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 210
    More: Obvious, Fox News, GOP, Republican, talking points, lecture hall, political parties in the United States, students  
•       •       •

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



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-01 11:03:12 AM  
26 votes:
It's not just college kids, folks. Unless the party purges the Crazy Train, they're not going to get my vote either, and I'm in my early 40s. At this point, it's not just the social issues, but how economic issues are used to further those social issues, and how the refusal to contemplate prudent fiscal policy is draining the nation's coffers and impacting growth and opportunity. The party isn't just out of touch, the leadership is actively promoting an agenda that is curtailing the nation's future.

Not that a lot Libertarians are any better. The typical Libertarian candidate today promotes an agenda that is naught but a brand of NeoFeudalism that is even worse than their Republican counterparts. I had hopes for the Modern Whigs, but the TEA Party nonsense pretty much ate up their momentum, which is exactly what it was designed to do. The sad fact is, many Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke pot, and that is not the basis for real progress. We need better thinking, not just the same old, with a few whistles and bells to draw in the unwary...
2013-03-01 11:35:52 AM  
15 votes:

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


Because industrial feudalism is a really bad way to run the world.
2013-03-01 11:29:16 AM  
15 votes:

hubiestubert: Not that a lot Libertarians are any better.


Libertarians are Republicans who are embarrassed to call themselves Republicans.
2013-03-01 11:56:53 AM  
13 votes:

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


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


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

Guess what kid? I don't want to pay for your education, healthcare, protection or social services either over the course of your life, but I did, because I want to live in a 1st world society and not some 3rd world libertarian shiat-hole.
2013-03-01 11:49:39 AM  
12 votes:

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

Who did you vote for in November?


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

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

The party is sick right now. Not just the obstructionism in the Congress, but the party has to figure out if using anger and vitriol to further an economic agenda that really puts the middle class on an ice floe is worth it. The cash from the Religious Right and the Idiot Brigade is nice, but it means putting in planks on the platform that run entirely counter to sound economic and the principles of this nation. I had hopes that the party would come to its sense after McCain lost, but instead they doubled down on the DERP and threw away efficient spending and taxation for some mixed message "clarion call" to the faithful, and it is growing even worse after Romney's loss. I haven't changed my stances on efficient taxation and regulation, but the party has shifted further and further from those principles, and given the leadership's stricter policies for staying in lockstep, I can't in good conscience support their vision. Here and there ARE good candidates, but they are growing fewer and far between. In the end, it comes down to voting for the candidate with best vision, and damn the initial after that name, but lately, it's growing harder and harder to find Republicans who are worth the effort. Snowe is retiring--and I was glad to work on her campaign back in the day--and there are just too many ideologues who are seeking office, as opposed to folks who want to pull up their sleeves and work at solutions.
2013-03-01 12:09:22 PM  
10 votes:

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


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

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

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

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

"But the free market!" no it won't. You already have huge, multinational actors with considerable power over resources, labor and governments. What do you think would happen if we took the few chains we have off? You think they'd be gracious benedictors and disband so little guys could compete? No! They'd go to war and the only victors would be modern day Rockefellers. It'd be Standard Oil and Carnegie Steel all over again.
2013-03-01 12:42:19 PM  
8 votes:

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

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


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

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

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

There's an idea that ultimate freedom is actually a pretty good recipe for Hell: do as you please, but brace yourself for a million other unbound devils doing as they please to you.  If there's a core "fear of Libertarianism," it's that unchaining all the giants at once will only drop us all squarely in The Hell of Do As Thou Will, surrounded by the older kids with the bigger sticks.  Their answers as to what might keep that from happening tend to be unconvincing.
2013-03-01 12:20:40 PM  
8 votes:

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


Personally, I found leaving college and getting a job to be far more effective at shattering any "libertarian" illusions about how the world is run. It's one thing to sit around and talk about how the government is going to take your money and slow down your talents, but once you become a corporate drone and realise that your employer is going to use you and screw you the earliest chance they get, you learn to appreciate some of these "socialist" ideas like workers rights, and social insurance.
2013-03-01 11:53:08 AM  
8 votes:

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

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

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

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

/Don't argue from the extremes.


There are more options than "authoritarian capitalism" and "authoritarian communism". Profit-seeking private business vs. government is a completely false dichotomy (and is a very good summation as to why right-wing "libertarians" are authoritarians who stole their name from a bunch of French anarchists as a cover).
2013-03-01 11:48:08 AM  
8 votes:
If the Republican Party stood by it's professed tenets of limited government, there wouldn't be a need for a Libertarian Party.
2013-03-01 12:18:42 PM  
7 votes:
Here's the thing that keeps me from voting for Libertarians.

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

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

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

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

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

My opinion, of course, but I've yet to be convinced by any Libertarian why I should vote for their party or candidates. It's their job to convince me if the want my vote. So far, they haven't.
2013-03-01 12:01:56 PM  
7 votes:

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


It would, if such a party existed. The libretartian party thinks we can simply free market the poor into not existing, which has never worked in the history of humanity, and the majority of this country doesn't think Dickensian England would be a nice place to live.
2013-03-01 12:00:29 PM  
7 votes:

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


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

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


I especially love "Well, once you turn 27, you have to pay for that." as an argument against Obamacare.  Because without it, you'd have to pay for that much earlier than 27.
2013-03-01 02:19:26 PM  
6 votes:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  I look forward to hearing of your enlightenment when your farking "benign" brain tumor shows up.
2013-03-01 12:58:28 PM  
6 votes:

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

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

/registered Green


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

I would like to say, outside of my time in the military, the government has never bother to give me a piss test to find out what I've done over the last few weeks. Corporate invasion of my free time is already way too much and, in order to participate in this market, I have no choice but to comply. The government seems to have a reactionary take on violations, corporations have a pre-emptive "prove you're innocent" approach and get away with it. I'd hate to give them another picogram of power.
2013-03-01 12:14:40 PM  
6 votes:
They lost me, already. I was registered as an R as late as 2008. After the shiat they pulled with the first debt ceiling mess, I refuse to vote for anyone with an R next to their name.
2013-03-01 12:06:57 PM  
6 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: hubiestubert: It wasn't Romney.

In other words you voted for Obama.


He was the only sane choice. And I've been fairly free about that for over four years now. I gave up my party affiliation this year, after the Primary, because the party has lost its way. I tried for years to try to help steer us out of the hole, but folks kept saying "DIG FASTER! IT'S THE ONLY WAY!"
2013-03-01 12:03:38 PM  
6 votes:

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


Except getting screwed over and lorded over can come from factions that *aren't* the government.
2013-03-01 11:50:10 AM  
6 votes:

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


The only thing that libertarian fiscal policy leads to is a failed nation?  That's a good enough reason for most.
2013-03-01 12:14:35 PM  
5 votes:

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


That's a different discussion altogether.

