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.

(Salon)   The question libertarians just can't answer   (salon.com) divider line 611
    More: Obvious, members of the United Nations, industrial society, advanced countries, political philosophy, infant mortality, open borders, Fraser Institute, economic freedom  
•       •       •

9964 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Jun 2013 at 4:07 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-06-04 01:01:43 PM
"Whay are you such a selfish, greedy prick?"
 
2013-06-04 01:06:46 PM
Why are leather dusters so damn stylish?
 
2013-06-04 01:07:14 PM
What rhymes with "orange"?
 
2013-06-04 01:10:22 PM
Why do we drive on parkways, but park on driveways?
 
2013-06-04 01:15:23 PM
I think many democracies (and republics) are libertarian in their infancies, but as they mature, government grows.  This is partly due to demands from the populace, and politicians' lust for power.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-06-04 01:15:44 PM
Again... with the language problems.  We're not talking about Libertarianism, we talking Corporate Anarchists.
 
2013-06-04 01:20:29 PM

TheHighlandHowler: I think many democracies (and republics) are libertarian in their infancies, but as they mature, government grows.  This is partly due to demands from the populace, and politicians' lust for power.


Care to name one?
 
2013-06-04 01:23:33 PM
"What are you doing outside my window with those binoculars?"
 
2013-06-04 01:23:59 PM
"How can you claim to support liberty as a concept instead of a justification for your own selfishness when you support people like RAND PAUL who has zero problems with the security state and personal lives of the citizens through their religious beliefs and fear of terrorism as well as governmental intervention into the economy on the side of business?"
 
2013-06-04 01:24:24 PM
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
 
2013-06-04 01:27:50 PM

James!: Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?


Who is Spain?
 
2013-06-04 01:29:43 PM

Shostie: James!: Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?

Who is Spain?


Balls!
 
2013-06-04 01:33:43 PM
If your approach is so great, why hasn't any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?
Lack of opportunity would be my guess.  You can't just relocate somewhere and declare a new government.  And no government is going to willingly give up power.
 
2013-06-04 01:39:21 PM
"What's your Fark handle?"
 
2013-06-04 01:40:03 PM

Honest Bender: If your approach is so great, why hasn't any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?
Lack of opportunity would be my guess.  You can't just relocate somewhere and declare a new government.   And no government is going to willingly give up power.


Just shows how little faith libertarians have in their own ideas.
Did George Washington let the British unwillingness to give up power stop him from founding the USA?
Did George Bush let Saddam's unwillingness to give up power stop him from turning Iraq into a democracy?
Did the Germans let the Soviet's unwillingness stop them from bombing Pearl Harbor?
 
2013-06-04 01:42:36 PM
"What is libertarianism? Certainly not what YOU think it is..........................................................heh. Sheeple."
 
2013-06-04 01:43:32 PM
I suggest Somalia is just such a libertarian paradise . No ,bureaucrats ,no law , no red tape, nobody getting into your bidness.
 
2013-06-04 01:44:11 PM

Karac: Just shows how little faith libertarians have in their own ideas.


You're absolutely right.  My faith in libertarianism is insufficient to motivate me to insight an armed revolution.  You caught me.
 
2013-06-04 01:46:53 PM
May as well say "Hey libs, if Republicans are so hopelessly terrible why does the country keep giving them a chance?"
 
2013-06-04 01:48:07 PM
"What is the Dewey Decimal number for a biography on Theodore Roosevelt?"
 
2013-06-04 01:51:12 PM
WTF is wrong with you?
 
2013-06-04 01:52:33 PM

TheHighlandHowler: I think many democracies (and republics) are libertarian in their infancies, but as they mature, government grows.  This is partly due to demands from the populace, and politicians' lust for power.


"From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."
 
2013-06-04 01:52:37 PM
"how did this elephant get into my pajamas?"
 
2013-06-04 01:58:54 PM
The fact that it was created by Robert Heinlein for STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND, and was never meant
to be taken seriously as an actual political system?
 
2013-06-04 02:17:35 PM

TheHighlandHowler: I think many democracies (and republics) are libertarian in their infancies, but as they mature, government grows.  This is partly due to demands from the populace, and politicians' lust for power.


It could be that they find out that libertarianism doesn't work.

Or it could be that communism works great, but that politicians' lust for power and the demands from the populace spoil those systems, too.
 
2013-06-04 02:27:26 PM

TheHighlandHowler: I think many democracies (and republics) are libertarian in their infancies, but as they mature, government grows.  This is partly due to demands from the populace, and politicians' lust for power.


Scope creep is a hell of a thing.
 
2013-06-04 02:33:45 PM
This is a pretty dumb criticism of libertarianism.
 
2013-06-04 02:33:48 PM
Socialist shopping:

cdn-static.zdnet.com

Libertarian shopping:

theeconomiccollapseblog.com
futurespassed.com

assets.nydailynews.com
 
2013-06-04 02:38:46 PM
There seem to be a lot of people who don't understand the difference between libertarians and anarchists.
 
2013-06-04 02:39:53 PM
i48.tinypic.com

libertarian taxidermy
 
2013-06-04 02:40:21 PM

Honest Bender: There seem to be a lot of people who don't understand the difference between libertarians and anarchists.


Including most "Libertarians".
 
2013-06-04 02:40:31 PM
We can't have a true libertarian country because human beings are useless and weak.
 
2013-06-04 02:42:44 PM
msnbcmedia.msn.com 

libertarian free-market competition
 
2013-06-04 02:43:27 PM
Why the Dewey Decimal System puts comics in the same section as reference?
 
2013-06-04 02:43:32 PM
Of all the stupidity and assholedom associated with libertarianism, failure to answer this question is quite a pointless thing to pick out.
 
2013-06-04 02:43:52 PM
Not to defend Libertarianism, but the question itself is a logical fallacy: argumentum e silencio.
 
2013-06-04 02:44:28 PM

Gecko Gingrich: What rhymes with "orange"?


Sporange
 
2013-06-04 02:44:37 PM
How long does it take to drive?
 
2013-06-04 02:45:27 PM
The question they can't answer really is "What happens if you actually get your way?"
 
2013-06-04 02:46:16 PM
"Can John Galt build, with his own bare hands, a rock so huge that He Himself cannot lift it and drop it on a crowd of unworthies?"
 
2013-06-04 02:46:50 PM

Honest Bender: There seem to be a lot of people who don't understand the difference between libertarians and anarchists.


They're getting better...Almost 2 hours in and no idiotic LOL Somalia yet.

Oh, wait.

sithon: I suggest Somalia is just such a libertarian paradise . No ,bureaucrats ,no law , no red tape, nobody getting into your bidness.


I stand corrected.
 
2013-06-04 02:48:56 PM
i47.tinypic.com 

libertarian surgeon general
 
2013-06-04 02:48:58 PM

timujin: Gecko Gingrich: What rhymes with "orange"?

