refreshing beverage is not a logical consequence of that right.

As for who I am, I'm one of the people who'd be living with the secondary effects of your little hypothetical society shift- and yeah, that means I get to have an opinion and a voice in public policy on what is or is not generally permitted.  It's a little thing we call civilization.


Well, everyone is free to have an opinion. But our civilization was also built on the concept of natural rights, that cannot be granted nor taken away by government; only recognized and protected. And in fact this is government's chief duty. So for example, even if you were so hated in your community that the town unanimously voted to limit YOUR free speech or to toss YOU over a cliff and this was everyone's opinion and voice, no court would uphold the "Prop 20: Gag Wasteland and Throw Him Over a Cliff." That law would be unconstitutional.

I believe in this principle, although I don't necessarily agree with the specific natural rights that were chosen to be enumerated (so I'm not a strict constitutionalist). Personally, I think sovereignty over one's own body is a natural right. I also tend to think transactions that also happen between two consenting adults ought to be interfered with.

As for secondary effects... well, maybe we should improve society so that poor people don't have to sell organs. That it may currently be the case that poor people would be forced to sell organs is a separate thing from whether or not they should have the right to choose to. See what I'm saying?
 
2013-03-01 03:35:36 PM

jigger: TV's Vinnie: dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?

[i46.tinypic.com image 400x618]

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ar_libertarianism_qa


She, like Dick Armey, are just embarrassed by the short bus of nutbags they had motivated. But both still bear responsibility.
 
m00
2013-03-01 03:37:44 PM

qorkfiend: m00: A viable 3rd party destroys that dynamic.

No, it doesn't; it just adds one to all the numbers. The parties will still be trying to convince you to vote for them because the other parties (instead of party) are the greater evil.


Well I think it only works because both Republicans and Democrats are in on the scam. I think they are deliberately racing to the bottom hand-in-hand to continue scamming the American people. Imagine a party with actual solutions, and candidates that aren't awful.

I am at a point where I would vote for someone I didn't agree with if I thought they were thoughtful, honest, humble, and genuinely interested in serving Americans for reasons other than personal power/vanity.
 
2013-03-01 03:37:45 PM

slayer199: Not familiar with Yaz.


Yaz was a birth control pill that had a far higher chance of causing a stroke as normal birth control pills (At least two to three times as much), and did not recall the drug after discovering this, nor did they add additional warnings. Nor, I believe, did they inform the people that were manufacturing the generic of the drug of these discoveries.
 
2013-03-01 03:38:27 PM

Wadded Beef: It's libertarian obfuscation. "Look, we're happy to give to charities of our choice for society! I just don't want the government to make us do it" translates to "I'm not going to do shiat. Let somebody else contribute. F-you...I got mine." That they bring up everyone having to contribute and pooling funds (re: healthcare) "by gunpoint" is the real culprit in an appeal to emotion.


Ok, using the term by gunpoint was probably not a good choice of words, but the point remains.  The government takes money from one group to give to another by force (or threat of force) is against a principle of individual liberty.  Rather than one individual infringing on another individual's liberty a majority uses the government to do so.
 
m00
2013-03-01 03:39:05 PM

m00: I also tend to think transactions that also happen between two consenting adults ought to be interfered with.


ought NOT. sorry.
 
2013-03-01 03:39:19 PM

Muta: In the 3 years I've been at Liberty University , not once has anyone asked what my political feelings are


You're at "Liberty" "University". It's as "Well DUH!" as asking a Klansman in white robe & hood if they're a white supremacist.
 
2013-03-01 03:40:12 PM

skullkrusher: Jackpot777: This is good. Are you suggesting you exude some kind of gender through text that would identify your sex as male now? Because you seem to think there's no significant chance that anyone would think you're a female based on your emotional content.

politics tab. Mostly men. I have never given any indication of being female and have referenced my wife and child on a number of occasions. You were just playing the odds though, of course... I mean, it's possible I am a lesbian with an adopted child. Likely even.


v019o.popscreen.com

"Theycan't putanything on the Internet that isn't true."
 
2013-03-01 03:41:11 PM

TV's Vinnie: jigger: TV's Vinnie: dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?

[i46.tinypic.com image 400x618]

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ar_libertarianism_qa

She, like Dick


Damn it, why is Fark truncating some posts like this?
 
2013-03-01 03:43:14 PM

m00: Well I think it only works because both Republicans and Democrats are in on the scam. I think they are deliberately racing to the bottom hand-in-hand to continue scamming the American people. Imagine a party with actual solutions, and candidates that aren't awful.


What makes you think that a third party would be immune to the problems that plague the current two parties?
 
2013-03-01 03:43:49 PM

Jackpot777: TV's Vinnie: jigger: TV's Vinnie: dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?

[i46.tinypic.com image 400x618]

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ar_libertarianism_qa

She, like Dick

Damn it, why is Fark truncating some posts like this?


That's a pretty awesome truncation, though.
 
2013-03-01 03:45:01 PM

Mr_Fabulous: jigger: Mr_Fabulous: Please name for me the specific financial regulations whose elimination would result in a government less (not more) beholden to the banking industry. Pretty please. With mutherfarking sugar on top.

Oh you want a list? Here let me thumb through the Title 12 of the US Code.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12

It's no sweat. I've got all day to hang out on Fark with you good people.

Chapter 3 would be a start though.


"All of them"

Yep. Totally not predictable in any way. No siree.

As I said... the "principled libertarian stand" never fails to evaporate when a single specific fact is requested.


If you got "eliminate all of them" and "right this minute" out of "you can't seriously be asking me to go through the entirety of the legalese in title 12 of the US Code and tell you specifically a list of regulations upon whose removal would solve any and all problems with banking in the US" then good luck to you. If you can't see that the implicit and explicit promises of bailouts and backstopping coupled with regulatory capture that these giant banks enjoy are at the root of their immense power, then also good luck to you.
 
2013-03-01 03:47:10 PM

Rwa2play: So the Pauls are just closet neo-conservatives that start yelling "I'M A LIBERTARIAN" when people get wise to their BS.


Ron Paul is no purist libertarian, that's for sure. Rand Paul even less so (much less so). But to call them neo-conservatives means you don't know what a neo-conservative is.
 
2013-03-01 03:49:12 PM

tripleseven: I recall during the debate about HRC, every single libertarian I spoke to had these 2 talking points, and that's it:

1) I should be able to buy my insurance in a state where it's cheaper!
2) We need tort reform so those doctors don't have to pay anything for malpractice insurance.

Not a single one of them understood what risk pools were, or the repercussions of expanding the risk pool of a state by flooding it with more beneficiaries.

And they magically believed that health care costs would go down if a doctor wouldn't have to pay for malpractice insurance.  Sure, they wouldn't just pocket the difference, and besides, malpractice insurance is not the number one driving force in health care costs.

Really, that's the mental capacity of a libertarian.


"Tort reform" is not libertarian.
 
2013-03-01 03:49:21 PM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: Deucednuisance: Satan's Bunny Slippers: First let me say that you and your wife are awesome people.

Thanks, but now I feel like a real puss for whining.  You've got real troubles, dude, not me.

Congrats to you for being so rational.  I think I'd be all Hulk Smash! if I were you.

Best to ya.  There's a beer with your name on it should our paths ever cross.


Not at all, you're dealing with someone else's problems by choice, I just have my own that I can't duck out of or I would.  :)  But I'll hold you to that beer should we ever get the opportunity.  I've always been a pragmatist, but trust me, the first few years I was a mess.  8 years in, my neurologist and I call it Larry.  But you can only wail and gnash your teeth for so long, it's not going to change a thing, yanno?


Sorry about your situation man. You seem to be dealing with it pretty well, but how did you ever find out about the tumor to begin with?
Did you get mugged and cracked on the head too?
 
2013-03-01 03:49:32 PM

slayer199: Ah, good to see all the Fark libs and conservatives hating on the LP.  Republicans hate us because of our social liberalism and Democrats hate us because of our fiscal conservatism.     Both sides do everything they can to exclude the LP (and the Green Party) from the process.  Why?  Fear.  A party that promotes social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and smaller government will resonate with voters.


Let's not forget both sides claiming Somalia is a libertarian paradise, thus proving they have absolute no clue about libertarianism.
 
2013-03-01 03:52:03 PM

slayer199: The government takes money from one group to give to another by force (or threat of force) is against a principle of individual liberty


A very narrow definition of liberty.  Another liberty might be thought of as not starving to death due to economic circumstance.  A world where property is the only right worth protecting frankly sucks.
 
m00
2013-03-01 03:52:15 PM

qorkfiend: m00: Well I think it only works because both Republicans and Democrats are in on the scam. I think they are deliberately racing to the bottom hand-in-hand to continue scamming the American people. Imagine a party with actual solutions, and candidates that aren't awful.

What makes you think that a third party would be immune to the problems that plague the current two parties?


You could be right, but I think the 3rd party would want to be elected. There are three ways to get elected...

1) Run awful, corrupt candidates in agreement with the other parties... so no matter who gets elected, its business as usual
2) Throw lots of money at the campaign and/or court large corporations like GE which owns NBC.
3) Actually run honest, hard-working, thoughtful, likeable candidates.

I tend to think a 3rd party just entering the big leagues would pick #3.

But I think about the quality of presidential candidates since I because eligible to vote

Bush
Gore
Kerry
McCain
Obama
Romney

And it's like... really guys? That's the best you can do?
 
2013-03-01 03:53:55 PM

Wasteland: If there's a core "fear of Libertarianism," it's that unchaining all the giants at once will only drop us all squarely in The Hell of Do As Thou Will, surrounded by the older kids with the bigger sticks.


You hit the nail on the head right there.
 
2013-03-01 03:55:48 PM

jigger: tripleseven: I recall during the debate about HRC, every single libertarian I spoke to had these 2 talking points, and that's it:

1) I should be able to buy my insurance in a state where it's cheaper!
2) We need tort reform so those doctors don't have to pay anything for malpractice insurance.

Not a single one of them understood what risk pools were, or the repercussions of expanding the risk pool of a state by flooding it with more beneficiaries.

And they magically believed that health care costs would go down if a doctor wouldn't have to pay for malpractice insurance.  Sure, they wouldn't just pocket the difference, and besides, malpractice insurance is not the number one driving force in health care costs.

Really, that's the mental capacity of a libertarian.

"Tort reform" is not libertarian.


Even more indication "libertarians" are republicans trying to hide themselves from the stench of GWB.
 
2013-03-01 03:56:38 PM

what_now: slayer199: Ah, good to see all the Fark libs and conservatives hating on the LP.  Republicans hate us because of our social liberalism and Democrats hate us because of our fiscal conservatism.     Both sides do everything they can to exclude the LP (and the Green Party) from the process.  Why?  Fear.  A party that promotes social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and smaller government will resonate with voters.

It would, if such a party existed. The libretartian party thinks we can simply free market the poor into not existing, which has never worked in the history of humanity, and the majority of this country doesn't think Dickensian England would be a nice place to live.


I see someone has already made my point.

It would be nice if the LP actually did believe in the stuff it says they believe in, but it really just seems like they believe that corporations and other businesses should do whatever they want.
 