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

If anything, the US needs some more socialism... or more logically... reallocate some of  the socialist funding of the defense industry to infrastructure and the middle class.
2013-03-01 12:10:01 PM  
5 votes:

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


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

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


She certainly seems to have no idea what Obamacare is, if she thinks that her generation is going to somehow "have to pay for" my mandatory medical insurance 7 years from now.
2013-03-01 11:54:35 AM  
5 votes:
You mean younger people don't hate gays, women, women's freedom to choose, minorities, non-Xtians, and people with less money.

that is fantastic!

You don't have to be an asshole to be a Republican. But it helps.
2013-03-01 11:50:49 AM  
5 votes:
The GOP is really caught in a bind. The elite care for nothing but shoveling more money to rich people. They've used racial and cultural resentment and tribalism to scare up votes for 40 years. But demographic changes and the universe's long moral arc are slowly evaporating the majority they once commanded.
2013-03-01 11:49:39 AM  
5 votes:
""Evolution is a fact. Climate change is happening. There's no arguing that. If you're arguing that, you're a fool," Jones says."

THIS
2013-03-01 10:43:05 AM  
5 votes:
You have your whole life to be a sexless, uptight whiner. Why would you ruin your time in college?
2013-03-01 12:45:35 PM  
4 votes:
Oh, and this...

i301.photobucket.com
2013-03-01 12:07:31 PM  
4 votes:

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


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

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

//Albeit, "libertarian, but actually logical about it" is basically what the Green Party is, unlike the Libertarians they've fielded more than one or two candidates I've actually found worth voting for.
2013-03-01 12:06:04 PM  
4 votes:

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

These college students may be the subgroup where


Libertarian = Republican who likes marijuana and prostitutes.
2013-03-01 12:05:42 PM  
4 votes:

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


Libertarians would be more trustworthy if they advocated for protection against monopolies.
2013-03-01 12:01:30 PM  
4 votes:

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


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

Libertarians just may as well call themselves "shamed Republicans."
2013-03-01 12:01:24 PM  
4 votes:
"May have" lost voters for the next 50 years?  I'm 24 years old, and I can speak for myself and the vast majority of my friends (most of whom weren't particularly politically inclined before) when I say that the GOP has, without question, lost voters for 50 years at a minimum.  I currently don't plan to vote for any Republican at any level of government for the rest of my life, period.   I'm not saying I'm an automatic Democratic vote, but I'll vote for anyone short of Neo-Nazis before I vote GOP.

The GOP is profoundly screwed when the old people start dying off in droves.
2013-03-01 11:48:35 AM  
4 votes:

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

Libertarians are Republicans who are embarrassed to call themselves Republicans.




i865.photobucket.com
2013-03-01 11:45:05 AM  
4 votes:
I hope the GOP continues doing what they are doing. Its working out really well for them.
2013-03-01 11:43:04 AM  
4 votes:

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


i46.tinypic.com
2013-03-01 02:04:47 PM  
3 votes:

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


It's a retarded ideology that doesn't take into account human nature?
2013-03-01 01:50:18 PM  
3 votes:

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

2013-03-01 01:43:39 PM  
3 votes:

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


AHAHAHA. Libertarians? Socially liberal? Your 'best' politicians are Ron and Rand Paul- the eldest of which is an ob-gyn who is anti-abortion. You can't call yourself 'socially liberal' if personal choice only extends to people with a penis.
2013-03-01 01:03:23 PM  
3 votes:

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

You people do not get it, do you?


Get what? Get that I believe there's too much leeway and we need to regulate? I know many think regulations are too stiff already, I simply disagree. De-regulation has led to failure for society throughout history while empowering the already powerful. If that's your thing, fine. I just don't like that kind of a future.
2013-03-01 12:51:24 PM  
3 votes:

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


That's the beauty of Libertarianism.  They keep trying to make the party viable from the top down, rather than from the ground up, an approach that pretty much dooms them to single-digit irrelevancy.  But, since their precious ideology can never actually be put into practice, it cannot be fully disproven, and that allows them to endlessly speculate about how much better off everything and everyone would be if we operated on what is pretty much the Honor System.
2013-03-01 12:48:59 PM  
3 votes:

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

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

/registered Green


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

www.leftycartoons.com
2013-03-01 12:39:54 PM  
3 votes:
Tea Party, Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, etc... They're all just regressives that are ashamed of the Republican label.
2013-03-01 12:12:03 PM  
3 votes:

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


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

//I think at some point I said I'd stop pointing this out, I should stop drinking at work.  And message-boarding at work, I guess, but meh.
2013-03-01 12:09:57 PM  
3 votes:

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


Even though it never has.

Americans, for a variety of mostly stupid reasons, like the words "smaller government," but hate the reality of smaller government.
2013-03-01 12:08:52 PM  
3 votes:
I always thought it was for a different reason. College Republicans were my first experience with Republican talking-point spewing True Believers. Once you're exposed to those douche cadets, it really sours you on the party.
2013-03-01 12:01:20 PM  
3 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: hubiestubert: It wasn't Romney.

In other words you voted for Obama.


AHA!!!! Indisputable proof that hubie is a libby-libby-libby-lib and should never try to claim he is a moderate or conservative because ehe voted for the Kenyan socialist.  Get out of our party and never come back you traitor!!!
2013-03-01 11:54:41 AM  
3 votes:

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

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

Cite?


Laissez-faire capitalist economics have a miserable track record. The "citation" is all of the 20th century and every place these ideas have been tried.
2013-03-01 11:53:50 AM  
3 votes:

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

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


What Libertarians/GOP (like there's a difference in this country) really want is to live in Somalia, except without all the black people.
2013-03-01 11:50:50 AM  
3 votes:

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

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

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

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

/Don't argue from the extremes.


I didn't, you did.  And a libertarian style government is in effect industrial feudalism.  It's not my fault if you view the truth as extreme because you don't like it.
2013-03-01 11:50:20 AM  
3 votes:
I love that the advice to Republicans is always to look at the reality of their situation. This is the party that hates science, i.e. the practice of looking at reality systematically and rationally, so I don't think that's advice they're capable of taking even if they tried.
2013-03-01 11:46:37 AM  
3 votes:

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


THIS
2013-03-01 10:50:03 AM  
3 votes:
The party of Angry Old Rich White Men And Batsh*t Crazy Christian Fundamentalists is having trouble rebranding. Couldn't be the actual message could it. Nah.
2013-03-02 06:35:59 AM  
2 votes:

winterbraid: American Libertarians have the same problems as American Liberal Christians; we're too quiet.