Sporange


melange
 
2013-06-04 02:49:00 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Honest Bender: There seem to be a lot of people who don't understand the difference between libertarians and anarchists.

They're getting better...Almost 2 hours in and no idiotic LOL Somalia yet.

Oh, wait.

sithon: I suggest Somalia is just such a libertarian paradise . No ,bureaucrats ,no law , no red tape, nobody getting into your bidness.

I stand corrected.


By all means, demonstrate why the comparison is improper.
 
2013-06-04 02:50:43 PM
i47.tinypic.com 

libertarian baby
 
2013-06-04 02:51:33 PM
i41.tinypic.com
 
2013-06-04 02:52:26 PM
i43.tinypic.com 

libertarian primate exhibit
 
2013-06-04 02:53:38 PM
"Shouldn't you be dead from botulism-laden uninspected food by now?"
 
2013-06-04 02:54:20 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com

Libertarian fire department on the job.
 
2013-06-04 02:55:24 PM
"What's your girlfriend's name?"
 
2013-06-04 02:56:52 PM
i54.tinypic.com
 
2013-06-04 02:58:10 PM

gimmegimme: By all means, demonstrate why the comparison is improper.


Libertarianism is not about no laws. Not in any way shape or form. And a Libertarian voter and a volunteer firefighter,  I point and laugh at your farking ignorant picture a post or two up.
 
2013-06-04 03:00:14 PM
Why do you call yourself a Libertarian when you are just a Republican with a penchant for massive bong hits?
 
2013-06-04 03:00:22 PM

vygramul: TheHighlandHowler: I think many democracies (and republics) are libertarian in their infancies, but as they mature, government grows.  This is partly due to demands from the populace, and politicians' lust for power.

It could be that they find out that libertarianism doesn't work.

Or it could be that communism works great, but that politicians' lust for power and the demands from the populace spoil those systems, too.


The USA under the Articles of Confederation were much more libertarian than under the Constitution.  Weak central government with no ability to enforce its decisions, no ability to levy taxes,  no foreign policy to speak of (yay noninterventionism), no power to regulate trade or commerce, no courts beyond state level, and not even a national military to speak of.

That small, local government oriented libertarian dream lasted less than a decade before everyone agreed that it was an unworkable mess.
 
2013-06-04 03:00:31 PM
i40.tinypic.com 

libertarian public swimming pool
 
2013-06-04 03:00:37 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: gimmegimme: By all means, demonstrate why the comparison is improper.

Libertarianism is not about no laws. Not in any way shape or form. And a Libertarian voter and a volunteer firefighter,  I point and laugh at your farking ignorant picture a post or two up.


Why should I have to pay if my neighbor's house catches fire?  It's like car insurance.  I should have the choice whether or not I want to pay for protection against misfortune.  (And isn't misfortune generally brought on by our own mistakes?)

And why are you volunteering?  Selfishness is a virtue, friend.
 
2013-06-04 03:04:23 PM
i41.tinypic.com
 
2013-06-04 03:05:23 PM
Libertarian Medicare:

tommangan.net
 
2013-06-04 03:05:49 PM

Honest Bender: Karac: Just shows how little faith libertarians have in their own ideas.

You're absolutely right.  My faith in libertarianism is insufficient to motivate me to insight an armed revolution.  You caught me.




That's the problem with libertarians. The second you attempt to force your views own someone else, you've already broke your own ideals.

The fact is this, people do not act in everyone's best interest, business do not do the right thing because of long term. People will largely act in self interest.

Thus Libertarians are complete and absolute adolescence of politics.
 
2013-06-04 03:06:30 PM
i56.tinypic.com 

libertarian severe-weather early-warning system
 
2013-06-04 03:06:39 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: gimmegimme: By all means, demonstrate why the comparison is improper.

Libertarianism is not about no laws. Not in any way shape or form. And a Libertarian voter and a volunteer firefighter,  I point and laugh at your farking ignorant picture a post or two up.


Please, enlighten us then as to the true Libertarianism.  Feel free to include examples of how his pictures are wrong and what would be actually be the libertarian ideal, and the workable libertarian solution, in those situations
 
2013-06-04 03:07:39 PM
i51.tinypic.com 

libertarian economics
 
2013-06-04 03:09:19 PM

Darth_Lukecash: Honest Bender: Karac: Just shows how little faith libertarians have in their own ideas.

You're absolutely right.  My faith in libertarianism is insufficient to motivate me to insight an armed revolution.  You caught me.

That's the problem with libertarians. The second you attempt to force your views own someone else, you've already broke your own ideals.

The fact is this, people do not act in everyone's best interest, business do not do the right thing because of long term. People will largely act in self interest.

Thus Libertarians are complete and absolute adolescence of politics.


If a business can make $100 in profit by polluting a river until it catches fire it will.
A libertarian believes that enough people will realize that that business is behind the disaster and avoid their products enough to reduce that profit to a loss.
A realist realizes that the business will hide the source of the pollution, blame it on somebody else, or just move to China because who can even spell the name of one of their rivers?
 
2013-06-04 03:09:20 PM
My guess is that Libertarian ideas could indeed be examined by governments around the world as possible choices for implementation.

But my feeling is that a good number of them, while sound on paper, become horrendously inefficient money pits that don't pass merit.


And I have to point out that I really love these "Economic Freedom" assessments, that, among other things, automatically view less regulation as better. That isn't at all leading to particular conclusions. No sir.
 
2013-06-04 03:10:24 PM
Libertarian Municipal Water Department:

www.nicoletwater.com
 
2013-06-04 03:12:06 PM
i43.tinypic.com 

libertarian ecology
 
2013-06-04 03:12:21 PM
I think my biggest problem with Libertarianism is that it seems to constantly deny the existence of society and boils everything down to the individual.

Sure, it sounds great, until you project that individual behaviour across a whole society, and that's when it becomes pretty obvious that Libertarianism would be a pretty epic fail.
 
2013-06-04 03:13:31 PM

gimmegimme: Why should I have to pay if my neighbor's house catches fire?


Because you're not an asshole anarchist.
 
2013-06-04 03:13:37 PM
i53.tinypic.com 

libertarian corrective eye surgery
 
2013-06-04 03:14:12 PM
I think the larger, practical problem for liberarians is that even if you grant them they have a distinct set of functions they want the government to enforce, their disposition makes enforcement extremely hard, which is why they get compared to anarchists. You can't simultaneously hate government and demonize it, but simultaneously staff if and run it in a manner to effectively and without corruption enforce those particular narrow slate of laws you like. Reality doesn't work that way.
 
2013-06-04 03:15:36 PM
i53.tinypic.com 

libertarian hazmat suit
 
2013-06-04 03:15:42 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: gimmegimme: Why should I have to pay if my neighbor's house catches fire?