2013-03-01 03:57:51 PM

slayer199: Ok, using the term by gunpoint was probably not a good choice of words, but the point remains. The government takes money from one group to give to another by force (or threat of force) is against a principle of individual liberty. Rather than one individual infringing on another individual's liberty a majority uses the government to do so.


I knew I can count on Fark to bring the derp!

(Don't want to pay taxes? You're still free to move to a different country!)
 
2013-03-01 03:58:29 PM

Craptastic: Wasteland: If there's a core "fear of Libertarianism," it's that unchaining all the giants at once will only drop us all squarely in The Hell of Do As Thou Will, surrounded by the older kids with the bigger sticks.

You hit the nail on the head right there.


I think it's ironic a favorite Libertarian book is called "The Road to Serfdom."  But if you know anything about Feudalism, it's basically a purely libertarian society.  There's no state.  It's just private manors and private manor owners voluntarily trading fealty for fiefs and protection rackets while making their own rules, it's also a terrible place to live you have nothing as your left with trading fealty for a roof over your head and food to eat.
 
2013-03-01 04:01:27 PM

m00: Wasteland: As for who I am, I'm one of the people who'd be living with the secondary effects of your little hypothetical society shift- and yeah, that means I get to have an opinion and a voice in public policy on what is or is not generally permitted.  It's a little thing we call civilization.

Well, everyone is free to have an opinion. But our civilization was also built on the concept of natural rights, that cannot be granted nor taken away by government; only recognized and protected. And in fact this is government's chief duty. So for example, even if you were so hated in your community that the town unanimously voted to limit YOUR free speech or to toss YOU over a cliff and this was everyone's opinion and voice, no court would uphold the "Prop 20: Gag Wasteland and Throw Him Over a Cliff." That law would be unconstitutional.
I believe in this principle, although I don't necessarily agree with the specific natural rights that were chosen to be enumerated (so I'm not a strict constitutionalist). Personally, I think sovereignty over one's own body is a natural right. I also tend to think transactions that also happen between two consenting adults ought to be interfered with.
As for secondary effects... well, maybe we should improve society so that poor people don't have to sell organs. That it may currently be the case that poor people would be forced to sell organs is a separate thing from whether or not they should have the right to choose to. See what I'm saying?



/slight tangent
I don't believe in inalienable rights at all, frankly.  I consider them a cunning rhetorical fiction on the part of the founding fathers, a really nice counterpoint to use against the whole "divine right of kings" schtick... and not much else.  Our civilization is built on, at best, polite lip service to the idea.  Whenever people bring out the phrase "self evident," it's always a tip-off.

I have the inalienable right to equal treatment under the law of gravity, to receive due process of thermodynamics, and to ply my trade as a converter of oxygen to carbon dioxide for the duration of my natural life.  Those are the sort of rights that genuinely can't be taken away.  The rest of this stuff?  Man, this is all held together by fiat and social consensus.  And we damn well better remember it, because the Endowing Creator doesn't do a goddamn thing when those rights are ignored or suspended; whether by the society as a whole, or by individual citizens.

And I greatly prefer that interpretation.  Always keeping in mind that these "rights" are ultimately transient, fragile and arbitrary strikes me as a much better- and really, a much more reverent- attitude than "God/the universe/common sense says so."  If we were ever endowed with a social right by our Creator, it was the right to quit hitting each other any time we get around to it.

So yeah... different (and in my case, admittedly odd) underlying perspective here.
/end tangent
 
2013-03-01 04:03:07 PM

technicolor-misfit: Indeed... Libertarians oppose the initiation of force against others... You know, except for the idea of attempting to -force- libertarianism on them by claiming it's the only morally-valid means of government.


Ok, first sentence is correct. Initiation of force against others is wrong.

So according to your second sentence telling people, even those people calling themselves government agents, that they should not initiate force on others is itself initiating force on others?

This is why you fail.
 
2013-03-01 04:03:39 PM

OgreMagi: slayer199: Ah, good to see all the Fark libs and conservatives hating on the LP.  Republicans hate us because of our social liberalism and Democrats hate us because of our fiscal conservatism.     Both sides do everything they can to exclude the LP (and the Green Party) from the process.  Why?  Fear.  A party that promotes social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and smaller government will resonate with voters.

Let's not forget both sides claiming Somalia is a libertarian paradise, thus proving they have absolute no clue about libertarianism.


What do you think happens when you have a power vacuum?

It gets filled.  Usually in a very bloody and oppressive manner.  Much like what is going on now in Somalia.
 
2013-03-01 04:03:40 PM

OgreMagi: slayer199: Ah, good to see all the Fark libs and conservatives hating on the LP.  Republicans hate us because of our social liberalism and Democrats hate us because of our fiscal conservatism.     Both sides do everything they can to exclude the LP (and the Green Party) from the process.  Why?  Fear.  A party that promotes social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and smaller government will resonate with voters.

Let's not forget both sides claiming Somalia is a libertarian paradise, thus proving they have absolute no clue about libertarianism.


Actually, a lot of us dislike Libertarians mainly because of their self-important, unsubstantiated smugness.  Something that is very clearly lost on both of you.
 
2013-03-01 04:04:11 PM

Via Infinito: S

Sorry about your situation man. You seem to be dealing with it pretty well, but how did you ever find out about the tumor to begin with?
Did you get mugged and cracked on the head too?


Blacked out driving home from work.  Was lucky as all fark that I just went straight off the road into a field and rolled, and didn't hit anyone else.  Until that day, I had no idea, no headaches, blurred vision, nothing.
 
2013-03-01 04:05:02 PM

Zerochance: OgreMagi: slayer199: Ah, good to see all the Fark libs and conservatives hating on the LP.  Republicans hate us because of our social liberalism and Democrats hate us because of our fiscal conservatism.     Both sides do everything they can to exclude the LP (and the Green Party) from the process.  Why?  Fear.  A party that promotes social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and smaller government will resonate with voters.

Let's not forget both sides claiming Somalia is a libertarian paradise, thus proving they have absolute no clue about libertarianism.

Actually, a lot of us dislike Libertarians mainly because of their self-important, unsubstantiated smugness.  Something that is very clearly lost on both of you.


yeah, so what if I'm impotent. What's it any business of y... oh wait, nevermind
 
2013-03-01 04:07:48 PM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: Via Infinito: S

Sorry about your situation man. You seem to be dealing with it pretty well, but how did you ever find out about the tumor to begin with?
Did you get mugged and cracked on the head too?

Blacked out driving home from work.  Was lucky as all fark that I just went straight off the road into a field and rolled, and didn't hit anyone else.  Until that day, I had no idea, no headaches, blurred vision, nothing.


Oh, and to be honest, I'm just dealing.  I have more days than I'd like to admit of wine induced why the fark me crapattitude.

But the cats are less than truly sympathetic, so I give up after a few hours.  :)
 
2013-03-01 04:10:05 PM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: Via Infinito: S

Sorry about your situation man. You seem to be dealing with it pretty well, but how did you ever find out about the tumor to begin with?
Did you get mugged and cracked on the head too?

Blacked out driving home from work.  Was lucky as all fark that I just went straight off the road into a field and rolled, and didn't hit anyone else.  Until that day, I had no idea, no headaches, blurred vision, nothing.


good luck dude
 
2013-03-01 04:10:49 PM

TV's Vinnie: jigger: TV's Vinnie: dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?

[i46.tinypic.com image 400x618]

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ar_libertarianism_qa

She, like Dick Armey, are just embarrassed by the short bus of nutbags they had motivated. But both still bear responsibility.


No she was just an antisocial twat who hated everyone.
 
2013-03-01 04:14:00 PM

jigger: Rwa2play: So the Pauls are just closet neo-conservatives that start yelling "I'M A LIBERTARIAN" when people get wise to their BS.

Ron Paul is no purist libertarian, that's for sure. Rand Paul even less so (much less so). But to call them neo-conservatives means you don't know what a neo-conservative is.


Frankly, who the hell would?
 
2013-03-01 04:16:14 PM

DarnoKonrad: Craptastic: Wasteland: If there's a core "fear of Libertarianism," it's that unchaining all the giants at once will only drop us all squarely in The Hell of Do As Thou Will, surrounded by the older kids with the bigger sticks.

You hit the nail on the head right there.

I think it's ironic a favorite Libertarian book is called "The Road to Serfdom."  But if you know anything about Feudalism, it's basically a purely libertarian society.  There's no state.  It's just private manors and private manor owners voluntarily trading fealty for fiefs and protection rackets while making their own rules, it's also a terrible place to live you have nothing as your left with trading fealty for a roof over your head and food to eat.


...and pretty much what corporations wish to do to the public today.
 
2013-03-01 04:19:01 PM
skullkrusher:

thanks SK.

I didn't mean to threadjack, was just sympathizing with another.

Hopefully I'll win the lottery or something before it all kicks in.
 
2013-03-01 04:21:03 PM

slayer199: Wadded Beef: It's libertarian obfuscation. "Look, we're happy to give to charities of our choice for society! I just don't want the government to make us do it" translates to "I'm not going to do shiat. Let somebody else contribute. F-you...I got mine." That they bring up everyone having to contribute and pooling funds (re: healthcare) "by gunpoint" is the real culprit in an appeal to emotion.

Ok, using the term by gunpoint was probably not a good choice of words, but the point remains.  The government takes money from one group to give to another by force (or threat of force) is against a principle of individual liberty.  Rather than one individual infringing on another individual's liberty a majority uses the government to do so.


So, in other words, "F-you. I got mine."

That libertarianism purports that kicking in a few bucks (yes, a few bucks...not some sky-is-falling emotional ploy of 'redistribution of wealth') is somehow an aggrievance to LIBERTY, as in somebody would be denied something you desire due to paying their part, is why the ideology is overwhelmingly considered the homebound WoW player on Prom Night.
 
m00
2013-03-01 04:21:15 PM

Wasteland: I don't believe in inalienable rights at all, frankly.  I consider them a cunning rhetorical fiction on the part of the founding fathers, a really nice counterpoint to use against the whole "divine right of kings" schtick... and not much else.  Our civilization is built on, at best, polite lip service to the idea.  Whenever people bring out the phrase "self evident," it's always a tip-off.

I have the inalienable right to equal treatment under the law of gravity, to receive due process of thermodynamics, and to ply my trade as a converter of oxygen to carbon dioxide for the duration of my natural life.  Those are the sort of rights that genuinely can't be taken away.  The rest of this stuff?  Man, this is all held together by fiat and social consensus.  And we damn well better remember it, because the Endowing Creator doesn't do a goddamn thing when those rights are ignored or suspended; whether by the society as a whole, or by individual citizens.

And I greatly prefer that interpretation.  Always keeping in mind that these "rights" are ultimately transient, fragile and arbitrary strikes me as a much better- and really, a much more reverent- attitude than "God/the universe/common sense says so."  If we were ever endowed with a social right by our Creator, it was the right to quit hitting each other any time we get around to it.

So yeah... different (and in my case, admittedly odd) underlying perspective here.