No offense, but they also seem to share another trait... A certain smugness that their ideology is the only correct path and anyone who doesn't subscribe to it is lost, or blinded by the media, or dependent on the state or any number of criticisms why we haven't seen the light. With Libertarians, it doesn't seem to occur to them that maybe their ideas aren't fully thought out or that their ideas are just not attractive to enough Americans to make them a viable option at the national level. The fault is always with the person you're trying to convince and never the ideology you're peddling.

Like I've said, I've heard nothing from any Libertarian that is convincing enough for me vote for their candidates. I listen to the sales pitch, which consists of a lot of pie in the sky idealism, but then I look at the candidates they put forth. It's either some failed/disgruntled Republican politician or some nut job. Then when their candidate is lucky to get 5% support, the narrative turns to either people are too ignorant or blinded by the Big Two or the media is conspiring to keep the Libertarian Party down.

Let the Libertarians start from scratch... Get elected in large numbers as city councilors, selectmen, alderman, mayors, state legislators, treasurers, etc. at the state and local level. Let's see some real world applications of their political, social and financial policies. If they are as successful and good for the country as the LP says they are, then they will start gaining more support and eventually be able to challenge at the national level.

Until then, I'm not really interested, nor am I going to vote for someone who is essentially a Republican without all the social conservative nonsense.
2013-03-02 12:04:26 AM  
2 votes:
What happened to the good ol' days when college kids joined fringe political cults like LaRouche or Ron Paul? Did their brainwashing camps go bankrupt or something?
2013-03-01 06:53:28 PM  
2 votes:

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


Because most of us would rather live in a first world country.
2013-03-01 06:48:51 PM  
2 votes:

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


Because someday, you will be old and sick.
2013-03-01 04:38:12 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:49:32 PM  
2 votes:

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


Let's not forget both sides claiming Somalia is a libertarian paradise, thus proving they have absolute no clue about libertarianism.
2013-03-01 03:30:25 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:33:44 PM  
2 votes:

skullkrusher: tripleseven: skullkrusher:

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

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

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


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

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

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

Repo: The Genetic Opera is not a how-to book.
2013-03-01 01:49:17 PM  
2 votes:
I recall during the debate about HRC, every single libertarian I spoke to had these 2 talking points, and that's it:

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

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

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

Really, that's the mental capacity of a libertarian.
2013-03-01 01:20:05 PM  
2 votes:

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


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

Please name for me the specific financial regulations whose elimination would result in a government less (not more) beholden to the banking industry. Pretty please. With mutherfarking sugar on top.
2013-03-01 01:11:02 PM  
2 votes:
graphics8.nytimes.com
Says all you need to know about the Libertarian Party.
2013-03-01 12:58:04 PM  
2 votes:

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


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

/no really, the guy makes a bit of sense every now and then, far more than when he was chair of the RNC
2013-03-01 12:46:03 PM  
2 votes:

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


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

I guess that changes once you start making a lot of money and record companies get involve... Never been in that situation, myself. : ) Every band I've been in that has parted ways was usually because of clashing egos and one member thinking they're more important than the others.
2013-03-01 12:43:47 PM  
2 votes:

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


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

The economy isn't a zero sum game of course, but there will always be people that end up with little marketable skills, and with no negotiating power their wages will be pushed down by the market until they have just enough to survive and no more   (as long as no disasters occur like health problems), the only solution is either unions (which can never cover everything) or government intervention to limit how much advantage can be taken of the economically powerless at the bottom of the system.
2013-03-01 12:38:39 PM  
2 votes:

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

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


Some of them certainly are... I keep telling a friend of mine that calling people "ignorant, lazy statist leaches" because they won't vote the way you want them to isn't really the best way to get them to accept your political ideologies. They're really good at telling you what is wrong with Democratic and Republican policies, what is wrong with Socialism etc., yet their rhetoric is amazingly light regarding how they plan to put their ideology in place in the democratic republic we currently live in.
2013-03-01 12:26:28 PM  
2 votes:

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


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

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

The problem (again, from an organizational/vote-getting perspective, not a philosophical perspective, by the libertarian philosophy this is fine) is not that if you asked a libertarian whether (your example) the VAWAct falls under the government overreach category they wouldn't have an answer.  It's that if you asked five libertarians the question, you'd get eight mutually-exclusive answers.
2013-03-01 12:19:30 PM  
2 votes:

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


Uh, right.  Keep telling yourself that.  Liberty (aka Jerry Falwell U)...right, keep telling yourself that.
2013-03-01 12:18:46 PM  
2 votes:

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

Libertarians are Republicans who are embarrassed to call themselves Republicans.

[i865.photobucket.com image 360x450]


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

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

i.imgur.com
2013-03-01 12:08:57 PM  
2 votes:

Car_Ramrod: College Republicans creep me out.


During the election one came to our house for polling and out reach stuff.  I couldn't help but wonder how stupid he was for supporting a political party with a platform that was sure to screw him over.  That said... if you want to move up in a political party, there are probably more long term opportunities for a college kid in the GOP.
2013-03-01 12:05:14 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

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


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

I aman anarchist and it is plainly obvious that the LP is as authoritarian as the Dems and Repubs, if not moreso. At least the Democratic party tries to take the edge off the violent capitalist policies they support.
2013-03-01 12:02:04 PM  
2 votes:

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

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


Former Republicans got a lot of hells.

// it's all in the reflexes
2013-03-01 12:01:54 PM  
2 votes:

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


It takes about that long for someone to figure out that "the free market will police itself" is bullshiat.
2013-03-01 12:01:26 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

Cite?


The entire third world.
2013-03-01 11:59:16 AM  
2 votes:

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

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

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

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

/Don't argue from the extremes.



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

Bwaaaa haaaa haaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
2013-03-01 11:43:53 AM  
2 votes:
i204.photobucket.com
2013-03-01 10:51:08 AM  
2 votes:
So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?
2013-03-01 10:46:47 AM  
2 votes:
As a former college conservative, I can confirm.
2013-03-04 12:15:45 AM  
1 votes:

xria: Well plus eugenics in practise generally is backwards - breeding dogs and cats shows us that almost always creates fairly dumb, average, and hereditary weak individuals that are very average and similar to each other.


More because of excessively narrow optimization on arbitrary preconceived parameters, without considering negatives external to the considered parameters that might potentially outweigh them.
2013-03-02 03:07:27 PM  
1 votes:

xria: eugenics in practise generally is backwards - breeding dogs and cats shows us that almost always creates fairly dumb, average, and hereditary weak


You appear to know little about animal breeding. Dogs were initially bred into working categories - hunting, guarding, ratting, etc. (and as meat animals). Working cats have only one job which is mousing and I don't know any evidence that breeding improved their mousing ability - one could always just adopt the kittens of feral cats which by their survival were good at catching small animals.