Because you're not an asshole anarchist.


If someone wants a fire engine to come and put out a fire, then they can pay for the privilege themselves.  When the government babies the citizenry, they have no motivation to make enough money to afford such services.
 
2013-06-04 03:17:06 PM

Karac: Please, enlighten us then as to the true Libertarianism.


Enlighten yourself.
 
2013-06-04 03:17:09 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: gimmegimme: Why should I have to pay if my neighbor's house catches fire?

Because you're not an asshole anarchist.


That's almost word-for-word why I'm for single-payer health care.
 
2013-06-04 03:17:11 PM
4.bp.blogspot.com

Libertarian aviation regulation
 
2013-06-04 03:17:36 PM
i56.tinypic.com 

libertarian theory applied to reality
 
2013-06-04 03:17:41 PM

gimmegimme: If someone wants a fire engine to come and put out a fire, then they can pay for the privilege themselves.


Maybe I was wrong and you are an asshole anarchist.
 
2013-06-04 03:18:15 PM
"WHAT'S THAT SMELL?"
 
2013-06-04 03:18:28 PM

BunkoSquad: That's almost word-for-word why I'm for single-payer health care.


Because anything other than total government control of the process is anarchy.
 
2013-06-04 03:19:11 PM
inapcache.boston.com


Libertarian FEMA response
 
2013-06-04 03:19:22 PM
But dude.... Pot would be legal! Dude!
 
2013-06-04 03:20:28 PM
Libertarian highway system.

www.advamed2009.com
 
2013-06-04 03:20:32 PM
static.neatorama.com

Libertarian building code enforcement
 
2013-06-04 03:21:54 PM

gimmegimme: If someone wants a fire engine to come and put out a fire, then they can pay for the privilege themselves. When the government babies the citizenry, they have no motivation to make enough money to afford such services.


Farck that. The responsibility is the fire's, because the fire chose to invade that home. Charge the fire with arson and put it in prison.
 
2013-06-04 03:23:40 PM

Karac: Darth_Lukecash: Honest Bender: Karac: Just shows how little faith libertarians have in their own ideas.

You're absolutely right.  My faith in libertarianism is insufficient to motivate me to insight an armed revolution.  You caught me.

That's the problem with libertarians. The second you attempt to force your views own someone else, you've already broke your own ideals.

The fact is this, people do not act in everyone's best interest, business do not do the right thing because of long term. People will largely act in self interest.

Thus Libertarians are complete and absolute adolescence of politics.

If a business can make $100 in profit by polluting a river until it catches fire it will.
A libertarian believes that enough people will realize that that business is behind the disaster and avoid their products enough to reduce that profit to a loss.
A realist realizes that the business will hide the source of the pollution, blame it on somebody else, or just move to China because who can even spell the name of one of their rivers?




The problem is that the number one thing a company says is: it's not against the law. The number two thing is that if one company does it, everyone else does it.
The biggest problem with business, it's about profit. That's it.
 
2013-06-04 03:24:13 PM

Somacandra: gimmegimme: If someone wants a fire engine to come and put out a fire, then they can pay for the privilege themselves. When the government babies the citizenry, they have no motivation to make enough money to afford such services.

Farck that. The responsibility is the fire's, because the fire chose to invade that home. Charge the fire with arson and put it in prison.


A private for-profit prison paid for by the inmates, of course.
 
2013-06-04 03:26:28 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: BunkoSquad: That's almost word-for-word why I'm for single-payer health care.

Because anything other than total government control of the process is anarchy.


I'm actually trying to picture a Libertarian approach to health care and all I can come up with are the smoking crater where the CDC used to be and the "Bring Out Your Dead" cart from Holy Grail.
 
2013-06-04 03:26:48 PM

Karac: Honest Bender: If your approach is so great, why hasn't any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?
Lack of opportunity would be my guess.  You can't just relocate somewhere and declare a new government.   And no government is going to willingly give up power.

Just shows how little faith libertarians have in their own ideas.
Did George Washington let the British unwillingness to give up power stop him from founding the USA?


Interesting that you bring that up:  The USA was pretty damned libertarian when it was founded.  In fact, the Constitution itself is pretty damned libertarian.  *PARTS* of the USA weren't very libertarian, of course, but as a whole, on the federal level, it was largely that way.   It was a big "Fark you, let us run our affairs as we see fit" not just collectively, but also at the individual level.

Unfortunately, nature (and politics) abhors a vacuum, and over time, the pressure to fill that vacuum builds up, and you get more and more regulations.  It is the unfortunate nature of organizations (and government is an organization) to expand as much as they possibly can.
 
2013-06-04 03:28:25 PM
Libertarian Parks Department:

www.tribbleagency.com
 
2013-06-04 03:29:04 PM

DamnYankees: You can't simultaneously hate government and demonize it, but simultaneously staff if and run it in a manner to effectively and without corruption enforce those particular narrow slate of laws you like.


I heartily endorse this event, idea or product.
 
2013-06-04 03:29:33 PM
Someone named gimmegimme misrepresenting libertarianism. I'll be damned. Couldn't make this shiat up.
 
2013-06-04 03:29:58 PM

dittybopper: Unfortunately, nature (and politics) abhors a vacuum, and over time, the pressure to fill that vacuum builds up, and you get more and more regulations.  It is the unfortunate nature of organizations (and government is an organization) to expand as much as they possibly can.


Again, I love how Libertarians view regulation as bad, automatically, every single time.

Why are regulations are bad?
 
2013-06-04 03:32:57 PM
a.espncdn.com 

libertarian quarterback
 
2013-06-04 03:33:24 PM

violentsalvation: Someone named gimmegimme misrepresenting libertarianism. I'll be damned. Couldn't make this shiat up.


Duder, your name is "violentsalvation."  How many strangers have you killed today?

Libertarian Supreme Court in session:

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-06-04 03:35:56 PM
i39.tinypic.com 

libertarian athletic competition
 
2013-06-04 03:37:38 PM
i39.tinypic.com 

libertarian coast guard
 
2013-06-04 03:40:28 PM
Why is submitter's mom such a whore?
 
2013-06-04 03:41:09 PM
Libertarianism would be easier to endorse if they'd only express some recognition of externalities.
 
2013-06-04 03:42:24 PM

dittybopper: Unfortunately, nature (and politics) abhors a vacuum, and over time, the pressure to fill that vacuum builds up, and you get more and more regulations.


War has a lot to do with it. It was hard in the U.S. for the North to fight its war with the South without asserting a number of expansionist powers, especially economically. There are important reasons why the National Banking Acts of 1863 and 1864 were passed during the Civil War.
 