That is an interesting perspective. Personally, I want a philosophical framework to exist so that human rights aren't a luxury. But I wouldn't call inalienable rights a rhetorical fiction, unless you are willing to also concede that all philosophy on consciousness and personhood and ethics and empathy is a fictional construct. Without a notion of human rights in some vague sense, everything from slavery to forced human sacrifice to child prostitution is morally neutral.

So I fundamentally believe that  we have rights that transcend government that we get for just existing as human beings.Governments may choose to violate these rights, but they are fundamentally inseparable from our personhood.

You know how when sometimes people say "Bob did X, and X is illegal. Therefore he is a criminal and deserves the proscribed punishment."? I have a big problem with this, because absent some higher truth than what government dictates, there is no room for arguing that X shouldn't be illegal, or the punishment shouldn't be as severe as it is, or Bob didn't deserve his fate. It's the same circular logic as "There is nothing wrong with Blanks being slaves, because slavery is legal."

I think especially in this day and age, when governments are doing all sorts of terrible things that there needs to be some sort of moral truths that we can claim they are violating. Whereas you have a functional perspective, and I can see the merit of this -- but slavery was a very functionally useful institution. How does one end it, absent a concept of inalienable rights?
 
2013-03-01 04:22:53 PM

Rwa2play: jigger: Rwa2play: So the Pauls are just closet neo-conservatives that start yelling "I'M A LIBERTARIAN" when people get wise to their BS.

Ron Paul is no purist libertarian, that's for sure. Rand Paul even less so (much less so). But to call them neo-conservatives means you don't know what a neo-conservative is.

Frankly, who the hell would?


well, neocons are staunch supporters of Israel pretty much to a man. Ron Paul is not.
 
2013-03-01 04:24:07 PM
I'm worried all this talk of Republicans imploding is actually bad news for libs. It may make them too complacent when 2014 rolls around assuming that congress is a sure thing. Now we should be more vigilant than ever. Even a wounded animal can still do some serious damage when it's backed into a corner.
 
2013-03-01 04:27:48 PM

RobertBruce: The powerful government enables Standard Oil/Enron/Google/widgetco to do those things we hate. A libertarian mindset in government would mean big business gets no help from them either.


Well, you better get cracking getting those Libertarians into office... Shouldn't be too hard to convince the electorate considering how well thought out and acceptable Libertarian policies are.
 
2013-03-01 04:28:07 PM
Satan's Bunny Slippers:

Blacked out driving home from work.  Was lucky as all fark that I just went straight off the road into a field and rolled, and didn't hit anyone else.  Until that day, I had no idea, no headaches, blurred vision, nothing.

Oh, and to be honest, I'm just dealing.  I have more days than I'd like to admit of wine induced why the fark me crapattitude.

But the cats are less than truly sympathetic, so I give up after a few hours.  :)


That's scary as shiat. I'm really sorry. Do you still have blackouts? Can you still drive?
I'm not going to lie, that situation is all kinds of suck. My heart goes out to you.
Most of us have pity parties when our f*cking jeans get a little tight.
You're absolutely entitled to your "why me?" days since you actually have a good farking reason.

I hope you get plenty of kitty purrs. It's true that cats aren't particularly "sympathetic" but I always seem to feel better when my kitty is purring on me.
 
2013-03-01 04:31:23 PM

m00: slayer199: Why?

Both Democrats and Republicans are completely invested in their two party duopoly. Each side makes its living convincing you to vote for them (no matter what flaws they might possess), because the other is the greater evil. A viable 3rd party destroys that dynamic.

I imagine if there was a viable 3rd party right now, nobody in Congress would be Democrat or Republican. Because they couldn't pull the "sure, our guys are corrupt and insane but that's nothing compared to how corrupt and insane THEIR guys are." The media dynamic also reinforces this, as it benefits the small number of megacorportations (I think 7?) which own all mainstream media.


The problem isn't the two dominant parties, or even the media conglomerates.  There will never be a viable third party as long as America uses a "Weeners the post" election system, because that system inevitably leads to a state where two parties dominate and supporting a third party only increases the odds that someone from the major party you more disagree with will win (the spoiler effect).
 
m00
2013-03-01 04:34:23 PM

keylock71: RobertBruce: The powerful government enables Standard Oil/Enron/Google/widgetco to do those things we hate. A libertarian mindset in government would mean big business gets no help from them either.

Well, you better get cracking getting those Libertarians into office... Shouldn't be too hard to convince the electorate considering how well thought out and acceptable Libertarian policies are.


Unfortunately, there is no Libertarian mass media. There's Democratic mass media (NBC). There's Republican mass media (FOX). There's no Libertarian Media. Why? Because the large corporations that exist via government welfare which own the media companies would not exist in any system that was remotely libertarian-minded. All the big news outlets in the US might as well be propaganda machines for the specific viewpoints of the conglomerates which own them.
 
2013-03-01 04:38:12 PM

jigger: technicolor-misfit: Indeed... Libertarians oppose the initiation of force against others... You know, except for the idea of attempting to -force- libertarianism on them by claiming it's the only morally-valid means of government.

Ok, first sentence is correct. Initiation of force against others is wrong.

So according to your second sentence telling people, even those people calling themselves government agents, that they should not initiate force on others is itself initiating force on others?

This is why you fail.



No... this country's government is formed by the voluntary association of citizens who agree to abide by rules and taxation agreed upon by the majority.

If you do not wish to take part in or be subject to the rules established by our society and its government, you are free to attempt to change them, or you are free to leave and find a place more to your liking.

Libertarians do not avail themselves of that choice. Rather, they attempt to create the impression that others have no right to form such a society and government... that no one should be "coerced" or subject to "force" to abide by the rules of, or contribute to the coffers of such a government.

Essentially, ideologically declaring that the majority has no right to live as they choose to... under a government with progressive taxation, regulation, and a social safety net... because if any "libertarian" wishes to live in that society, he should not be subject to the "force" required to maintain it.

It's all bullshiat of course... If you don't want to wear a tie in a restaurant with a tie policy, don't eat there. If you don't want to pay money to a health club, don't work out there. If you don't want to pay taxes to support a social safety net, don't live in a country that has one.

You can, of course, opt to stay and lobby to change these policies. But if you do stay, you are not being coerced to wear a tie, pony up your gym fees, or pay your taxes... you are CHOOSING to do so.
 
2013-03-01 04:45:02 PM

m00: Unfortunately, there is no Libertarian mass media. There's Democratic mass media (NBC). There's Republican mass media (FOX). There's no Libertarian Media. Why? Because the large corporations that exist via government welfare which own the media companies would not exist in any system that was remotely libertarian-minded. All the big news outlets in the US might as well be propaganda machines for the specific viewpoints of the conglomerates which own them.


Right. That's what it is... If only the populace weren't blinded by those dastardly media moguls.

So, you're telling me there isn't one bootstrappin', freedom lovin' Libertarian businessman with enough money to own their own cable channel or national radio station? Not one that can harness the power of advertising, marketing, social media and the internet to spread these incredible Libertarian ideas we're all missing out on?

Damn, if only the evil media cabal wasn't conspiring to keep these incredibly well-thought out and rational policies from the public. I mean that's a deep conspiracy considering they're even able to keep these Libertarian politicians from becoming city councilors, mayors, aldermen, selectmen, and state legislators in large numbers.

Oh, well... Guess we'll have to muddle through with out the Randian Übermensch.
 
2013-03-01 04:46:16 PM
Once upon a time the Libertarians were slightly Liberal now its overrun by heartless greedy d-bags who think Ayn Rand's works are gospel. They are zero threat to the Democrats since the GOP act like the Libertarians are its hippie twin brother. The Mortimer to its Randolph.
collider.com
A Libertarian and Republican pictured together

//Plus John Stossel is now a Libertarian spokesman that's all I need to know about them.
 
2013-03-01 04:50:21 PM
The degree to which the GOP is out of touch with the voting public is unbelievable.  They just lost an election (and the popular vote) primarily on the issue of their opposition to tax increases on the wealthy.  So what do they do now that the sequester is at hand?  They double down on that position which lost them the election in an effort to please their base.

Here's a hint GOP.  You win elections by shooting for the center.  At least that's what's worked for Obama.  Even if your base is creeping right, you will never win elections by pandering to the teabagger nutjobs.

If they keep this shiat up, the next president will have a democratic supermajority and then they will have nothing left to bargain with.  They're betting the farm on an issue that's already clearly demonstrated their inability to garner support from the voting public.  Add to that their total unwillingness to compromise and there is zero chance of them walking away from this fiasco unscathed.  These farking assholes should be the first to lose their jobs.
 
m00
2013-03-01 04:50:43 PM

anfrind: The problem isn't the two dominant parties, or even the media conglomerates.  There will never be a viable third party as long as America uses a "Weeners the post" election system, because that system inevitably leads to a state where two parties dominate and supporting a third party only increases the odds that someone from the major party you more disagree with will win (the spoiler effect).


I'm assuming "Weeners the post" means "Winner-takes-all" and you got farked :D

Well, it's not necessarily winner-takes-all that is the problem. It's because every candidate isn't guaranteed to win against every other candidate. There's a mathematical proof for this I could dig up. But basically you want a series of runoffs, that can still produce a single winner, but it means there is no spoiler.

So if there were 3 candidates Alex, Bob, and Charlie... your ticket would be:

(0) v (1)
Alex v Bob
Alex v Charlie
Bob v Charlie

For the ticket to be valid, a voter would have to make a choice in each selection.
Potential outcomes:

0,0,0 - Alex wins
0,0,1 - Alex wins
0,1,0 - runoff
1,0,0 - Bob wins
1,1,0 - bob wins
1,0,1 - runoff
0,1,1 - charlie wins
1,1,1 - charlie wins
 
2013-03-01 04:58:07 PM

Via Infinito: I hope you get plenty of kitty purrs. It's true that cats aren't particularly "sympathetic" but I always seem to feel better when my kitty is purring on me.


Is that a euphemism?
 
m00
2013-03-01 04:58:09 PM

keylock71: Right. That's what it is... If only the populace weren't blinded by those dastardly media moguls.

So, you're telling me there isn't one bootstrappin', freedom lovin' Libertarian businessman with enough money to own their own cable channel or national radio station? Not one that can harness the power of advertising, marketing, social media and the internet to spread these incredible Libertarian ideas we're all missing out on?

Damn, if only the evil media cabal wasn't conspiring to keep these incredibly well-thought out and rational policies from the public. I mean that's a deep conspiracy considering they're even able to keep these Libertarian politicians from becoming city councilors, mayors, aldermen, selectmen, and state legislators in large numbers.

Oh, well... Guess we'll have to muddle through with out the Randian Übermensch.


The fact that Washington DC contains something like 7/10 of the richest suburbs in the US should tell you that wealth in this country is mostly tied to the ability to get government to redistribute wealth to the already wealthy. Note, this is how Romney made his money too -- by exploiting a specific LBO tax shield/loophole. I don't know what politically ideology you belong to where questioning the wisdom of redistributing wealth to the already wealthy is something to be sneered at. The mere fact that wage tax is double capital gains tax is outrageous.