Of course when dogs and cats only function as pets  they are often only selected for appearance and personality while their other traits degenerate.

If the Nazis had won then during their 1000 year Reich  they well could have  bred such categories as perfect soldier, worker, technocrat, beautiful sex slave, etc., but I don't know. During their time in power they did have breeding programs to perfect the Aryan type - maybe they thought that the perfect Aryan would be the best for all such categories.
2013-03-02 11:46:31 AM  
1 votes:

give me doughnuts: Nothing wrong with eugenics as an idea. It's just the implementation that always gets screwed up.


Starting with: trying to breed a better human is being done by existing humans.
2013-03-02 09:01:04 AM  
1 votes:

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

Conservatism is strong at your college kiddo, not everywhere. Most colleges are not fundamentalist Christian schools like yours is (thank whatever gods exist). And there are conservatives everywhere, but they are few and far between at most schools. I have been on the campuses of many large and small universities - your statement is not factually correct. And you proved it by stating your "3 years at Liberty" in such a way that you are still that young, and still attending. Doesn't mean that you don't have an opinion, but in this case, your opinion is misguided and false.


He must know. Liberty University markets itself as being the largest Christian university in the world and conservatives incessantly whine about the oppression of Christianity in this country. I have to conclude Poe's Law is at work and Muta's having fun.
2013-03-02 01:45:52 AM  
1 votes:

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


because you're not a corporate shill?
2013-03-02 01:45:11 AM  
1 votes:
College Republicans have been claiming to be libertarians for decades.  They parrot preach the drivel gospel of Ayn Rand because they're mindless corporatist drones edgy and courageous lovers of liberty
2013-03-02 12:49:44 AM  
1 votes:
Yep. The only thing the GOP has going for it is that the democrats are still the democrats.
2013-03-02 12:17:01 AM  
1 votes:

knowless: the gop is done

republicanism

left libertarian. voluntary charity. co-operatism, mutual aid. not mandated, but instead at the choice of the individual. hide assets to feed your families. localize. is this shiat crazy:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEe_eraFWWs ?

a necessity, build your communities. the national parties are done. go to state county neighborhood. the feds lost once they gave up control of the currency to private banks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewRjZoRtu0Y

there is no reason for discussion. it is done.

love your family, help them live. however you define it.


left libertarianism is dead from the get go

at least the right libs have a hope.. until it collapses
2013-03-01 11:34:35 PM  
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: hubiestubert: It wasn't Romney.

In other words you voted for Obama.


It's going to get very lonely for people like you in America, as the rest of the nation slowly pulls its head out of its collective, Reagan-scented ass and leaves you behind.

Not that you'll care much, since you've already "got yours", right?
2013-03-01 11:04:51 PM  
1 votes:

Some 'Splainin' To Do: Bull.

Small government resonates right up to the moment you explain that you'll be cutting the part of the government that they happen to like and/or depend upon. No one wants to shrink those programs. It's only ever the nebulous programs used by "cheats and parasites" that people want cut.

By and large people prefer the reality of having social safety nets, in spite of all the attempts to anger them with talk of welfare queens and what have you. And that makes sense, since if you can prevent someone from falling through the cracks, you have an chance to restoring them to a position of being a productive and contributing member of society. Without those safety nets, those people are simply lost and that represents a loss to the whole.

So yeah, it's easy to get people excited about "fiscal conservatism", right up until the point where they begin to appreciate what, precisely, that entails. Once that epiphany kicks in, the Libertarian message loses a lot of its luster, which is why the party can never get any traction in spite of the fact that every Libertarian insists that the logic of the party is self-evident.

/ As for "personal responsibility", I think that the word's out that this is basically code for a lack of corporate liability.


I already explained that libertarians are against corporatism and corporations in general for the simple reason that the corporate management is NOT head criminally liable for negligence.  They're willing to take a risk on putting out a dangerous product because even with lawsuits and fines, they'll come out ahead.  We were philosophically against the bailouts (banks and automotive).  I hate the idea that my tax dollars went to bail out businesses with a failing business model because of corporate cronyism.  When libertarians say they're in favor of a laissez-faire economy, that means survival of the fittest...not survival because the government will save your ass when you fail.

Both parties play the corporate game...and the LP doesn't.  That hurts us in the long run.
2013-03-01 06:56:11 PM  
1 votes:

Rwa2play: Muta: Conservatism, Real Conservatism, is strong in our nation's colleges and universities but the liberal media skewing the polls to make it seem like conservatism isn't strong.  In the 3 years I've been at Liberty University , not once has anyone asked what my political feelings are.  I bet the students at Stanford or the University of Michigan get asked all the time.

Uh, right.  Keep telling yourself that.  Liberty (aka Jerry Falwell U)...right, keep telling yourself that.


Dude.


/obvious troll should be obvious
2013-03-01 06:19:07 PM  
1 votes:

m00: Wasteland: I don't believe in inalienable rights at all, frankly.  [...]  So yeah... different (and in my case, admittedly odd) underlying perspective here.

(Having to snip quite a bit of this, we're both getting fairly wordy...)

You know how when sometimes people say "Bob did X, and X is illegal. Therefore he is a criminal and deserves the proscribed punishment."? I have a big problem with this, because absent some higher truth than what government dictates, there is no room for arguing that X shouldn't be illegal, or the punishment shouldn't be as severe as it is, or Bob didn't deserve his fate. It's the same circular logic as "There is nothing wrong with Blanks being slaves, because slavery is legal."

There's no need for any kind of  final arbiter of truth whatsoever, when it comes to making these sorts of changes.  Practical grounds- X shouldn't be illegal because it's relatively harmless, the punishment shouldn't be so severe because it's overcrowding our prisons and costing us too much- are all that's required to start a perfectly valid argument over whether it's time to change the rules.  Hell, a simple consensus of purely emotional opinion is often enough.  Absent some higher standard for the rules themselves, there's also no higher standard to say that you aren't allowed to make changes to them.  Saying that there's no room to do so is to place an artificial limit on the process, for no obvious reason.  There may be limits in place on how you get to go about trying to make those changes...  but again, those are just another subset of the rules themselves.


I think especially in this day and age, when governments are doing all sorts of terrible things that there needs to be some sort of moral truths that we can claim they are violating. Whereas you have a functional perspective, and I can see the merit of this -- but slavery was a very functionally useful institution. How does one end it, absent a concept of inalienable rights?