2013-06-04 03:42:49 PM
i43.tinypic.com 

*brutal truth about libertarians*
 
2013-06-04 03:44:51 PM

vygramul: Libertarianism would be easier to endorse if they'd only express some recognition of externalities.


Keep boxing that straw man.

gameshowhost: [i43.tinypic.com image 776x509] 

*brutal truth about libertarians*


You too.

/seriously, quoting Noam Chomsky? Why don't you ask Lenin what he thought about capitalists?
 
2013-06-04 03:45:06 PM

vygramul: Libertarianism would be easier to endorse if they'd only express some recognition of externalities.


Like the Greens, Libertarianism might be easier to appreciate in its institutional form if they weren't systematically excluded from national media exposure by the Democratic and Republican parties. Don't mention the Constitution Party though. Those people are WACK.
 
2013-06-04 03:45:36 PM
Libertarian Social Security:

america20xy.com
 
2013-06-04 03:47:21 PM

gameshowhost: libertarian baby


OK, I'm going to Hell for laughing at that.
 
2013-06-04 03:48:26 PM

gimmegimme: violentsalvation: Someone named gimmegimme misrepresenting libertarianism. I'll be damned. Couldn't make this shiat up.

Duder, your name is "violentsalvation."  How many strangers have you killed today?


7 or 8. Slow day here in libertarian land, it would've been more but the bridge exploded on my way to the annual tire fire and mercury eating contest. And well, needless to say, it took my slaves a couple hours to float my war wagon across the river of fecal matter and styrofoam.
 
2013-06-04 03:49:12 PM

Hydra: quoting Noam Chomsky? Why don't you ask Lenin what he thought about capitalists?


Fine. Explain how Dr. Chomsky's description of American-style libertarianism is incorrect? The idea of private tyrannies is quite prevalent among people who otherwise might otherwise be amenable to the topic of Libertarianism. What safeguards exist in the philosophical politics of Libertarianism against the development of "private tyrannies" ?
 
2013-06-04 03:50:42 PM

violentsalvation: 7 or 8. Slow day here in libertarian land, it would've been more but the bridge exploded on my way to the annual tire fire and mercury eating contest. And well, needless to say, it took my slaves a couple hours to float my war wagon across the river of fecal matter and styrofoam.


i lol'd.
 
2013-06-04 03:51:49 PM

violentsalvation: gimmegimme: violentsalvation: Someone named gimmegimme misrepresenting libertarianism. I'll be damned. Couldn't make this shiat up.

Duder, your name is "violentsalvation."  How many strangers have you killed today?

7 or 8. Slow day here in libertarian land, it would've been more but the bridge exploded on my way to the annual tire fire and mercury eating contest. And well, needless to say, it took my slaves a couple hours to float my war wagon across the river of fecal matter and styrofoam.


Libertarian Small Claims Court:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-06-04 03:52:02 PM
i39.tinypic.com
 
2013-06-04 03:52:20 PM

BunkoSquad: "What's your girlfriend's name?"


24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-06-04 03:52:33 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Karac: Please, enlighten us then as to the true Libertarianism.

Enlighten yourself.




Okay, I just read that article.

Two things that stand out: that skepticism of government, yet groups of people making decisions are some how better. And somehow libertarians are closer to their communities.

1) the articles of confederation and a Confederation of United States of America are prime historical failures of a decentralized government. Gee that may it be a good business model.

2 you are assuming that the masses will make intelligent decisions. Any local school board will show that this is not true. We have hundreds of them banning classic books, teaching "creationism", enforcing homophobia or cutting classes materials and programs that will hurt development of their kids.

The big difference is that right and the left do care about about their families, friends and community. More so than the libertarians, whom assume people will naturally do the "right" thing.
 
2013-06-04 03:52:45 PM
Again, I ask, why are regulations automatically bad?

Bad for whom?

Are there any regulations Libertarians support?
 
2013-06-04 03:58:31 PM
i42.tinypic.com 

libertarian free-market solution
 
2013-06-04 03:59:26 PM
Why are you calling yourself a libertarian when you're really a neo-confederate?
 
2013-06-04 04:00:20 PM

Darth_Lukecash: Dancin_In_Anson: Karac: Please, enlighten us then as to the true Libertarianism.

Enlighten yourself.

Okay, I just read that article.

Two things that stand out: that skepticism of government, yet groups of people making decisions are some how better. And somehow libertarians are closer to their communities.

1) the articles of confederation and a Confederation of United States of America are prime historical failures of a decentralized government. Gee that may it be a good business model.

2 you are assuming that the masses will make intelligent decisions. Any local school board will show that this is not true. We have hundreds of them banning classic books, teaching "creationism", enforcing homophobia or cutting classes materials and programs that will hurt development of their kids.

The big difference is that right and the left do care about about their families, friends and community. More so than the libertarians, whom assume people will naturally do the "right" thing.


What I got out of that article was from it's first point: libertarianism is not about blind faith, but it supposes people will work together voluntarily instead of gleefully stabbing each other in the back.
 
2013-06-04 04:00:33 PM

i.imgur.com
Libertarian Urban Planning
 
2013-06-04 04:00:55 PM

Hydra: vygramul: Libertarianism would be easier to endorse if they'd only express some recognition of externalities.

Keep boxing that straw man.


Feel free to demonstrate libertarian recognition of externalities. And I don't mean a John Cochrane theoretical discussion of them, either. I'm sure he discusses them in economics classes.
 
2013-06-04 04:01:20 PM

dittybopper: Karac: Honest Bender: If your approach is so great, why hasn't any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?
Lack of opportunity would be my guess.  You can't just relocate somewhere and declare a new government.   And no government is going to willingly give up power.

Just shows how little faith libertarians have in their own ideas.
Did George Washington let the British unwillingness to give up power stop him from founding the USA?

Interesting that you bring that up:  The USA was pretty damned libertarian when it was founded.  In fact, the Constitution itself is pretty damned libertarian.  *PARTS* of the USA weren't very libertarian, of course, but as a whole, on the federal level, it was largely that way.   It was a big "Fark you, let us run our affairs as we see fit" not just collectively, but also at the individual level.

Unfortunately, nature (and politics) abhors a vacuum, and over time, the pressure to fill that vacuum builds up, and you get more and more regulations.  It is the unfortunate nature of organizations (and government is an organization) to expand as much as they possibly can.




It's not that politics abhors a vacuum. No- it's people will take actions that are detrimental to others individuals and the community. And the number one reason this action take place..."There is no law against it, or says I have to do that"

We are, at our basic instinct, a communal animal.
 
2013-06-04 04:01:44 PM
farm5.staticflickr.com 

libertarian refreshments
 
2013-06-04 04:02:46 PM

Rev.K: Again, I ask, why are regulations automatically bad?

Bad for whom?

Are there any regulations Libertarians support?


Yeah.

WE DEMAND YOU PUT US IN POWER.
 