So no, people who practice Libertarianism are at a disadvantage when it comes to become wealthy, because their beliefs exclude them from the single most effective way of obtaining obscene wealth. Which is, getting the government to steal it from the middle class and buying media to make the public such as yourself hostile to the notion that perhaps it shouldn't be.
 
2013-03-01 04:59:40 PM
cdn.motinetwork.net
 
2013-03-01 05:00:32 PM

skullkrusher: palelizard: thrasherrr: Let's propose a non-extreme example.

Say I'm broke. I decide to sell both kidneys to fund a whirlwind tour of all the orange countries on the map.
I'll spend the rest of my life on dialysis on the state's dime. Should I be allowed to do it?


I'd say no, same as donating a non-extraneous piece of your body, like heart, brain, spine, etc, since at that point you're selling your life (since without external support, you'd die).  I think the living/dying differentiation is a reasonable place to draw the line.  It may not be the best place, but that's where I draw it.

What you do with the money is irrelevant to the concept.  You shouldn't be able to sell both and donate the money to cancer kids.

On the other hand, if you sell a kidney and get in a car wreck and lose the other, I don't think there should be a penalty since we wouldn't have to pay for you if you hadn't sold the first kidney.  It's bad luck, sometimes that happens, and we just have to absorb the loss.  I doubt it would lead to a glut of kidneys on the market, with everyone thinking "Hehe, I'll get my cash and then if anything happens, the government will be on the hook for the tab".  I'm not saying no one would think that, I just don't think it would be a widespread issue.

not to mention that this argument could be made against the donation of living tissue. Whether you get paid for it or not isn't relevant to this scenario. It just increases the likelihood that the scenario might happen


Thank you two for thoughtful responses to a hard question.
 
2013-03-01 05:03:47 PM

thrasherrr: skullkrusher: palelizard: thrasherrr: Let's propose a non-extreme example.

Say I'm broke. I decide to sell both kidneys to fund a whirlwind tour of all the orange countries on the map.
I'll spend the rest of my life on dialysis on the state's dime. Should I be allowed to do it?


I'd say no, same as donating a non-extraneous piece of your body, like heart, brain, spine, etc, since at that point you're selling your life (since without external support, you'd die).  I think the living/dying differentiation is a reasonable place to draw the line.  It may not be the best place, but that's where I draw it.

What you do with the money is irrelevant to the concept.  You shouldn't be able to sell both and donate the money to cancer kids.

On the other hand, if you sell a kidney and get in a car wreck and lose the other, I don't think there should be a penalty since we wouldn't have to pay for you if you hadn't sold the first kidney.  It's bad luck, sometimes that happens, and we just have to absorb the loss.  I doubt it would lead to a glut of kidneys on the market, with everyone thinking "Hehe, I'll get my cash and then if anything happens, the government will be on the hook for the tab".  I'm not saying no one would think that, I just don't think it would be a widespread issue.

not to mention that this argument could be made against the donation of living tissue. Whether you get paid for it or not isn't relevant to this scenario. It just increases the likelihood that the scenario might happen

Thank you two for thoughtful responses to a hard question.


oh, don't get me wrong. Selling organs is nasty. So is ass to mouth though. I don't wanna outlaw that either :)
 
2013-03-01 05:05:24 PM

RexTalionis: hubiestubert: Not that a lot Libertarians are any better.

Libertarians are Republicans who are embarrassed to call themselves Republicans.


As are Conservatives. Look at the way Hannity hides behind the moniker.
 
2013-03-01 05:06:19 PM

technicolor-misfit: You can, of course, opt to stay and lobby to change these policies. But if you do stay, you are not being coerced to wear a tie, pony up your gym fees, or pay your taxes... you are CHOOSING to do so.


Indeed... Choosing where one lives and thrives is pretty much the essence of freedom. Last time I checked, any American citizen was free to choose whether they want to live in the United States or take the steps necessary to relocate to a country with a more palatable governing system or for pretty much any reason they choose.

In fact, I recommend it... As a younger man, I spent five years or so living and working in other countries. Best thing I've done in my life. I worked menial jobs, didn't have any kind of insurance, worked under the table, and pretty much succeeded and failed by my own wits and decisions. It also really made me appreciate my country of birth and realize we aren't exceptional, by any stretch of the imagination.

I usually get met with, "But I can't afford to do that!!!" by my Libertarian friends when I suggest that as a way to throw off the yoke of governmental oppression they feel... Strange.
 
2013-03-01 05:07:47 PM

Rapmaster2000: You have your whole life to be a sexless, uptight whiner. Why would you ruin your time in college?


Uptight poon, son. Uptight poon.
 
2013-03-01 05:09:16 PM

keylock71: technicolor-misfit: You can, of course, opt to stay and lobby to change these policies. But if you do stay, you are not being coerced to wear a tie, pony up your gym fees, or pay your taxes... you are CHOOSING to do so.

Indeed... Choosing where one lives and thrives is pretty much the essence of freedom. Last time I checked, any American citizen was free to choose whether they want to live in the United States or take the steps necessary to relocate to a country with a more palatable governing system or for pretty much any reason they choose.

In fact, I recommend it... As a younger man, I spent five years or so living and working in other countries. Best thing I've done in my life. I worked menial jobs, didn't have any kind of insurance, worked under the table, and pretty much succeeded and failed by my own wits and decisions. It also really made me appreciate my country of birth and realize we aren't exceptional, by any stretch of the imagination.

I usually get met with, "But I can't afford to do that!!!" by my Libertarian friends when I suggest that as a way to throw off the yoke of governmental oppression they feel... Strange.


Question: don't you still have to pay your US taxes, even if you're living and working in another country?
 
2013-03-01 05:10:47 PM

dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?


Libertarianism is really a religion based on the idea that rationality is good, and therefore people that behave like economic rationalists are somehow more deserving than others.

The idea fails on several levels, like the fact that nobody is actually rational the way classical economics imagines it, and that economic success is mostly luck anyway, and that it doesn't really address the tragedy of the commons. But mostly it fails because it creates an impossible "New Man" that we are supposed to convert into but can't, so it punishes us for being human.
 
2013-03-01 05:12:06 PM

keylock71: technicolor-misfit: You can, of course, opt to stay and lobby to change these policies. But if you do stay, you are not being coerced to wear a tie, pony up your gym fees, or pay your taxes... you are CHOOSING to do so.

Indeed... Choosing where one lives and thrives is pretty much the essence of freedom. Last time I checked, any American citizen was free to choose whether they want to live in the United States or take the steps necessary to relocate to a country with a more palatable governing system or for pretty much any reason they choose.

In fact, I recommend it... As a younger man, I spent five years or so living and working in other countries. Best thing I've done in my life. I worked menial jobs, didn't have any kind of insurance, worked under the table, and pretty much succeeded and failed by my own wits and decisions. It also really made me appreciate my country of birth and realize we aren't exceptional, by any stretch of the imagination.

I usually get met with, "But I can't afford to do that!!!" by my Libertarian friends when I suggest that as a way to throw off the yoke of governmental oppression they feel... Strange.


since we're being mostly philsophical here...

if the framework is largely minarchistic people are free to form their own associations, collectives, etc within that framework giving a greater variety of options. It is certainly "freedom enhancing" to have a bare bones socio-political infrastructure within which people can find and/or create groups that are more to their tastes. Just not terribly practical.
 
2013-03-01 05:12:37 PM
Libertarians - Fiscally conservative and socially liberal morally libertine.
 
2013-03-01 05:13:20 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: slayer199: Ah, good to see all the Fark libs and conservatives hating on the LP.  Republicans hate us because of our social liberalism and Democrats hate us because of our fiscal conservatism.     Both sides do everything they can to exclude the LP (and the Green Party) from the process.  Why?  Fear.  A party that promotes social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and smaller government will resonate with voters.

Actually, I'm a liberal and I voted for the Green Party in the last elections.
- The Republicans are crazy, so they're out
- The Democrats are moderately conservative, so they're not necessarily out but certainly not my first choice
- The Libertarians can't do math. Austrian economics and consumption taxes have not worked, do not work, and will not work. Money flows up in an efficient capitalist system, every single time.

That leaves a write in candidate. I was torn between Jill Stein and writing in Larry Ellison, because he's one of a few people who I agree with on economic issues and literally can't be bribed should he take office.


Are you my alt?  I'm also a Hoosier (living in South Carolina now though) who voted for the Green Party this last election cycle...for the same reasons you cited.
 
2013-03-01 05:15:50 PM

ilambiquated: dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?

Libertarianism is really a religion based on the idea that rationality is good, and therefore people that behave like economic rationalists are somehow more deserving than others.

The idea fails on several levels, like the fact that nobody is actually rational the way classical economics imagines it, and that economic success is mostly luck anyway, and that it doesn't really address the tragedy of the commons. But mostly it fails because it creates an impossible "New Man" that we are supposed to convert into but can't, so it punishes us for being human.


actually, that's classical liberalism or Austrian school. Libertarianism is a political philosophy. Many try to argue that the result of libertarian governance (such as it is) would improve economic outcomes but that's a wishful selling point, not the underlying point.

Right libertarianism is necessarily tied to the laissez faire economic schools because of what laissez faire means in terms of government intrusion. They go from there and argue that adherence to these schools would result in more widespread growth in order to sell their beliefs but that's not the driving factor.
 
2013-03-01 05:16:18 PM

qorkfiend: Question: don't you still have to pay your US taxes, even if you're living and working in another country?


Yes. Though, with no actual evidence of income to report, you're essentially filing a return on zero income. That's how I filed anyway for the five years I was out of the country. Coming back in (I made no trips back to the states during that time period), I got grilled pretty good going through customs, though. This was back in '99, so I'm not sure how that works with all the new security stuff put in place since 9/11.
 
2013-03-01 05:21:04 PM

Via Infinito: Satan's Bunny Slippers:

Blacked out driving home from work.  Was lucky as all fark that I just went straight off the road into a field and rolled, and didn't hit anyone else.  Until that day, I had no idea, no headaches, blurred vision, nothing.

Oh, and to be honest, I'm just dealing.  I have more days than I'd like to admit of wine induced why the fark me crapattitude.

But the cats are less than truly sympathetic, so I give up after a few hours.  :)

That's scary as shiat. I'm really sorry. Do you still have blackouts? Can you still drive?
I'm not going to lie, that situation is all kinds of suck. My heart goes out to you.
Most of us have pity parties when our f*cking jeans get a little tight.
You're absolutely entitled to your "why me?" days since you actually have a good farking reason.

I hope you get plenty of kitty purrs. It's true that cats aren't particularly "sympathetic" but I always seem to feel better when my kitty is purring on me.