The way it ended in our own country, here in the real world: enough people decided that its downsides had begun to outweigh the benefits it produced, they eventually decided it was enough of a point to be worth fighting and even killing over in conjunction with related issues, and they then squelched the dissenting opinion through main force.  Inalienable rights didn't free the slaves, and the now ex-slaves didn't suddenly find themselves equal citizens under the law.  God and/or the universe didn't do, or endorse, or support any of that.  Humans did- just as humans enslaved one another and declared some be unequal in the first place.  We, as a society, changed our collective average mind.

We're undergoing a similar process with gay rights, right now.  Was there some great Universal Truth that came shining through, all of a sudden?  Or did enough years of seeing gay men and women living openly, and for the most part seeming just like everyone else, slowly break down the sense of otherness about homosexuality until the most recent generations reached a kind of consensus tipping point?  My money's on the latter.

Throw society into enough chaos, or rattle the consensus of society the right way, and it could all come crashing back down tomorrow.  How many airplanes, do you suppose, would have to hit how many office buildings, in order to convince a controlling majority of Americans that it's time to round up all o' them damn Muzzies and run them out of the country; or just say to hell with it and start shooting them outright?

And if I truly believe that that's a bad idea, and that religious freedom and an open society are much better and nicer things to have, even if it's difficult or uncomfortable sometimes... should I wait around for universal law or angels from on high to tell me I'm right, or just go ahead and try to at least talk down some of my fellow citizens?

It's not always pretty; but as near as I can tell, it does seem to be how things actually work around here.  We have as much justice as we're willing to work at, and in whatever form we're willing to make it, and that's it.  That's all she wrote.
2013-03-01 06:10:15 PM  
1 votes:

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


Bull.

Small government resonates right up to the moment you explain that you'll be cutting the part of the government that they happen to like and/or depend upon. No one wants to shrink  those programs. It's only ever the nebulous programs used by "cheats and parasites" that people want cut.

By and large people prefer the reality of having social safety nets, in spite of all the attempts to anger them with talk of welfare queens and what have you. And that makes sense, since if you can prevent someone from falling through the cracks, you have an chance to restoring them to a position of being a productive and contributing member of society. Without those safety nets, those people are simply lost and that represents a loss to the whole.

So yeah, it's easy to get people excited about "fiscal conservatism", right up until the point where they begin to appreciate what, precisely, that entails. Once that epiphany kicks in, the Libertarian message loses a lot of its luster, which is why the party can never get any traction in spite of the fact that every Libertarian insists that the logic of the party is self-evident. 

/ As for "personal responsibility", I think that the word's out that this is basically code for a lack of corporate liability.
2013-03-01 06:02:17 PM  
1 votes:
Shame on those above who used the reductio ad somalium argument.
2013-03-01 05:50:36 PM  
1 votes:

Snarfangel: Wadded Beef: slayer199: Wadded Beef: It's libertarian obfuscation. "Look, we're happy to give to charities of our choice for society! I just don't want the government to make us do it" translates to "I'm not going to do shiat. Let somebody else contribute. F-you...I got mine." That they bring up everyone having to contribute and pooling funds (re: healthcare) "by gunpoint" is the real culprit in an appeal to emotion.

Ok, using the term by gunpoint was probably not a good choice of words, but the point remains.  The government takes money from one group to give to another by force (or threat of force) is against a principle of individual liberty.  Rather than one individual infringing on another individual's liberty a majority uses the government to do so.

So, in other words, "F-you. I got mine."

So we are trying to decide between "F-you, I got mine" and "F-you, I want yours pay your goddam tab for the services you receive."

2013-03-01 05:44:09 PM  
1 votes:

LouDobbsAwaaaay: I especially love "Well, once you turn 27, you have to pay for that." as an argument against Obamacare.  Because without it, you'd have to pay for that much earlier than 27.


Also, insurance is a win-win idea. I don't see why that's so hard for people to grasp.

Opposing Obamacare is like opposing the rule that everyone drive on the right.Sure it's an arbitrary rule that infringes on my right to drive every which way, and it isn't in the Constitution, but if we didn't have it, we couldn't drive.
2013-03-01 05:32:30 PM  
1 votes:

skullkrusher: if the framework is largely minarchistic people are free to form their own associations, collectives, etc within that framework giving a greater variety of options. It is certainly "freedom enhancing" to have a bare bones socio-political infrastructure within which people can find and/or create groups that are more to their tastes. Just not terribly practical.


Sure, I'm not recommending that as way to structure a society, of course, but for an individual, it's definitely an option.

I met people who had been traveling from country to country and working in the gray economy for 20+ years... They weren't limiting themselves by borders and their only ideology was if they didn't like where they were, they went somewhere else. It's entirely possible to do, if one has the will and the brains to do it.

I wasn't one of those people, at any rate... I was just a kid from a shiatty little mill town in MA, who wanted to travel around and get stoned and laid. Those activities took money, which I didn't have, so I had to work whatever shiatty job I could get. Looking back now as a 41 year old man, with a house, family and career, it was probably the best time in my life. Don't get me wrong, I'm quite happy being a freelance designer/art teacher living back in that same shiatty mill town, but those years opened me up to a lot of things I probably wouldn't have experienced if I stayed put in the States.

Anyway, CSB, I know, but when I hear people biatching about big, intrusive government and how their freedoms are being impeded, I like to offer them a solution.
2013-03-01 05:16:18 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:10:47 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:07:47 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:05:24 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:03:47 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:59:40 PM  
1 votes:
cdn.motinetwork.net
2013-03-01 04:50:21 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:34:23 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:24:07 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:22:53 PM  
1 votes:

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.
m00
2013-03-01 04:21:15 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:01:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:47:10 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:45:01 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:43:14 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:27:16 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:24:02 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:22:26 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:11:00 PM  
1 votes:

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.
m00
2013-03-01 03:08:59 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:06:51 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:59:30 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-03-01 02:58:22 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:55:49 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

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

I'm a Junior in college, pay for my school, work for my healthcare, live on my own, have purchased my own means of protection and don't draw from any social services, and I'm a Libertarian but have always hated Republicans. There's a lot of people like me. I don't think you know what you're talking about


are you studying at the University of Somalia? This is Fark, remember.
2013-03-01 02:54:56 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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


I don't want to put words in tripleseven's mouth, but I'd be willing to bet that he actually supports a social safety net that will help someone change their life WITHOUT forcing them to endanger it and endure a lifetime of medical problems as a result of unfortunate financial difficulties.

"How come that girl can't suck a dick for food money if she wants to? Come 'ere, baby... Daddy will help you outta your troubles! What's the problem? I'm just trying to help her!"