2013-06-04 04:03:40 PM
THEN ALL SHALL BE PERFECTION.
 
2013-06-04 04:06:57 PM

Karac: Darth_Lukecash: Dancin_In_Anson: Karac: Please, enlighten us then as to the true Libertarianism.

Enlighten yourself.

Okay, I just read that article.

Two things that stand out: that skepticism of government, yet groups of people making decisions are some how better. And somehow libertarians are closer to their communities.

1) the articles of confederation and a Confederation of United States of America are prime historical failures of a decentralized government. Gee that may it be a good business model.

2 you are assuming that the masses will make intelligent decisions. Any local school board will show that this is not true. We have hundreds of them banning classic books, teaching "creationism", enforcing homophobia or cutting classes materials and programs that will hurt development of their kids.

The big difference is that right and the left do care about about their families, friends and community. More so than the libertarians, whom assume people will naturally do the "right" thing.

What I got out of that article was from it's first point: libertarianism is not about blind faith, but it supposes people will work together voluntarily instead of gleefully stabbing each other in the back.


And this is totally different from the Anarchist belief that without governments people will live in harmony because and furthermore.
 
2013-06-04 04:06:58 PM

Kittypie070: THEN ALL SHALL BE PERFECTION.


I have a really great GIF somewhere of one adorable puppy knocking over another adorable puppy and the word "libertarianism" is flashing on the screen but I can't find it so use your imagination
 
2013-06-04 04:10:26 PM
came to see libertarians mocked and ridiculed, leaving satisfied
 
2013-06-04 04:10:42 PM
Wait, you mean "Being a Nut" hasn't been tried?

Hydra: vygramul: Libertarianism would be easier to endorse if they'd only express some recognition of externalities.

Keep boxing that straw man.

gameshowhost: [i43.tinypic.com image 776x509] 

*brutal truth about libertarians*

You too.

/seriously, quoting Noam Chomsky? Why don't you ask Lenin what he thought about capitalists?


Capitalism is an economic system. Not a system of Government.

If you understood that, you (and the country) would be better off.
 
2013-06-04 04:10:58 PM
The world favors authoritarianism.

If the solution to a disease involved blood transfusions and the whole world was Jehovah's Witnesses...
 
2013-06-04 04:12:23 PM

gimmegimme: Dancin_In_Anson: Honest Bender: There seem to be a lot of people who don't understand the difference between libertarians and anarchists.

They're getting better...Almost 2 hours in and no idiotic LOL Somalia yet.

Oh, wait.

sithon: I suggest Somalia is just such a libertarian paradise . No ,bureaucrats ,no law , no red tape, nobody getting into your bidness.

I stand corrected.

By all means, demonstrate why the comparison is improper.


Ad hominem attacks are so much more fun.
 
2013-06-04 04:12:32 PM

violentsalvation: 7 or 8. Slow day here in libertarian land, it would've been more but the bridge exploded on my way to the annual tire fire and mercury eating contest. And well, needless to say, it took my slaves a couple hours to float my war wagon across the river of fecal matter and styrofoam.


gold jerry, gold
 
2013-06-04 04:14:22 PM
What's your name? Who's your daddy?
 
2013-06-04 04:14:59 PM
i1013.photobucket.com
 
2013-06-04 04:15:43 PM
Part of the problem is that there are a lot of questions Libertarians don't know the answer to, Many of which involve math and/or human psychology.
 
2013-06-04 04:17:01 PM
Libertarian Criminal justice system.

www.practicaltacticaltraining.com
 
2013-06-04 04:17:03 PM

Karac: Darth_Lukecash: Dancin_In_Anson: Karac: Please, enlighten us then as to the true Libertarianism.

Enlighten yourself.

Okay, I just read that article.

Two things that stand out: that skepticism of government, yet groups of people making decisions are some how better. And somehow libertarians are closer to their communities.

1) the articles of confederation and a Confederation of United States of America are prime historical failures of a decentralized government. Gee that may it be a good business model.

2 you are assuming that the masses will make intelligent decisions. Any local school board will show that this is not true. We have hundreds of them banning classic books, teaching "creationism", enforcing homophobia or cutting classes materials and programs that will hurt development of their kids.

The big difference is that right and the left do care about about their families, friends and community. More so than the libertarians, whom assume people will naturally do the "right" thing.

What I got out of that article was from it's first point: libertarianism is not about blind faith, but it supposes people will work together voluntarily instead of gleefully stabbing each other in the back.




So yeah, we all gonna sing "Kumbiya, my Lord?" And hold hands? I'm sorry.

James Madison, (husband of the awesome snack cake empresses) said it best ""If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."
 
2013-06-04 04:17:19 PM

Rev.K: Again, I ask, why are regulations automatically bad?

Bad for whom?

Are there any regulations Libertarians support?


Depends on which Libertarian you ask. Some Libertarians, in the face of overwhelming historical contradiction, insist the free market is a panacea, and that: corporations that are not transparent would not get any investors; companies who don't put ingredient lists on their products wouldn't be able to make as much money as those who do; that lawsuits will keep companies from poisoning their consumers (but ask a Libertarian what they think about tobacco lawsuits); that restaurants that discriminate against colored folk will make less money than restaurants that do, and so won't do it (despite 100 years of watching that experiment fail).

On the other end of the Libertarian spectrum, which is a little more sane than the Ron Paul types, you have people who recognize that regulations requiring transparency are the only way a free market can actually be free. Some SEC regulations and ingredient labeling come to mind. But even so, there's a limited number of regulations they'd approve.

Many things Libertarians say we should do we actually tried and found that it was not working. The FDA didn't get any real power until the 1930s. Before then lawsuits and competition didn't keep Massengil from killing over 100 people. Sure, they were sued for 100% of their value and that explains why no one has ever heard of them (oh, wait...), but that's not considered very useful for the families of those people.
 
2013-06-04 04:17:41 PM
All political spectrums are full of shiat

Libertarianism doesnt get a free pass just because I like it. For one to be truly openminded one needs to have an unbiased eye.
 
2013-06-04 04:18:39 PM
i1055.photobucket.com

Libertarian Instruction Manual
 
2013-06-04 04:20:03 PM

Girl From The North Country: What's your name? Who's your daddy?


Is he rich like me?
 
2013-06-04 04:20:25 PM
I think Im going to err on the side of caution and avoid possible time out but just imagine yourself a picture of a dead cat

Libertarian Veterinarian
 
2013-06-04 04:20:43 PM
Libertarian Public Library

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-06-04 04:20:57 PM
ppftt/ librarians can answer any question, they have google to you know.
 
2013-06-04 04:21:30 PM
Free life lesson 58327.potatoe. Taking any idea to the extreme is foolish.