Thank you.  I always feel kinda weird saying thank you when someone offers empathy/sympathy...I'd rather not be thanking you if you know what I mean.  :)

But yeah, I can drive now.  I couldn't for about 6 months while we figured out just what the fark was going on.  They did a ton of CAT scans, MRIs, EEGs, IEDs, UFOs, KFCs, I don't know all what.  I know I felt like a lab rat for a while.  We figured (well THEY did, I just laid there) it all out when they cut a little hole in the side of my skull and stuck a camera in behind my eye and got a good look at things.  Apparently I've had it for some time, but it sort of had a growth spurt, which led us to discovery.  It's not a "stuck to your brain" sort of tumor, it's actually woven in and around my brain tissue, nerves, blood supply, etc.  That's why they can't just get a grapefruit spoon in there and take it out.  So we kept a really close eye on it for 6 months, measuring it every three weeks, to see how fast it was growing.  We've got it down now, and we're happy if it grows .5mm a year or less.  That apparently gives the surrounding tissues and nerves time to accommodate the extra space it's claiming, without causing me undue stress.  Every now and then it will throw me into a vicious migraine for 3-5 days, but happily it's been well over 18 months since it's done that, so we know it's not growing too fast.  In fact it seems to be slowing down.  The last 2 scans were .03mm and .01mm, so yay?  So I guess if you overlook the non-negotiable ending, things are going pretty well right now.  Eventually it will just squeeze it all together like a bad blood pressure cuff.

But thank you, and the others ITT for your kind words.  They do mean a lot.  I'll take every little bit of nice I can get.  :)  And my kitties really do purr me into relaxation.  Nothing like a big ole kittehpile on the couch to make you feel better.

**disclaimer**
If any real medical folks read this, I'm just a layman, and have related the circumstances as best I can from 8 years ago in the basic terms my kind doctors used for me.  Please don't internet doctor me and tell me I'm wrong.  it's my tumor and I know what's going on.  (yeah, welcome to FARK)
 
Bf+
2013-03-01 05:26:25 PM
i.huffpost.com
 
m00
2013-03-01 05:27:04 PM

qorkfiend: Question: don't you still have to pay your US taxes, even if you're living and working in another country?


You're supposed to file your returns, but for example if you live and work in Europe or some NATO country and you're paying 40% income tax no you don't have to pay another 30% to the US government on top of that. If this were the case, there wouldn't be an ex-pat community anywhere.
 
2013-03-01 05:27:50 PM

Wadded Beef: slayer199: Wadded Beef: It's libertarian obfuscation. "Look, we're happy to give to charities of our choice for society! I just don't want the government to make us do it" translates to "I'm not going to do shiat. Let somebody else contribute. F-you...I got mine." That they bring up everyone having to contribute and pooling funds (re: healthcare) "by gunpoint" is the real culprit in an appeal to emotion.

Ok, using the term by gunpoint was probably not a good choice of words, but the point remains.  The government takes money from one group to give to another by force (or threat of force) is against a principle of individual liberty.  Rather than one individual infringing on another individual's liberty a majority uses the government to do so.

So, in other words, "F-you. I got mine."


So we are trying to decide between "F-you, I got mine" and "F-you, I want yours."
 
2013-03-01 05:31:29 PM

HairBolus: Libertarians - Fiscally conservative


But what the heck is fiscally conservative anyway? I don't think it means anything much,
 
2013-03-01 05:32:30 PM

skullkrusher: if the framework is largely minarchistic people are free to form their own associations, collectives, etc within that framework giving a greater variety of options. It is certainly "freedom enhancing" to have a bare bones socio-political infrastructure within which people can find and/or create groups that are more to their tastes. Just not terribly practical.


Sure, I'm not recommending that as way to structure a society, of course, but for an individual, it's definitely an option.

I met people who had been traveling from country to country and working in the gray economy for 20+ years... They weren't limiting themselves by borders and their only ideology was if they didn't like where they were, they went somewhere else. It's entirely possible to do, if one has the will and the brains to do it.

I wasn't one of those people, at any rate... I was just a kid from a shiatty little mill town in MA, who wanted to travel around and get stoned and laid. Those activities took money, which I didn't have, so I had to work whatever shiatty job I could get. Looking back now as a 41 year old man, with a house, family and career, it was probably the best time in my life. Don't get me wrong, I'm quite happy being a freelance designer/art teacher living back in that same shiatty mill town, but those years opened me up to a lot of things I probably wouldn't have experienced if I stayed put in the States.

Anyway, CSB, I know, but when I hear people biatching about big, intrusive government and how their freedoms are being impeded, I like to offer them a solution.
 
2013-03-01 05:43:35 PM

Snarfangel: Wadded Beef: slayer199: Wadded Beef: It's libertarian obfuscation. "Look, we're happy to give to charities of our choice for society! I just don't want the government to make us do it" translates to "I'm not going to do shiat. Let somebody else contribute. F-you...I got mine." That they bring up everyone having to contribute and pooling funds (re: healthcare) "by gunpoint" is the real culprit in an appeal to emotion.

Ok, using the term by gunpoint was probably not a good choice of words, but the point remains.  The government takes money from one group to give to another by force (or threat of force) is against a principle of individual liberty.  Rather than one individual infringing on another individual's liberty a majority uses the government to do so.

So, in other words, "F-you. I got mine."

So we are trying to decide between "F-you, I got mine" and "F-you, I want yours."


No F-you about it. Want to party it up in the world's VIP Lounge that is America? Go nuts. No one is suggesting that one prevents another from pursuing life, liberty and happiness. Just pay the cover charge.
 
2013-03-01 05:44:09 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: I especially love "Well, once you turn 27, you have to pay for that." as an argument against Obamacare.  Because without it, you'd have to pay for that much earlier than 27.


Also, insurance is a win-win idea. I don't see why that's so hard for people to grasp.

Opposing Obamacare is like opposing the rule that everyone drive on the right.Sure it's an arbitrary rule that infringes on my right to drive every which way, and it isn't in the Constitution, but if we didn't have it, we couldn't drive.
 
2013-03-01 05:47:21 PM

hubiestubert: Not that a lot Libertarians are any better. The typical Libertarian candidate today promotes an agenda that is naught but a brand of NeoFeudalism that is even worse than their Republican counterparts.


I wouldn't go quite that far; the Republican counterparts mostly seem to be all aboard with the NeoFeudalism, they just want the role of religion to be as strong as in the last round of Feudalism.

Libertarians seem to lean high-SDO, low-RWA; it's not much of an improvement over GOP double-highs, but it's something.
 
2013-03-01 05:50:36 PM

Snarfangel: Wadded Beef: slayer199: Wadded Beef: It's libertarian obfuscation. "Look, we're happy to give to charities of our choice for society! I just don't want the government to make us do it" translates to "I'm not going to do shiat. Let somebody else contribute. F-you...I got mine." That they bring up everyone having to contribute and pooling funds (re: healthcare) "by gunpoint" is the real culprit in an appeal to emotion.

Ok, using the term by gunpoint was probably not a good choice of words, but the point remains.  The government takes money from one group to give to another by force (or threat of force) is against a principle of individual liberty.  Rather than one individual infringing on another individual's liberty a majority uses the government to do so.

So, in other words, "F-you. I got mine."

So we are trying to decide between "F-you, I got mine" and "F-you, I want yours pay your goddam tab for the services you receive."

 
2013-03-01 06:02:17 PM
Shame on those above who used the reductio ad somalium argument.
 
2013-03-01 06:02:57 PM
I have never met a female Libertarian. Ever.

I am puzzled why this never seems to concern the Libertarians I talk to.
 
2013-03-01 06:04:54 PM
Libertarianism is a phony ideology espoused from positions of comfort. It is an accessory worn by the well-off.
 
2013-03-01 06:06:26 PM

m00: anfrind: The problem isn't the two dominant parties, or even the media conglomerates.  There will never be a viable third party as long as America uses a "Weeners the post" election system, because that system inevitably leads to a state where two parties dominate and supporting a third party only increases the odds that someone from the major party you more disagree with will win (the spoiler effect).

I'm assuming "Weeners the post" means "Winner-takes-all" and you got farked :D

Well, it's not necessarily winner-takes-all that is the problem. It's because every candidate isn't guaranteed to win against every other candidate. There's a mathematical proof for this I could dig up. But basically you want a series of runoffs, that can still produce a single winner, but it means there is no spoiler.

So if there were 3 candidates Alex, Bob, and Charlie... your ticket would be:

(0) v (1)
Alex v Bob
Alex v Charlie
Bob v Charlie

For the ticket to be valid, a voter would have to make a choice in each selection.
Potential outcomes:

0,0,0 - Alex wins
0,0,1 - Alex wins
0,1,0 - runoff
1,0,0 - Bob wins
1,1,0 - bob wins
1,0,1 - runoff
0,1,1 - charlie wins
1,1,1 - charlie wins


Not sure if I misspelled "Weeners" (with an "a", not an "o") or if the filter is being overzealous.  I guess I'll find out...

The math looks good on paper, but the fact is that most people don't like to support a loser, and if a party fails to win elections, most people won't support them no matter how much they agree with their platform.  You might have lots of people who agree with the Green party platform, for example, but the Democratic party is much more likely to win elections, and their platform is close enough to the Green platform that most would-be Green voters will vote Democratic instead.  And even worse, if the number of people still willing to vote Green is too small to force a runoff election, they just make it that much more likely that a major party with an opposed agenda (i.e. the Republican party) will win--which is why in 2004 and 2008 there were Republican PAC's clandestinely supporting Ralph Nader in swing states.

In the end, you end up where we are now: two major parties that dominate at nearly every level of politics, and a bunch of third parties that only appeal to their respective "true believers".  And, no, this isn't some conspiracy of the two major parties (although they'd certainly like to maintain the status quo in this regard); it's an unfortunate side-effect of how elections work in the U.S.  If we had a parliamentary system, or an instant-runoff system (mark your ballot with a first choice, second choice, etc.), things wouldn't necessarily narrow to two large political parties.

/and don't get me started on the ridiculous way in which the U.S. resolves ties in the presidential election...
 
2013-03-01 06:06:46 PM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: welcome to FARK


You'll get no snark from me. (hugs)

I had something similar in my spine that they were able to scoop out without taking too much else. Scary shiat. It sounds like you are getting some good care. Courage.
 
2013-03-01 06:09:02 PM

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Snarfangel: Wadded Beef: slayer199: Wadded Beef: It's libertarian obfuscation. "Look, we're happy to give to charities of our choice for society! I just don't want the government to make us do it" translates to "I'm not going to do shiat. Let somebody else contribute. F-you...I got mine." That they bring up everyone having to contribute and pooling funds (re: healthcare) "by gunpoint" is the real culprit in an appeal to emotion.

Ok, using the term by gunpoint was probably not a good choice of words, but the point remains.  The government takes money from one group to give to another by force (or threat of force) is against a principle of individual liberty.  Rather than one individual infringing on another individual's liberty a majority uses the government to do so.

So, in other words, "F-you. I got mine."

So we are trying to decide between "F-you, I got mine" and "F-you, I want yours pay your goddam tab for the services you receive."


That won't fit on a bumper sticker.
 
2013-03-01 06:10:11 PM

anfrind: Not sure if I misspelled "Weeners" (with an "a", not an "o") or if the filter is being overzealous.  I guess I'll find out...


picardfacepalm.com

Really, Drew?
 
2013-03-01 06:10:15 PM

slayer199: Ah, good to see all the Fark libs and conservatives hating on the LP.  Republicans hate us because of our social liberalism and Democrats hate us because of our fiscal conservatism.     Both sides do everything they can to exclude the LP (and the Green Party) from the process.  Why?  Fear.  A party that promotes social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and smaller government will resonate with voters.