Government so big that it cannot fit in your uterus but can certainly serve as a chastity belt when there's money involved.
2013-03-01 02:53:45 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

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


I'm a Junior in college, pay for my school, work for my healthcare, live on my own, have purchased my own means of protection and don't draw from any social services, and I'm a Libertarian but have always hated Republicans. There's a lot of people like me. I don't think you know what you're talking about
2013-03-01 02:52:01 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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



I don't want to put words in tripleseven's mouth, but I'd be willing to bet that he actually supports a social safety net that will help someone change their life WITHOUT forcing them to endanger it and endure a lifetime of medical problems as a result of unfortunate financial difficulties.

"How come that girl can't suck a dick for food money if she wants to? Come 'ere, baby... Daddy will help you outta your troubles! What's the problem? I'm just trying to help her!"
2013-03-01 02:50:57 PM  
1 votes:

thrasherrr: palelizard: We're rational people--we can draw a line to stop without carrying an idea out to the furthest flung conclusion.

Let's propose a non-extreme example.

Say I'm broke.  I decide to sell both kidneys to fund a whirlwind tour of all the orange countries on the map.
I'll spend the rest of my life on dialysis on the state's dime.  Should I be allowed to do it?


Given the state of our dialysis system, you'll only be a burden for a year or so.
m00
2013-03-01 02:45:50 PM  
1 votes:

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


Anybody should be able to sell their organs. Why not? Don't people have ownership over their own bodies? I think do many people confuse permission with endorsement. If someone wants to hack off their own hand and eat it for dinner, I can't say I agree with that -- but what business is it of mine? I find it disturbing and offensive, but who am I to impose my judgement and tastes on another person?

I understand the point made a bit down-thread, that something is seriously wrong if we live in a society where people are so poor they are forced to sell their organs. But the solution isn't to make organ-selling illegal. The solution is to improve the economic situation so that people are not forced to sell their organs.
2013-03-01 02:44:36 PM  
1 votes:

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

/nay


Philisophically, I would think you could.  By having the (anarchist) freedom to do as you will, you could theoretically remove your ability to do so, or more specifically, submit yourself to absolute control by another.

I mean, you shouldn't, but I think from a thought exercise perspective, you could.
2013-03-01 02:38:06 PM  
1 votes:

Felgraf: skullkrusher: tripleseven: skullkrusher:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Besides, there IS a black market for organs. Making it a regulated white market would reduce the dangers, not increase them.
m00
2013-03-01 02:35:42 PM  
1 votes:

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


Because the Republican Party has claimed your vote, and you are a thief if you try to vote for whom you want rather than whom the Republican Party tells you.
2013-03-01 02:34:44 PM  
1 votes:

Deucednuisance:
Mrs. Nuisance has a friend...



That sucks, man... Though, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a Libertarian to get back to you.
Real world applications of their philosophy really isn't their forté.
2013-03-01 02:32:47 PM  
1 votes:

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


So they are politicians? Get outta here.
2013-03-01 02:27:24 PM  
1 votes:
This is true.  The influence of Big Religion on the GOP is it's biggest albatross.  Young people are fleeing from religion because of its anachronistic views on sex, sexuality, women, etc., and so the political party that panders to Big Religion is going to see a similar exodus (pardon the pun).
2013-03-01 02:26:32 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

/no longer friends with that asshole


As I said I was pretty much an anarcho-capitalist in college. I graduated with a 3.5 and worked part time during the year and fulltime in the summers. So much for that generalization, huh?
2013-03-01 02:25:56 PM  
1 votes:

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

You're confused between social liberalism and fiscal conservatism.

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

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

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


I don't have the facts on me, but my guess is that you are very, very, very wrong on the bolded point above.
2013-03-01 02:16:48 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

Did you really need that explained to you?

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

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


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

Goes along with the "I got mines, fark you" mantra.
2013-03-01 02:12:24 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

Did you really need that explained to you?


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

Or do you think everyone should be forced to donate their organs into a shared pool?
2013-03-01 02:06:50 PM  
1 votes:
50 years from now, everyone calling themselves "libertarians" right now will belong to the democratic party, and those of us who self-identify as liberals will belong to some kind of yet-to-emerge labor and environmental coalition.
2013-03-01 01:59:53 PM  
1 votes:
Saved this from a thread here almost a year ago, releveant as ever:

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

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

Environment? Sure I'll extract a few billion out of that forest, that mine, that ocean and destroy it in the process. If you don't like it don't do business with me and I'll go out of business. In the mean time there are lots of hungry folk out of there that WILL do business with me because they don't know any better and they are as greedy as me. If you sue I'll be on the islands retired while you deal with my $500/hour lawyers. Good luck collecting if you win.
2013-03-01 01:58:29 PM  
1 votes:

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

Sorry, that's just how it is.

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

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

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


I was very, very confused.

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

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

I've gotten better.

//I still don't know why I equated gun control with Republicans.
2013-03-01 01:56:48 PM  
1 votes:
How can anyone be conservative, particularly in college? I was farking and taking bong hits and other drugs. Man, college was fun.
2013-03-01 01:56:39 PM  
1 votes:

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


and you presumably don't think people should be allowed to do this? Someone can volunteer to donate an organ but they cannot be compensated for it?
2013-03-01 01:53:10 PM  
1 votes:

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


I guess that does sort of fit in with the libertarian ideology, as you're not hurting anyone but yourself...
2013-03-01 01:52:42 PM  
1 votes:
verbaltoxin: slayer199: Wadded Beef: "F-you, I got mine" is social liberalism?

You're confused between social liberalism and fiscal conservatism.

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

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

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

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



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

It's libertarian obfuscation. "Look, we're happy to give to charities of our choice for society! I just don't want the government to make us do it" translates to "I'm not going to do shiat. Let somebody else contribute. F-you...I got mine." That they bring up everyone having to contribute and pooling funds (re: healthcare) "by gunpoint" is the real culprit in an appeal to emotion.
2013-03-01 01:48:40 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


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

So the Pauls are just closet neo-conservatives that start yelling "I'M A LIBERTARIAN" when people get wise to their BS.
2013-03-01 01:42:54 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


FTFA.
2013-03-01 01:42:47 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

Chapter 3 would be a start though.



"All of them"

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

As I said... the "principled libertarian stand" never fails to evaporate when a single specific fact is requested.
2013-03-01 01:39:28 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

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


Libertarians aren't a hive-mind either.  Some of us recognize a certain amount of government is beneficial to society on a holistic level.  It's just where the line is drawn is often different.
2013-03-01 01:37:52 PM  
1 votes:

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


was much more of a Erasure fan myself
2013-03-01 01:36:05 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

Chapter 3 would be a start though.


"Which regulations?"  "All of them."

Are you Sarah Palin?
2013-03-01 01:18:56 PM  
1 votes:

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

You people do not get it, do you?

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

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


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

That's your argument.