Regulating everything is bad, regulating nothing is bad.  I could go on for days discussing the inefficiencies that a true libertarian model would impose upon an economy (imagine getting a different AT&T style bill for every single service the government provides you?) but true believers won't listen and everyone else agrees with me already.
 
2013-06-04 04:21:47 PM

dittybopper: Unfortunately, nature (and politics) abhors a vacuum, and over time, the pressure to fill that vacuum builds up, and you get more and more regulations. It is the unfortunate nature of organizations (and government is an organization) to expand as much as they possibly can.


Yeah, that and the whole Triangle Shirtwaist Factory thing.
 
2013-06-04 04:22:24 PM
i take nearly the opposite view -- this country was more libertarian in the past and laws evolved to solve specific social and economic issues.

so, yeah -- we tried libertarianism -- it didn't scale -- we aren't perfect now, but answer the question:

when were the laws in the United States to your liking?  1789?  1820?  1860?  1900?  1920? 1930?  1960?  1980?

answer that question and then we can discuss the differences between that time and now, how we got here and what
the reasonable alternatives are.
 
2013-06-04 04:23:02 PM

Gecko Gingrich: dittybopper: Unfortunately, nature (and politics) abhors a vacuum, and over time, the pressure to fill that vacuum builds up, and you get more and more regulations. It is the unfortunate nature of organizations (and government is an organization) to expand as much as they possibly can.

Yeah, that and the whole Triangle Shirtwaist Factory thing.


No government know-it-all is going to tell me I can't lock the doors of MY factory to keep MY employees inside.
 
2013-06-04 04:23:39 PM
i40.tinypic.com 

failed libertarian attempt to make their vision of the future sound appealing
 
2013-06-04 04:24:24 PM
www.ilo.org

Libertarian recreational programs for kids
 
2013-06-04 04:24:59 PM

Somacandra: Fine. Explain how Dr. Chomsky's description of American-style libertarianism is incorrect? The idea of private tyrannies is quite prevalent among people who otherwise might otherwise be amenable to the topic of Libertarianism. What safeguards exist in the philosophical politics of Libertarianism against the development of "private tyrannies" ?


Funny how as a linguist he fails even to define what "private tyrannies" are in the first place. That being said, I suppose we can deduce that what he really means by the term is a "free-market cartel" or some sort of a "natural" oligopoly or monopoly that emerges as a result of collusion. They drop their prices together below their cost of production to force all other competitors out of the market only to raise them back up and reap monopoly profits. As explained by one libertarian thinker Murray Rothbard here, that was largely a myth - whenever they would try to raise their prices back up, new firms/the older ones that were forced out would enter the market again. Here's a  video from Milton Friedman on the subject and a longer one from Burt Folsom. There are actually some good explanations that are out there - the trick is finding them.

The defining characteristic between "public" and "private" is the ability for a given entity to have legal, legitimate use of force. A private firm CANNOT force anyone to buy its products since it does not procure its own private military and holds guns to everyone's head (Wal-Mart doesn't have its own army). Instead, we have a public defense system in which the legal, legitimatized use of force is given to a special entity called the government. All situations that Chomsky was referring to where corporate interests were enshrined into law through legislation by the government have occurred precisely as a result of his ever-expanding government. Read up on some public choice theory if you want to learn more.

Rev.K: Again, I ask, why are regulations automatically bad?

Bad for whom?

Are there any regulations Libertarians support?


*Sigh* I'm tired. Watch this and get back to us (granted, it's not really the BEST video in the world, but it covers a fair amount and is a good primer).
 
2013-06-04 04:25:09 PM

DjangoStonereaver: The fact that it was created by Robert Heinlein for STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND, and was never meant
to be taken seriously as an actual political system?


This.

I mean, my political belief system was made up by some white guys in wigs, some muckrakers, some suffragettes and a few safety experts and engineers who said 'let's try paying people a wage that'll let them buy the product and, y'know, not kill them,' but at least it's been play-tested.

/progressive
//used to be liberal, but we seem to need progressives more
///2013 just seems too much like the Gilded Age on repeat
 
2013-06-04 04:26:05 PM

Hydra: *Sigh* I'm tired. Watch this and get back to us (granted, it's not really the BEST video in the world, but it covers a fair amount and is a good primer).


"us"?  That's not a very libertarian concept, now is it, friend?
 
2013-06-04 04:26:07 PM
But it is a question that Nazis, Communists, fascists, and militant jihadists can answer with pride!
 
2013-06-04 04:27:07 PM

gameshowhost: [i40.tinypic.com image 479x229]
failed libertarian attempt to make their vision of the future sound appealing


If there's one thing that truly seems to defy Libertarian theory it's a love for the ultimate in fiat currency: Bitcoin.
 
2013-06-04 04:27:14 PM

I_C_Weener: Why the Dewey Decimal System puts comics in the same section as reference?


As an aspiring comic artist I use comics as reference all the time.
 
2013-06-04 04:27:45 PM
"farking people in power don't like relinquishing any of it" ... how does it work?
 
2013-06-04 04:28:03 PM
I can answer FTA question (assuming the author is aware of the difference between an anarchist and a libertarian): In general, people are assholes, especially to people they don't know. There have been libertarian societies, but they were small groups of people that interacted with each other regularly. The self regulation comes in to play when you know people personally. It's hard to screw over someone you know, easy to do to a faceless crowd. Past a certain point in population and some person or group will always arise to exert power over everyone else.


A question liberals have problems with:

Is there anything that you think is a good idea that the government should not be involved in?
 
2013-06-04 04:28:08 PM

gimmegimme: Dancin_In_Anson: Honest Bender: There seem to be a lot of people who don't understand the difference between libertarians and anarchists.

They're getting better...Almost 2 hours in and no idiotic LOL Somalia yet.

Oh, wait.

sithon: I suggest Somalia is just such a libertarian paradise . No ,bureaucrats ,no law , no red tape, nobody getting into your bidness.

I stand corrected.

By all means, demonstrate why the comparison is improper.


Because they would have to actually build up Somalia.  That want a country that is already built and humming along to just surrender itself to the freedom.
 
2013-06-04 04:28:12 PM

Hydra: Somacandra: Fine. Explain how Dr. Chomsky's description of American-style libertarianism is incorrect? The idea of private tyrannies is quite prevalent among people who otherwise might otherwise be amenable to the topic of Libertarianism. What safeguards exist in the philosophical politics of Libertarianism against the development of "private tyrannies" ?

Funny how as a linguist he fails even to define what "private tyrannies" are in the first place. That being said, I suppose we can deduce that what he really means by the term is a "free-market cartel" or some sort of a "natural" oligopoly or monopoly that emerges as a result of collusion. They drop their prices together below their cost of production to force all other competitors out of the market only to raise them back up and reap monopoly profits. As explained by one libertarian thinker Murray Rothbard here, that was largely a myth - whenever they would try to raise their prices back up, new firms/the older ones that were forced out would enter the market again. Here's a  video from Milton Friedman on the subject and a longer one from Burt Folsom. There are actually some good explanations that are out there - the trick is finding them.