Bull.

Small government resonates right up to the moment you explain that you'll be cutting the part of the government that they happen to like and/or depend upon. No one wants to shrink  those programs. It's only ever the nebulous programs used by "cheats and parasites" that people want cut.

By and large people prefer the reality of having social safety nets, in spite of all the attempts to anger them with talk of welfare queens and what have you. And that makes sense, since if you can prevent someone from falling through the cracks, you have an chance to restoring them to a position of being a productive and contributing member of society. Without those safety nets, those people are simply lost and that represents a loss to the whole.

So yeah, it's easy to get people excited about "fiscal conservatism", right up until the point where they begin to appreciate what, precisely, that entails. Once that epiphany kicks in, the Libertarian message loses a lot of its luster, which is why the party can never get any traction in spite of the fact that every Libertarian insists that the logic of the party is self-evident. 

/ As for "personal responsibility", I think that the word's out that this is basically code for a lack of corporate liability.
 
2013-03-01 06:19:07 PM

m00: Wasteland: I don't believe in inalienable rights at all, frankly.  [...]  So yeah... different (and in my case, admittedly odd) underlying perspective here.

(Having to snip quite a bit of this, we're both getting fairly wordy...)

You know how when sometimes people say "Bob did X, and X is illegal. Therefore he is a criminal and deserves the proscribed punishment."? I have a big problem with this, because absent some higher truth than what government dictates, there is no room for arguing that X shouldn't be illegal, or the punishment shouldn't be as severe as it is, or Bob didn't deserve his fate. It's the same circular logic as "There is nothing wrong with Blanks being slaves, because slavery is legal."

There's no need for any kind of  final arbiter of truth whatsoever, when it comes to making these sorts of changes.  Practical grounds- X shouldn't be illegal because it's relatively harmless, the punishment shouldn't be so severe because it's overcrowding our prisons and costing us too much- are all that's required to start a perfectly valid argument over whether it's time to change the rules.  Hell, a simple consensus of purely emotional opinion is often enough.  Absent some higher standard for the rules themselves, there's also no higher standard to say that you aren't allowed to make changes to them.  Saying that there's no room to do so is to place an artificial limit on the process, for no obvious reason.  There may be limits in place on how you get to go about trying to make those changes...  but again, those are just another subset of the rules themselves.


I think especially in this day and age, when governments are doing all sorts of terrible things that there needs to be some sort of moral truths that we can claim they are violating. Whereas you have a functional perspective, and I can see the merit of this -- but slavery was a very functionally useful institution. How does one end it, absent a concept of inalienable rights?

The way it ended in our own country, here in the real world: enough people decided that its downsides had begun to outweigh the benefits it produced, they eventually decided it was enough of a point to be worth fighting and even killing over in conjunction with related issues, and they then squelched the dissenting opinion through main force.  Inalienable rights didn't free the slaves, and the now ex-slaves didn't suddenly find themselves equal citizens under the law.  God and/or the universe didn't do, or endorse, or support any of that.  Humans did- just as humans enslaved one another and declared some be unequal in the first place.  We, as a society, changed our collective average mind.

We're undergoing a similar process with gay rights, right now.  Was there some great Universal Truth that came shining through, all of a sudden?  Or did enough years of seeing gay men and women living openly, and for the most part seeming just like everyone else, slowly break down the sense of otherness about homosexuality until the most recent generations reached a kind of consensus tipping point?  My money's on the latter.

Throw society into enough chaos, or rattle the consensus of society the right way, and it could all come crashing back down tomorrow.  How many airplanes, do you suppose, would have to hit how many office buildings, in order to convince a controlling majority of Americans that it's time to round up all o' them damn Muzzies and run them out of the country; or just say to hell with it and start shooting them outright?

And if I truly believe that that's a bad idea, and that religious freedom and an open society are much better and nicer things to have, even if it's difficult or uncomfortable sometimes... should I wait around for universal law or angels from on high to tell me I'm right, or just go ahead and try to at least talk down some of my fellow citizens?

It's not always pretty; but as near as I can tell, it does seem to be how things actually work around here.  We have as much justice as we're willing to work at, and in whatever form we're willing to make it, and that's it.  That's all she wrote.
 
2013-03-01 06:21:22 PM
Elvis Presleys Death Throne:

I'm a Junior in college, pay for my school, work for my healthcare, live on my own, have purchased my own means of protection and don't draw from any social services, and I'm a Libertarian but have always hated Republicans. There's a lot of people like me. I don't think you know what you're talking about


I disagree. As someone who has already put themselves through college, I am still able to realize the benefits the United States gave to me as a healthy, white, male.

Your protection is partially paid by me so you can have access to medical, police and fire departments within a reasonable distance.
Your health care is probably the cheapest in the nation as a "healthy, white, male" that is apart of a collective pool.
Your education was when I helped pay for you to go from K-12 grades, with electricity, heating/cooling, technology, food and having other supplies available.
Your infrastructure is the roads, power-lines, Internet, telephone, sewage/water lines and that I help pay.
Your money probably came from a business that requested federal/state grants and/or loans; and additionally has to keep you safe through various regulations like OSHA.

So get off you survivalist soapbox, kiddo.
 
2013-03-01 06:34:31 PM

quickdraw: Satan's Bunny Slippers: welcome to FARK

You'll get no snark from me. (hugs)

I had something similar in my spine that they were able to scoop out without taking too much else. Scary shiat. It sounds like you are getting some good care. Courage.


That's great!  I heartily do NOT recommend keeping it long enough to give it a name.  :)  Thanks for the hug too.  At least Larry doesn't interfere with my drinking.

/and yeah, I I've got some great docs.
 
2013-03-01 06:37:23 PM
All these posts and no Andrew Ryan reference...
fc05.deviantart.net
 
2013-03-01 06:41:45 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: hubiestubert: It wasn't Romney.

In other words you voted for Obama.


Like most of us.
 
2013-03-01 06:48:51 PM

dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?


Because someday, you will be old and sick.
 
2013-03-01 06:53:28 PM

dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?


Because most of us would rather live in a first world country.
 
2013-03-01 06:56:11 PM

Rwa2play: Muta: Conservatism, Real Conservatism, is strong in our nation's colleges and universities but the liberal media skewing the polls to make it seem like conservatism isn't strong.  In the 3 years I've been at Liberty University , not once has anyone asked what my political feelings are.  I bet the students at Stanford or the University of Michigan get asked all the time.

Uh, right.  Keep telling yourself that.  Liberty (aka Jerry Falwell U)...right, keep telling yourself that.


Dude.


/obvious troll should be obvious
 
2013-03-01 07:14:04 PM

Via Infinito: Satan's Bunny Slippers:

Blacked out driving home from work.  Was lucky as all fark that I just went straight off the road into a field and rolled, and didn't hit anyone else.  Until that day, I had no idea, no headaches, blurred vision, nothing.

Oh, and to be honest, I'm just dealing.  I have more days than I'd like to admit of wine induced why the fark me crapattitude.

But the cats are less than truly sympathetic, so I give up after a few hours.  :)

That's scary as shiat. I'm really sorry. Do you still have blackouts? Can you still drive?
I'm not going to lie, that situation is all kinds of suck. My heart goes out to you.
Most of us have pity parties when our f*cking jeans get a little tight.
You're absolutely entitled to your "why me?" days since you actually have a good farking reason.

I hope you get plenty of kitty purrs. It's true that cats aren't particularly "sympathetic" but I always seem to feel better when my kitty is purring on me.


WOW! Thank you for the Total Fark! You're far too kind, really. :)
 
2013-03-01 07:30:16 PM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: Via Infinito: Satan's Bunny Slippers:

Blacked out driving home from work.  Was lucky as all fark that I just went straight off the road into a field and rolled, and didn't hit anyone else.  Until that day, I had no idea, no headaches, blurred vision, nothing.

Oh, and to be honest, I'm just dealing.  I have more days than I'd like to admit of wine induced why the fark me crapattitude.

But the cats are less than truly sympathetic, so I give up after a few hours.  :)

That's scary as shiat. I'm really sorry. Do you still have blackouts? Can you still drive?
I'm not going to lie, that situation is all kinds of suck. My heart goes out to you.
Most of us have pity parties when our f*cking jeans get a little tight.
You're absolutely entitled to your "why me?" days since you actually have a good farking reason.

I hope you get plenty of kitty purrs. It's true that cats aren't particularly "sympathetic" but I always seem to feel better when my kitty is purring on me.

WOW! Thank you for the Total Fark! You're far too kind, really. :)


You're very welcome. I'm not magical and I can't reach through the computer and give you hugs or make tumors disappear, but at least I can gift some TF!!
 
2013-03-01 07:32:25 PM

Via Infinito: Satan's Bunny Slippers: 

WOW! Thank you for the Total Fark! You're far too kind, really. :)

You're very welcome. I'm not magical and I can't reach through the computer and give you hugs or make tumors disappear, but at least I can gift some TF!!


And now you can see the Caturday threads before they hit the main page! Kitties FTW!
 
2013-03-01 07:37:04 PM

Snarfangel: Wadded Beef: slayer199: Wadded Beef: It's libertarian obfuscation. "Look, we're happy to give to charities of our choice for society! I just don't want the government to make us do it" translates to "I'm not going to do shiat. Let somebody else contribute. F-you...I got mine." That they bring up everyone having to contribute and pooling funds (re: healthcare) "by gunpoint" is the real culprit in an appeal to emotion.

Ok, using the term by gunpoint was probably not a good choice of words, but the point remains.  The government takes money from one group to give to another by force (or threat of force) is against a principle of individual liberty.  Rather than one individual infringing on another individual's liberty a majority uses the government to do so.

So, in other words, "F-you. I got mine."

So we are trying to decide between "F-you, I got mine" and "F-you, I want yours."


No, we are trying to decide between "F-you, I got mine", and "Here's your bill. Cash or credit?"
 
2013-03-01 07:42:34 PM

Via Infinito: Via Infinito: Satan's Bunny Slippers: 

WOW! Thank you for the Total Fark! You're far too kind, really. :)

You're very welcome. I'm not magical and I can't reach through the computer and give you hugs or make tumors disappear, but at least I can gift some TF!!

And now you can see the Caturday threads before they hit the main page! Kitties FTW!


Awesome. :) I'm currently feeding a stray in addition to my 3. I'll be in early!
 
2013-03-01 09:00:06 PM
www.bitlogic.com
 
2013-03-01 09:09:52 PM

50 years?


2.bp.blogspot.com
media.salon.com
media.salon.com
media.salon.com
www.freewoodpost.com
media.salon.com
media.salon.com
media.salon.com
media.salon.com
watchseries24.com
1.bp.blogspot.com
media.salon.com
media.salon.com
media.salon.com

election.princeton.edu

www.wired.com

50 if it were 1.
 
2013-03-01 09:42:09 PM

El Dudereno: Rwa2play: Muta: Conservatism, Real Conservatism, is strong in our nation's colleges and universities but the liberal media skewing the polls to make it seem like conservatism isn't strong.  In the 3 years I've been at Liberty University , not once has anyone asked what my political feelings are.  I bet the students at Stanford or the University of Michigan get asked all the time.