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

Not the magical free market that grants wishes and makes dreams come true.
2013-03-01 01:17:04 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

I don't think that made your party look socially liberal. Sure, you say you are, but Republicans also say they're fiscally responsible.
2013-03-01 01:15:51 PM  
1 votes:

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

You're confused between social liberalism and fiscal conservatism.

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

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

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


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

You just proved my f*cking point.
2013-03-01 01:11:36 PM  
1 votes:

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

You people do not get it, do you?

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


You don't get that because of and despite the massive piles of regulations, shiat like this is going to happen when banks and huge corporations run the government. How did these banks get so farking big and powerful? farking government. They got so big because they own congressmen, they send their cronies into the regulatory agencies (only the big ones get to do this), they have the explicit guarantees from the government (and the winks and nods) that their assets will be protected, so gamble away, we've got your back. You think deregulation empowers the already powerful? You think they want deregulation? Hell no, they love regulations. That's what gives the powerful few the most power.
2013-03-01 01:10:20 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

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

So, yeah... less refreshing than you might imagine.
2013-03-01 01:07:39 PM  
1 votes:

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


You're confused between social liberalism and fiscal conservatism.

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

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

Your "Fark you, I got mine" is nothing more than an appeal to emotion.  Libertarians believe that people should be able to reap the rewards of success and if they so choose, donate their time or money to any cause they'd like.  Being are forced to do so at gunpoint (government) that is something libertarians would object to.  There will always be poor people but pretending that more government or government redistribution of wealth leads to prosperity is naive.  There's been a War on Poverty going on for 80 years and it hasn't made a dent in the average 14-15% that live in poverty.  In short, dramatically reduce spending and taxes across the board.
2013-03-01 01:04:55 PM  
1 votes:

jigger: Somacandra: /registered Green

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

am i doing this right?


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

If anything, that's backwards.  A lot of nominal Democrats are at base Greens, but either too embarrassed or too pragmatic to vote (or register) that way.
2013-03-01 01:00:22 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


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

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

/Democrats ain't better
//The banks have bought out congress and we're too socially isolated to give a damn
2013-03-01 12:56:43 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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


right. Insurance would be big(ger) business
2013-03-01 12:51:34 PM  
1 votes:
FTFA:


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

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

/she be a kollage stoodent
2013-03-01 12:50:45 PM  
1 votes:

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


You people do not get it, do you?
2013-03-01 12:50:33 PM  
1 votes:

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


You can't have a successful party in the US that openly wants to make life harder for corporations.  The Super PACs would buy more tv time than can exist in the space time continuum.
2013-03-01 12:48:14 PM  
1 votes:

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


I don't know if that conclusion necessarily follows from your premise but I don't know of any Libertarian candidates who have advocated that CEO's should somehow be above the law. I would suggest its political cronyism that makes them untouchable, and I can certainly think of manifestations of that in both Republican and Democratic political machines in American history.
2013-03-01 12:47:43 PM  
1 votes:

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

Please proceed governor...

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

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

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


right. Shareholders should also be liable for misconduct or damages of the companies they own stock in. Theoretically. This would probably hinder growth a metric shiatton though
2013-03-01 12:46:57 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

I guess there's nothing about libertarianism that would prevent insurance companies from existing so it might end up coming out in the wash.
2013-03-01 12:45:14 PM  
1 votes:

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


I for one would like to see a debate between Libertarian and Constitution party candidates. I think there might be more differences than commonly assumed.
2013-03-01 12:44:12 PM  
1 votes:
deathstarpr.com

You have done THAT to yourself.
2013-03-01 12:44:07 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

/registered Green
2013-03-01 12:43:13 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


Pretty much that.  Nothing disabuses you of any notions of being a Randian superman like the real world.
2013-03-01 12:43:02 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

Seriously, third party votes are a waste of time nationally. So if you want to see the opposite ideology in office then by all means vote the third rail. I don't mind, it works for those of us who work towards more and better dems.
2013-03-01 12:41:12 PM  
1 votes:

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

Please proceed governor...

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


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

If a CEO was held legally and criminally liable for the actions of corporate misconduct, we'd see a lot less corporate misconduct. As it stands a company is only responsible to their stockholders and the stockholder's primary interest is to see the stock increase and/or pay dividends.
2013-03-01 12:40:43 PM  
1 votes:

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

Libertarians are Republicans who are embarrassed to call themselves Republicans.


Libertarians are what Republicans should be. Instead, it got hijacked by the Christian Right
2013-03-01 12:39:33 PM  
1 votes:
FTFA: Leone is a fiscal conservative, but when it comes to the GOP, he thinks the party needs to take a different approach to some issues.
 "They need to change their outlook, especially on social issues, which is why I identify myself more as Libertarian," Leone says. "But I think that they are still very much in the right in terms of economic issues, the Republicans are."

So in other words, you're a moran.
2013-03-01 12:39:07 PM  
1 votes:

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

Please proceed governor...

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


the aspect of corporations that is incompatible with libertarianism, imo, is the limited liability of the ownership. If you own a plumbing contractor that is set up as an llc and you flood a person's house destroying their priceless collection of Beanie Babies, barring criminal negligence, they can only hope to recoup from the business and not you and your partners. This is incompatible with libertarianism in my view as it hinders a person's recourse in response to a rights violation. People should not be able to shield themselves from liability in that way. Making the corporation a separate entity from the people who own and run it is contrary to the most basic right-libertarian principle of protection of property rights.
2013-03-01 12:37:11 PM  
1 votes:

Zerochance: img.photobucket.com

Image attachment FAIL


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

"Yes because the City of Chicago has a giant 50 yard wide moat and 50 foot high steel walls around it, with robotic sentries at all entry points, and laser xray scanning detection equipment that vaporizes any gun it detects"
2013-03-01 12:36:23 PM  
1 votes:
libertarianism is fine as a personal political philosophy, it makes little sense as a governing philosophy.
2013-03-01 12:35:43 PM  
1 votes:
To be fair, a lot of people are self-described libertarians because they think the GOP does not punish the poors sufficiently.
2013-03-01 12:35:41 PM  
1 votes:

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

That's a different discussion altogether.

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

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

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


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

I get some of the libertarian ideals, I can understand the desire to be left alone--especially from those who are already moderately successful. I do, though, believe in heavy regulation of industry and business, which requires a healthy and likely somewhat large (at least not "small") government. Oversight and managed markets, to me, is very much better than laisses-faire capitalism any day. Look back to the last financial crisis and imagine how much more often and how much worse those incidents would be without the very light regulation we have today. I think that would be awful.
2013-03-01 12:34:12 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

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

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

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

No real distinct turning points or platform changes a la the GOP's gradual transition post-big-tent.
2013-03-01 12:33:45 PM  
1 votes:

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

What do you mean by libertarian?