The defining characteristic between "public" and "private" is the ability for a given entity to have legal, legitimate use of force. A private firm CANNOT force anyone to buy its products since it does not procure its own private military and holds guns to everyone's head (Wal-Mart doesn't have its own army). Instead, we have a public defense system in which the legal, legitimatized use of force is given to a special entity called the government. All situations that Chomsky was referring to where corporate interests were enshrined into law through legislation by the government have occurred precisely as a result of his ever-expanding government. Read up on some public choice theory if you want to learn more.

Rev.K: Again, I ask, why are regulations automatically bad?

Bad for ...


You are aware that private companies have their own armies in other countries right? Defense Systems Limited  is one of the better know but there are dozens. They generally operate in smaller countries without as much regulation to subdue the local populations when they try to protest a corporation ruining the local environment or not paying wages.
 
2013-06-04 04:28:49 PM
WHY ARE THERE STILL MONKEYS?!
 
2013-06-04 04:28:51 PM

Hydra: *Sigh* I'm tired. Watch this and get back to us (granted, it's not really the BEST video in the world, but it covers a fair amount and is a good primer).


LOL. ReasonTV? Really?

Ok, I'll humor you.
 
2013-06-04 04:29:07 PM

SpiderQueenDemon: DjangoStonereaver: The fact that it was created by Robert Heinlein for STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND, and was never meant
to be taken seriously as an actual political system?

This.

I mean, my political belief system was made up by some white guys in wigs, some muckrakers, some suffragettes and a few safety experts and engineers who said 'let's try paying people a wage that'll let them buy the product and, y'know, not kill them,' but at least it's been play-tested.

/progressive
//used to be liberal, but we seem to need progressives more
///2013 just seems too much like the Gilded Age on repeat


I have never understood how SIASL was a novel about libertarianism as a political or economic system
 
2013-06-04 04:31:02 PM

ManRay: I can answer FTA question (assuming the author is aware of the difference between an anarchist and a libertarian)


What's funny is that there's a lot more real-world evidence for anarchist theory - that is to say, actual political anarchism, not whatever Area Man has decided anarchism is - than for any sort of right-libertarian theory.

So why are we the ones getting shiat on? Oh, right, because there's an entire mass industry selling libertarian snake-oil.
 
2013-06-04 04:31:12 PM

vygramul: gameshowhost: [i40.tinypic.com image 479x229]
failed libertarian attempt to make their vision of the future sound appealing

If there's one thing that truly seems to defy Libertarian theory it's a love for the ultimate in fiat currency: Bitcoin.


as much as I hate to defend libertarians, I'm not really sure I'd call Bitcoin a fiat currency
 
2013-06-04 04:31:22 PM

BunkoSquad: Dancin_In_Anson: BunkoSquad: That's almost word-for-word why I'm for single-payer health care.

Because anything other than total government control of the process is anarchy.

I'm actually trying to picture a Libertarian approach to health care and all I can come up with are the smoking crater where the CDC used to be and the "Bring Out Your Dead" cart from Holy Grail.


http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_topic_healthcar e">http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_topic_health care
 
2013-06-04 04:32:31 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: ManRay: I can answer FTA question (assuming the author is aware of the difference between an anarchist and a libertarian)

What's funny is that there's a lot more real-world evidence for anarchist theory - that is to say, actual political anarchism, not whatever Area Man has decided anarchism is - than for any sort of right-libertarian theory.

So why are we the ones getting shiat on? Oh, right, because there's an entire mass industry selling libertarian snake-oil.


yeah, it has nothing to do with the fact that anarchism on any sort of meaningful scale is childish and naive
 
2013-06-04 04:32:35 PM
"If it keeps getting later and later, then how come it's early sometimes?"
 
2013-06-04 04:32:49 PM

Honest Bender: If your approach is so great, why hasn't any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?
Lack of opportunity would be my guess.  You can't just relocate somewhere and declare a new government.  And no government is going to willingly give up power.


So you're saying that it would work except for human nature?  Sort of like Communism.
 
2013-06-04 04:32:52 PM
 
2013-06-04 04:32:54 PM
I like all these pictures of Libertarian failures considering, of course, the article points out there are no libertarian govts. So now the question then becomes, under what system are these socio-disasters occurring?
Or maybe these are just stupid posts and the logical fallacies of the inept who are self satisfied but in the end have no real argument.
Logic....whatta biatch.
 
2013-06-04 04:33:34 PM

studs up: I like all these pictures of Libertarian failures considering, of course, the article points out there are no libertarian govts. So now the question then becomes, under what system are these socio-disasters occurring?
Or maybe these are just stupid posts and the logical fallacies of the inept who are self satisfied but in the end have no real argument.
Logic....whatta biatch.


CSB
 
2013-06-04 04:36:20 PM

Altair: vygramul: gameshowhost: [i40.tinypic.com image 479x229]
failed libertarian attempt to make their vision of the future sound appealing

If there's one thing that truly seems to defy Libertarian theory it's a love for the ultimate in fiat currency: Bitcoin.

as much as I hate to defend libertarians, I'm not really sure I'd call Bitcoin a fiat currency


Oh? What commodity backs it?
 
2013-06-04 04:36:47 PM

vygramul: Altair: vygramul: gameshowhost: [i40.tinypic.com image 479x229]
failed libertarian attempt to make their vision of the future sound appealing

If there's one thing that truly seems to defy Libertarian theory it's a love for the ultimate in fiat currency: Bitcoin.

as much as I hate to defend libertarians, I'm not really sure I'd call Bitcoin a fiat currency

Oh? What commodity backs it?


Smugness.
 
2013-06-04 04:36:53 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology

libertarian intelligent design
 
2013-06-04 04:37:41 PM

studs up: Logic....whatta biatch.


In this context you are using logic out of place, the correct phrase should be

well structured argument....whatta biatch
 
2013-06-04 04:38:21 PM

vygramul: Altair: vygramul: gameshowhost: [i40.tinypic.com image 479x229]
failed libertarian attempt to make their vision of the future sound appealing

If there's one thing that truly seems to defy Libertarian theory it's a love for the ultimate in fiat currency: Bitcoin.

as much as I hate to defend libertarians, I'm not really sure I'd call Bitcoin a fiat currency

Oh? What commodity backs it?


There is definitely some sort of dorito and mountain dew exchange rate there
 
2013-06-04 04:38:31 PM
yes, lets blame the libertarians who are the people with no power but we'll let the democrats and republicans reign free over this economy they've managed to keep so healthy
 
2013-06-04 04:38:34 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: gimmegimme: By all means, demonstrate why the comparison is improper.

