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  
•       •       •

3753 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 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.
 
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 closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report