Uh, right.  Keep telling yourself that.  Liberty (aka Jerry Falwell U)...right, keep telling yourself that.

Dude.


/obvious troll should be obvious


Well yeah...thing is guys like him get bites.
 
2013-03-01 09:52:12 PM

TofuTheAlmighty: The GOP is really caught in a bind. The elite care for nothing but shoveling more money to rich people. They've used racial and cultural resentment and tribalism to scare up votes for 40 years. But demographic changes and the universe's long moral arc are slowly evaporating the majority they once commanded.


That's a beautiful phrase, there.
 
2013-03-01 11:04:51 PM

Some 'Splainin' To Do: Bull.

Small government resonates right up to the moment you explain that you'll be cutting the part of the government that they happen to like and/or depend upon. No one wants to shrink those programs. It's only ever the nebulous programs used by "cheats and parasites" that people want cut.

By and large people prefer the reality of having social safety nets, in spite of all the attempts to anger them with talk of welfare queens and what have you. And that makes sense, since if you can prevent someone from falling through the cracks, you have an chance to restoring them to a position of being a productive and contributing member of society. Without those safety nets, those people are simply lost and that represents a loss to the whole.

So yeah, it's easy to get people excited about "fiscal conservatism", right up until the point where they begin to appreciate what, precisely, that entails. Once that epiphany kicks in, the Libertarian message loses a lot of its luster, which is why the party can never get any traction in spite of the fact that every Libertarian insists that the logic of the party is self-evident.

/ As for "personal responsibility", I think that the word's out that this is basically code for a lack of corporate liability.


I already explained that libertarians are against corporatism and corporations in general for the simple reason that the corporate management is NOT head criminally liable for negligence.  They're willing to take a risk on putting out a dangerous product because even with lawsuits and fines, they'll come out ahead.  We were philosophically against the bailouts (banks and automotive).  I hate the idea that my tax dollars went to bail out businesses with a failing business model because of corporate cronyism.  When libertarians say they're in favor of a laissez-faire economy, that means survival of the fittest...not survival because the government will save your ass when you fail.

Both parties play the corporate game...and the LP doesn't.  That hurts us in the long run.
 
2013-03-01 11:29:34 PM

keylock71: Here's the thing that keeps me from voting for Libertarians.

I do like what a lot of Libertarians say, but there's also a lot of their platform that just strikes me as having a total disregard for those who, for whatever reason, aren't able to "pull themselves up by their boot straps" and "take care of themselves". Their ideology never seems to address that in any detail.

Also, the idea that we can trust the private sector to regulate themselves and not put their own profit over the greater good of the citizens strikes me as extremely naive and ideologically based. We've seen time and time again what happens when the private sector is left to their own devices. The idea that poor people, the disabled and the elderly can be provided for by private sector and the "free market" is also extremely naive... One need only look at how the poor were "cared for" prior to and during the industrial revolution to see the end result of that kind of ideology.

It just strikes me as too ideological... very similar to Communism. They just aren't that concerned with the reality that exists and what to focus on the ideal world they want to create.

My Libertarian friends get all bent out of shape when they can barely managed to get double digit numbers of support for their candidates, but they fail to see that they are the ones who have to convince the voters why they should support the LP. They spout platitudes and ideals, but hardly ever explain how these ideals will be achieved in the real world.

It also doesn't help that half the time "Libertarian" Candidates are either former GOP politicians or complete loons.

My opinion, of course, but I've yet to be convinced by any Libertarian why I should vote for their party or candidates. It's their job to convince me if the want my vote. So far, they haven't.


American Libertarians have the same problems as American Liberal Christians; we're too quiet.

The Santorums and the Pauls, for example, are holding themselves up as representatives of their respective ideologies, at the expense of those of us less ideologically congruent. The onus is on those who dissent to say so. To a lesser extent, the "Noblesse Oblige" or "Rockefeller" Republicans are developing a similar problem.

The Christians at least have those liberal nuns; we (Libertarians) have no real analog, and nobody but ourselves to blame.
 
2013-03-01 11:34:19 PM
the gop is done

republicanism


left libertarian. voluntary charity. co-operatism, mutual aid. not mandated, but instead at the choice of the individual. hide assets to feed your families. localize. is this shiat crazy:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEe_eraFWWs ?

a necessity, build your communities. the national parties are done. go to state county neighborhood. the feds lost once they gave up control of the currency to private banks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewRjZoRtu0Y

there is no reason for discussion. it is done.

love your family, help them live. however you define it.
 
2013-03-01 11:34:35 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: hubiestubert: It wasn't Romney.

In other words you voted for Obama.


It's going to get very lonely for people like you in America, as the rest of the nation slowly pulls its head out of its collective, Reagan-scented ass and leaves you behind.

Not that you'll care much, since you've already "got yours", right?
 
2013-03-01 11:48:27 PM

GAT_00: industrial feudalism


Can you sum up "Industrial Feudalism"? I tried google but just came up with some libertarian nonsense I couldn't follow.
 
2013-03-02 12:04:26 AM
What happened to the good ol' days when college kids joined fringe political cults like LaRouche or Ron Paul? Did their brainwashing camps go bankrupt or something?
 
2013-03-02 12:17:01 AM

knowless: the gop is done

republicanism

left libertarian. voluntary charity. co-operatism, mutual aid. not mandated, but instead at the choice of the individual. hide assets to feed your families. localize. is this shiat crazy:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEe_eraFWWs ?

a necessity, build your communities. the national parties are done. go to state county neighborhood. the feds lost once they gave up control of the currency to private banks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewRjZoRtu0Y

there is no reason for discussion. it is done.

love your family, help them live. however you define it.


left libertarianism is dead from the get go

at least the right libs have a hope.. until it collapses
 
2013-03-02 12:49:44 AM
Yep. The only thing the GOP has going for it is that the democrats are still the democrats.
 
2013-03-02 01:34:35 AM

tripleseven: palelizard: tripleseven: skullkrusher: tripleseven: Oh, yeah, I had another libertarian tell me that he 100% believed that "the poor" should be able to sell their organs.

and you presumably don't think people should be allowed to do this? Someone can volunteer to donate an organ but they cannot be compensated for it?

No, they should not, because it means the organ goes to the highest bidder.  Thereby skewing the recipients based on wealth.

Did you really need that explained to you?

Why should anyone but the donor or the recipient have any say in the matter?  If you want to donate your organs upon death, you can.  If someone else wishes to sell a kidney to pay for college, they should be allowed to as well.

Or do you think everyone should be forced to donate their organs into a shared pool?

Buying an organ from someone because they "need the money" is also exploitative of the less fortunate.
It's not like they're selling a car or a piece of jewelry to make rent or something, it's irreplaceable.
If you cannot see the problem in that, you may be a "libertarian"

Goes along with the "I got mines, fark you" mantra.


it is legal to sell your hair, blood, sperm, or eggs, participate in clinical trials for unapproved pharmaceuticals, carry to term a stranger's baby, and if you know the right people, you can sell your organs.

you can sell your wedding ring, you can empty your kids' college funds, you can sell your prescriptions instead of taking them. you can go to a check-cashing business and pay them money to give you your money. you can stiff a waitress, you can work a triple shift and leave your kids home alone, you can take uppers and drive your 18-wheeler for 24 hours straight.

if you're desperate for money, you WILL submit yourself to some sort of exploitation. organ sales are not, in this regard, unique.

/yep, I'm 8 pages late and reading the whole thread
 
2013-03-02 01:45:11 AM
College Republicans have been claiming to be libertarians for decades.  They parrot preach the drivel gospel of Ayn Rand because they're mindless corporatist drones edgy and courageous lovers of liberty
 
2013-03-02 01:45:52 AM

dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?


because you're not a corporate shill?
 
2013-03-02 02:02:54 AM

slayer199: A Dark Evil Omen: "Libertarians" are a bunch of authoritarian corporatist gasbags who pay lipservice to social issues as a vote-getting strategy.

Citation please, otherwise, you're just coming off as an ignorant gasbag with zero understanding of the LP.

We're about as anti-authoritarian as you can get without being an anarchist.


He's needs a citation for his own opinion? Riiiiiiight.
 
2013-03-02 06:35:59 AM

winterbraid: American Libertarians have the same problems as American Liberal Christians; we're too quiet.


No offense, but they also seem to share another trait... A certain smugness that their ideology is the only correct path and anyone who doesn't subscribe to it is lost, or blinded by the media, or dependent on the state or any number of criticisms why we haven't seen the light. With Libertarians, it doesn't seem to occur to them that maybe their ideas aren't fully thought out or that their ideas are just not attractive to enough Americans to make them a viable option at the national level. The fault is always with the person you're trying to convince and never the ideology you're peddling.

Like I've said, I've heard nothing from any Libertarian that is convincing enough for me vote for their candidates. I listen to the sales pitch, which consists of a lot of pie in the sky idealism, but then I look at the candidates they put forth. It's either some failed/disgruntled Republican politician or some nut job. Then when their candidate is lucky to get 5% support, the narrative turns to either people are too ignorant or blinded by the Big Two or the media is conspiring to keep the Libertarian Party down.

Let the Libertarians start from scratch... Get elected in large numbers as city councilors, selectmen, alderman, mayors, state legislators, treasurers, etc. at the state and local level. Let's see some real world applications of their political, social and financial policies. If they are as successful and good for the country as the LP says they are, then they will start gaining more support and eventually be able to challenge at the national level.

Until then, I'm not really interested, nor am I going to vote for someone who is essentially a Republican without all the social conservative nonsense.
 
2013-03-02 06:39:17 AM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Says all you need to know about the Libertarian Party.


Hey fark you too buddy

Ain't you ever read "Bob Barr Saves the Day?"
 
2013-03-02 07:34:31 AM
winterbraid:
American Libertarians have the same problems as American Liberal Christians; we're too quiet.


Libertarians have not managed to move the needle in the popular vote in 30 years, despite being the loudest minority on the internet. I think that's not your problem.
 
2013-03-02 08:33:17 AM

Bucky Katt: College Republicans have been claiming to be libertarians for decades.  They parrot preach the drivel gospel of Ayn Rand because they're mindless corporatist drones edgy and courageous lovers of liberty


Ayn Rand, author of Mine! Mine! Mine Kamph.
 
2013-03-02 08:38:08 AM

slayer199: Ah, good to see all the Fark libs and conservatives hating on the LP.  Republicans hate us because of our social liberalism and Democrats hate us because of our fiscal conservatism.     Both sides do everything they can to exclude the LP (and the Green Party) from the process.  Why?  Fear.  A party that promotes social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and smaller government will resonate with voters.


Except it doesn't because you don't have anyone in your little Party yet that is A) worth a shiat and that B) people would want to vote for.
 
2013-03-02 08:46:05 AM

Muta: Conservatism, Real Conservatism, is strong in our nation's colleges and universities but the liberal media skewing the polls to make it seem like conservatism isn't strong.  In the 3 years I've been at Liberty University , not once has anyone asked what my political feelings are.  I bet the students at Stanford or the University of Michigan get asked all the time.