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

Also, as an aside, I'm not sure how a libertarian government would deal with issues of corruption, which I feel is one of the major problems with our current form of government.
2013-03-01 12:33:21 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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


Being a musician myself, I also know a good deal of Libertarians.  Not all are drug users, but all are self-important narcissists who seem to feel any sort of communal living is a HUGE infringement on their liberties.
2013-03-01 12:32:49 PM  
1 votes:

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


"F-you, I got mine" is social liberalism?
2013-03-01 12:29:13 PM  
1 votes:

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


It doesn't help that they're smug, condescending bastards, even when their arguments are bottom-of-the-barrel retarded.
2013-03-01 12:28:14 PM  
1 votes:

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

That's a different discussion altogether.

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

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

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

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


It could, but I'd have to hear what you're going to replace it with first.  There does need to be a way to recognize, in a legal fashion, when individuals choose to work collectively.  There's a number of things we'd expect the free market to provide (as it should) that only become profitable/efficient when done on a scale out of reach of most individuals.
2013-03-01 12:27:26 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

/was a member of LP until they went off the deep end in early 2009
2013-03-01 12:23:26 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


Dude, there is a certain segment of the hipster population that is absolutely up in arms about non pasteurized cheese products.
2013-03-01 12:22:08 PM  
1 votes:
Hey, I'm still a registered repub, have been for nearly 40 years. I did it so that I can vote for the worst possible candidate in the primaries (I was "Massachusetts Jew for Huckabee" in 2008) and it's sooo easy to say no when they call up and ask for money.
2013-03-01 12:21:35 PM  
1 votes:

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

That's a different discussion altogether.

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

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

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


submitted before completing that thought. Abolition of corporations could do a great deal towards reducing income inequality
2013-03-01 12:21:33 PM  
1 votes:

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


Depends on where the deregulation is going to take place.  Any area expected to police itself has to be one where lots of people have easy access to full disclosure about the topic, otherwise the assumptions of the free-market won't hold true and the model collapses.  One can be in favor of stem cell research and drug legalization while acknowledging something like the EPA is needed.
2013-03-01 12:20:29 PM  
1 votes:

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

That's a different discussion altogether.

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

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


abolition of corporations as we know them is entirely compatible with libertarianism and I'd argue necessary under it.
2013-03-01 12:19:03 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

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

//The problem with the GOP is that most of the  adult adherents aren't measurably better.  I mean, some are (McCain's usually not that bad, though he's inconsistent and kinda senile, for instance) but most aren't and electing folks like TX's new senator isn't helping the average.
2013-03-01 12:17:06 PM  
1 votes:

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


Ok, let's see:

Social liberalism?  Down with that.
Fiscal Conservatism?  No, sorry.  I'm more of a fiscal moderate (spend when we need to, save for a rainy day when we don't) and this is not a political stance anybody sane should take.
Personal responsibility?  Yeah, sure, try and do that with human nature being what it is.  If anybody thinks for a moment that people in Washington (past or present) will take responsibility for something bad happening, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you, cheap.
Smaller government?  See Fiscal Conservatism; situations merit either significant involvement with the government or very little involvement.  It depends on the topic at hand.
2013-03-01 12:16:56 PM  
1 votes:

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


What do you mean by libertarian?
2013-03-01 12:15:17 PM  
1 votes:

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


In Austin I saw a guy at a Ron Paul rally holding up a sign reading "SELF OWNERSHIP" on one side and "RAW MILK" on the other. If that doesn't get the kids fired up about Libertarianism, I don't know what will!
2013-03-01 12:14:07 PM  
1 votes:

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


Anarchistic government? Is that where you vote for a president and he never shows up to work or immediately quits after election?
2013-03-01 12:12:17 PM  
1 votes:
Libertarians these days aren't much different from mainstream Republicans except for their love of weed and bitcoins.
2013-03-01 12:08:41 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


That's a good summary.
2013-03-01 12:07:11 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

Cite?

Look at any country with a very conservative fiscal policy.


you can't govern a large and diverse country with a anarchistic or even minarchistic government. It just won't work. However, folding aspects of libertarianism into our modern, largely statist government is not a bad thing.
2013-03-01 12:06:55 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

That leaves a write in candidate. I was torn between Jill Stein and writing in Larry Ellison, because he's one of a few people who I agree with on economic issues and literally can't be bribed should he take office.
2013-03-01 12:01:46 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

We're about as anti-authoritarian as you can get without being an anarchist.
2013-03-01 12:01:20 PM  
1 votes:
Conservatism, Real Conservatism, is strong in our nation's colleges and universities but the liberal media skewing the polls to make it seem like conservatism isn't strong.  In the 3 years I've been at Liberty University , not once has anyone asked what my political feelings are.  I bet the students at Stanford or the University of Michigan get asked all the time.
2013-03-01 12:00:34 PM  
1 votes:
The only "libertarian" principles these Libertarians have is drugs and samer weddings.
2013-03-01 11:59:22 AM  
1 votes:
And even then, "Libertarian" is often just a stop on the road to outright "liberal."  It'll probably take just a couple more years of college (and if not by then, certainly grad school) for some of these kids to realize that libertarianism is just a big of a crock as regular old Republicanism.
2013-03-01 11:56:08 AM  
1 votes:

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

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


Buddhists be mad creative with their Hells...
2013-03-01 11:55:29 AM  
1 votes:
Ah, good to see all the Fark libs and conservatives hating on the LP.  Republicans hate us because of our social liberalism and Democrats hate us because of our fiscal conservatism.     Both sides do everything they can to exclude the LP (and the Green Party) from the process.  Why?  Fear.  A party that promotes social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and smaller government will resonate with voters.
2013-03-01 11:53:41 AM  
1 votes:

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

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

Can you read my mind?


I see... mildly deviant smut, and early lunch cravings.
2013-03-01 11:53:35 AM  
1 votes:

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

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


Cite?
2013-03-01 11:51:07 AM  
1 votes:

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

3.bp.blogspot.com

2013-03-01 11:51:00 AM  
1 votes:
College Republicans creep me out.

And they always remind me of PCU.
2013-03-01 11:48:49 AM  
1 votes:

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

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


Can you read my mind?
2013-03-01 11:41:31 AM  
1 votes:

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

Libertarians are Republicans who are embarrassed to call themselves Republicans.


Libertarians are Republicans who admit that they can't do Calculus.
2013-03-01 11:41:15 AM  
1 votes:

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

Libertarians are Republicans who are embarrassed to call themselves Republicans.


In before Libertarians = Republicans...aww damn it.
 
Displayed 210 of 210 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report