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 468
    More: Obvious, Fox News, GOP, Republican, talking points, lecture hall, political parties in the United States, students  
•       •       •

3759 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»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 468 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report