Conservatism is strong at your college kiddo, not everywhere. Most colleges are not fundamentalist Christian schools like yours is (thank whatever gods exist). And there are conservatives everywhere, but they are few and far between at most schools. I have been on the campuses of many large and small universities - your statement is not factually correct. And you proved it by stating your "3 years at Liberty" in such a way that you are still that young, and still attending. Doesn't mean that you don't have an opinion, but in this case, your opinion is misguided and false.
 
2013-03-02 09:01:04 AM

my lip balm addiction: Muta: Conservatism, Real Conservatism, is strong in our nation's colleges and universities but the liberal media skewing the polls to make it seem like conservatism isn't strong.  In the 3 years I've been at Liberty University , not once has anyone asked what my political feelings are.  I bet the students at Stanford or the University of Michigan get asked all the time.

Conservatism is strong at your college kiddo, not everywhere. Most colleges are not fundamentalist Christian schools like yours is (thank whatever gods exist). And there are conservatives everywhere, but they are few and far between at most schools. I have been on the campuses of many large and small universities - your statement is not factually correct. And you proved it by stating your "3 years at Liberty" in such a way that you are still that young, and still attending. Doesn't mean that you don't have an opinion, but in this case, your opinion is misguided and false.


He must know. Liberty University markets itself as being the largest Christian university in the world and conservatives incessantly whine about the oppression of Christianity in this country. I have to conclude Poe's Law is at work and Muta's having fun.
 
2013-03-02 09:25:00 AM

RockofAges: American "libertarianism" is literally corporatism ... ie. effective authoritarianism led by corporate (read: non-accountable to the public in any political way) actors. It is more tyrannical than any democratic governance possible because it is so far removed from any responsibility to citizens) actors.

The rest of the world considers libertarianism to be what Americans term "left libertarianism" (ooh! ooh! <-- right here! me!). That means we're smart enough to know that corporations aren't people, my friends, and that socialism is very nearby to our territory economically, but that liberals can ALSO be statists, and we don't necessarily like that when it infringes on our personal freedoms.

I suggest American "libertarians" do some readings that don't come from Regnery press on the subject and figure out what true liberty (ie. egalitarian individualism) is all about.


While plenty of libertarians aren't corporatists or étatiste diminutif (the Ron Paul types who hate only FEDERAL tyranny), many libertarians are as you say - corporatists who believe that voluntary slavery justifies any excesses.  It doesn't matter if the "voluntary" slavery is a result of removing all other options, the fact is that the person CHOSE the only thing left to them that allows them to survive means that one can oppress at will.
 
2013-03-02 09:28:19 AM

PsiChick: I've said it before and I'll say it again: My generation  does not like bigotry. Run on a platform that  earns you a reputation for bigotry, not to mention the nickname 'Party of Rape', and my generation will treat you like the walking jokes you are.


Good. I hope you and other folks your age do everything to vote against that type of BS at every turn, every mid-term, every primary, every general election. Those ideas and ideals need to go the fark away and we can only do it if the younger generation stays strong and engaged.
 
2013-03-02 09:40:49 AM

my lip balm addiction: PsiChick: I've said it before and I'll say it again: My generation  does not like bigotry. Run on a platform that  earns you a reputation for bigotry, not to mention the nickname 'Party of Rape', and my generation will treat you like the walking jokes you are.

Good. I hope you and other folks your age do everything to vote against that type of BS at every turn, every mid-term, every primary, every general election. Those ideas and ideals need to go the fark away and we can only do it if the younger generation stays strong and engaged.


If only.  I can't tell you how many outraged, protesting, active LGBT kids at UVA admitted to me they didn't vote in VA's 2010 elections.  Farkers organize protests for a living wage for the UVA proletariat and then let the GOP take over the farking government.  In fact, next time one of those little bastards complains, I'll make sure to point out it's their own goddamn fault.
 
2013-03-02 09:41:45 AM
2011 elections, not 2010.
 
2013-03-02 11:46:31 AM

give me doughnuts: Nothing wrong with eugenics as an idea. It's just the implementation that always gets screwed up.


Starting with: trying to breed a better human is being done by existing humans.
 
2013-03-02 01:28:23 PM

abb3w: give me doughnuts: Nothing wrong with eugenics as an idea. It's just the implementation that always gets screwed up.

Starting with: trying to breed a better human is being done by existing humans.


Well plus eugenics in practise generally is backwards - breeding dogs and cats shows us that almost always creates fairly dumb, average, and hereditary weak individuals that are very average and similar to each other. If you want to create extraordinary individuals and new combinations and ideas, then the way to go about it is to increase geographic mobility, and prefer mixed race (and mixed nationality, and so on) parents than more similar parents.
 
2013-03-02 03:07:27 PM

xria: eugenics in practise generally is backwards - breeding dogs and cats shows us that almost always creates fairly dumb, average, and hereditary weak


You appear to know little about animal breeding. Dogs were initially bred into working categories - hunting, guarding, ratting, etc. (and as meat animals). Working cats have only one job which is mousing and I don't know any evidence that breeding improved their mousing ability - one could always just adopt the kittens of feral cats which by their survival were good at catching small animals.

Of course when dogs and cats only function as pets  they are often only selected for appearance and personality while their other traits degenerate.

If the Nazis had won then during their 1000 year Reich  they well could have  bred such categories as perfect soldier, worker, technocrat, beautiful sex slave, etc., but I don't know. During their time in power they did have breeding programs to perfect the Aryan type - maybe they thought that the perfect Aryan would be the best for all such categories.
 
2013-03-02 10:22:12 PM

m00: Unfortunately, there is no Libertarian mass media. There's Democratic mass media (NBC). There's Republican mass media (FOX). There's no Libertarian Media. Why? Because the large corporations that exist via government welfare which own the media companies would not exist in any system that was remotely libertarian-minded. All the big news outlets in the US might as well be propaganda machines for the specific viewpoints of the conglomerates which own them.


There are two types of libertarians.  The wealthy "got mine, fark you!" types who only care about fiscal policy and don't care about social issues, and the young "I want weed!" type who only care about drugs.

FOX News appeals to the first group just fine.  Yeah, they might be against gay marriage and abortion, but half the libertarians I talk to would have absolutely no problem if these things were outlawed by the government.
 
2013-03-02 10:24:55 PM

m00: So no, people who practice Libertarianism are at a disadvantage when it comes to become wealthy, because their beliefs exclude them from the single most effective way of obtaining obscene wealth. Which is, getting the government to steal it from the middle class


Explain to how how Ron Paul supported his income again?
 
2013-03-02 10:27:10 PM

m00: So no, people who practice Libertarianism are at a disadvantage when it comes to become wealthy, because their beliefs exclude them from the single most effective way of obtaining obscene wealth. Which is, getting the government to steal it from the middle class


cache.gawker.com
 
2013-03-02 10:38:32 PM

slayer199: I already explained that libertarians are against corporatism and corporations in general for the simple reason that the corporate management is NOT head criminally liable for negligence.


And yet I never see the libertarian movement calling for justice when actual corporate abuse occurs, unless it's actually somehow an attack on government.

For instance, I see libertarians complaining about the bailouts on wall street.  I don't ever see them complaining that the people responsible need to be prosecuted and go to jail.
 
2013-03-03 11:14:41 AM

schrodinger: m00: Unfortunately, there is no Libertarian mass media. There's Democratic mass media (NBC). There's Republican mass media (FOX). There's no Libertarian Media. Why? Because the large corporations that exist via government welfare which own the media companies would not exist in any system that was remotely libertarian-minded. All the big news outlets in the US might as well be propaganda machines for the specific viewpoints of the conglomerates which own them.

There are two types of libertarians.  The wealthy "got mine, fark you!" types who only care about fiscal policy and don't care about social issues, and the young "I want weed!" type who only care about drugs.

FOX News appeals to the first group just fine.  Yeah, they might be against gay marriage and abortion, but half the libertarians I talk to would have absolutely no problem if these things were outlawed by the government.


there's one type of schrodinger. Stupid.
 
2013-03-03 08:11:54 PM

schrodinger: For instance, I see libertarians complaining about the bailouts on wall street. I don't ever see them complaining that the people responsible need to be prosecuted and go to jail.


You realize that would also include members of the government.
 
2013-03-04 12:15:45 AM

xria: Well plus eugenics in practise generally is backwards - breeding dogs and cats shows us that almost always creates fairly dumb, average, and hereditary weak individuals that are very average and similar to each other.


More because of excessively narrow optimization on arbitrary preconceived parameters, without considering negatives external to the considered parameters that might potentially outweigh them.
 
2013-03-04 12:20:03 AM

slayer199: schrodinger: And yet I never see the libertarian movement calling for justice when actual corporate abuse occurs, unless it's actually somehow an attack on government.For instance, I see libertarians complaining about the bailouts on wall street. I don't ever see them complaining that the people responsible need to be prosecuted and go to jail.

You realize that would also include members of the government.


Thank you for proving my point.

You can't just say, "These CEOs did something wrong and need to go to jail."

You have to some look for a way blame government for their actions.

Find me examples of mainstream and well known libertarians calling for CEOs to go to jail for reasons other than "got to close with the government."
 
2013-03-05 04:09:59 AM

keylock71: winterbraid: American Libertarians have the same problems as American Liberal Christians; we're too quiet.

No offense, but they also seem to share another trait... A certain smugness that their ideology is the only correct path and anyone who doesn't subscribe to it is lost, or blinded by the media, or dependent on the state or any number of criticisms why we haven't seen the light. With Libertarians, it doesn't seem to occur to them that maybe their ideas aren't fully thought out or that their ideas are just not attractive to enough Americans to make them a viable option at the national level. The fault is always with the person you're trying to convince and never the ideology you're peddling.

Like I've said, I've heard nothing from any Libertarian that is convincing enough for me vote for their candidates. I listen to the sales pitch, which consists of a lot of pie in the sky idealism, but then I look at the candidates they put forth. It's either some failed/disgruntled Republican politician or some nut job. Then when their candidate is lucky to get 5% support, the narrative turns to either people are too ignorant or blinded by the Big Two or the media is conspiring to keep the Libertarian Party down.

Let the Libertarians start from scratch... Get elected in large numbers as city councilors, selectmen, alderman, mayors, state legislators, treasurers, etc. at the state and local level. Let's see some real world applications of their political, social and financial policies. If they are as successful and good for the country as the LP says they are, then they will start gaining more support and eventually be able to challenge at the national level.

Until then, I'm not really interested, nor am I going to vote for someone who is essentially a Republican without all the social conservative nonsense.


sad but true, especially lately. do you remember 10-20 years ago when the national party wanted all the libertarians to move to new hampshire? lulz all around.

toomuchwhargarbl: winterbraid:
American Libertarians have the same problems as American Liberal Christians; we're too quiet.

Libertarians have not managed to move the needle in the popular vote in 30 years, despite being the loudest minority on the internet. I think that's not your problem.


the internet has no real effect on elections IMO, i think the real problem is the aforementioned smugness.
 
Displayed 467 of 467 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report