Libertarianism is not about no laws. Not in any way shape or form.


Yes, we all know that you don't like to pays taxes.

 And a Libertarian voter(who NEVER votes for Republicans)

and a volunteer firefighter (Look! This information is relevant!)

,  I point and laugh at your farking ignorant picture a post or two up.

Yes, you Fark IndependentsTM are always pointing and laughing. The most jolly folks on earth. The "Nelsons" of humanity, you are.
 
2013-06-04 04:38:54 PM

vygramul: Oh? What commodity backs it?


Hanukkah Gelt.
 
2013-06-04 04:39:25 PM
My father went to a Libertarian Party convention back in the day, so I'm somewhat familiar with the theories.

I've got one hyper-Libertarian-theorist friend still from my college days... lives in a rural farmstead doing just about nothing but posting on anarchist/liberty sites.  Where I "win" with him (i.e., he shuts up and we just drink a beer) is on environmental issues.

Me: "So, let's say you're spraying arsenic from your smokestack".

Hyper-Libertarian Buddy: "Okay, adjoining property owners can sue you for trespass." (let's ignore his cockamamie theories on privatized courts for a while)

Me: "At what level?  I'm certain someone 50 miles away can find measurable if insignificant arsenic in their air attributable to that polluter.  Can any greenie, almost anywhere, shut down that plant and bring progress basically to its knees?  Can anyone actually sue for trespass?"

HLB: "Well, there has to be some acceptable level."

Me: "Congrats, you've just re-invented government regulation."

HLB: "... fine... do you want a lager or ale?"
 
2013-06-04 04:39:53 PM

Gecko Gingrich: vygramul: Oh? What commodity backs it?

Hanukkah Gelt.


Ha! Good one!
 
2013-06-04 04:40:08 PM

IdBeCrazyIf: studs up: Logic....whatta biatch.

In this context you are using logic out of place, the correct phrase should be

well structured argument....whatta biatch


I stand corrected.
 
2013-06-04 04:40:26 PM

Hydra: Funny how as a linguist he fails even to define what "private tyrannies" are in the first place.


Ha ha, funny! Like the time when the bank teller said I had "two thousand" in my account, but didn't specify if he meant U.S. dollars or moons of Jupiter. Talk about amateur hour!
 
2013-06-04 04:40:45 PM

vygramul: Altair: vygramul: gameshowhost: [i40.tinypic.com image 479x229]
failed libertarian attempt to make their vision of the future sound appealing

If there's one thing that truly seems to defy Libertarian theory it's a love for the ultimate in fiat currency: Bitcoin.

as much as I hate to defend libertarians, I'm not really sure I'd call Bitcoin a fiat currency

Oh? What commodity backs it?


PROCESSING POWER™
 
2013-06-04 04:40:45 PM

gittlebass: yes, lets blame the libertarians who are the people with no power but we'll let the democrats and republicans reign free over this economy they've managed to keep so healthy


The "Tea Party" is your modern Libertarian Party. Yes, they largely have an "R" after their name (though occasionally an "I"), but let us not act as if there are no "Libertarians" in power.
 
2013-06-04 04:41:01 PM

Hydra: Sigh* I'm tired. Watch this and get back to us (granted, it's not really the BEST video in the world, but it covers a fair amount and is a good primer).


There is a sh*t-ton of unnecessary noise happening in this video.

The custom of case law as opposed to legislated regulation? I don't see that as relevant.

His example is equally asinine.

A government regulation enforcing the use of recycled paper for government use. He identifies that such a regulation would be detrimental to Maine, a top producer of paper. However, what he doesn't do at all, is attempt to understand the benefit of enacting such a regulation.

- are there cost savings to using recycled paper?
- are there environmental gains to using recycled paper?
- would the use of recycled paper advance other goals of the federal government?

Nope. None of that. A regulation would be bad for business and is therefore bad.


If that's the best Libertarians can come up with, stick to voting straight Republican, but drop your Libertarian label, you're only fooling yourself.
 
2013-06-04 04:42:05 PM

timujin: Gecko Gingrich: What rhymes with "orange"?

Sporange


Door hinge.

www.diyaroundthehouse.com
 
2013-06-04 04:42:20 PM

studs up: IdBeCrazyIf: studs up: Logic....whatta biatch.

In this context you are using logic out of place, the correct phrase should be

well structured argument....whatta biatch

I stand corrected.


Nit picking I know but pet peeve and all that
 
2013-06-04 04:42:27 PM

ManRay: A question liberals have problems with:

Is there anything that you think is a good idea that the government should not be involved in?


I think a me having a night of hot, steamy sex with Salma Hayek is a very good idea, but I don't see any role for the governmentb in it.
 
2013-06-04 04:42:46 PM

gameshowhost: vygramul: Altair: vygramul: gameshowhost: [i40.tinypic.com image 479x229]
failed libertarian attempt to make their vision of the future sound appealing

If there's one thing that truly seems to defy Libertarian theory it's a love for the ultimate in fiat currency: Bitcoin.

as much as I hate to defend libertarians, I'm not really sure I'd call Bitcoin a fiat currency

Oh? What commodity backs it?

PROCESSING POWER™


technically limitations on processing power ;)
 
2013-06-04 04:43:06 PM

Tigger: TheHighlandHowler: I think many democracies (and republics) are libertarian in their infancies, but as they mature, government grows.  This is partly due to demands from the populace, and politicians' lust for power.

Care to name one?


The US?
 
2013-06-04 04:43:51 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: volunteer firefighter


I think I've asked you this before, but does your VFD have tax authority?  Because every one I've ever lived under (several) either has their own tax district or gets county funding.  People who don't live in VFD areas don't usually understand this distinction.

The firefighters themselves are volunteers (although they do get training paid for and personal equipment allowances).  But they sure as living heck aren't buying half-million-dollar pumper trucks or building firehalls with pass-the-hat donations.
 
2013-06-04 04:44:10 PM
If you people are so passionate about civil liberties, how do you reconcile Goldwater's support of segregation in "The Conscience of a Conservative"?
 
2013-06-04 04:44:12 PM

Darth_Lukecash: Honest Bender: Karac: Just shows how little faith libertarians have in their own ideas.

You're absolutely right.  My faith in libertarianism is insufficient to motivate me to insight an armed revolution.  You caught me.

That's the problem with libertarians. The second you attempt to force your views own someone else, you've already broke your own ideals.

The fact is this, people do not act in everyone's best interest, business do not do the right thing because of long term. People will largely act in self interest.

Thus Libertarians are complete and absolute adolescence of politics.


Libertarians are emos?
 
2013-06-04 04:44:40 PM
By Salon's logic, which boils down to "6.5 billion customers can't be wrong", I can only conclude that the author of TFA thinks that the Big Mac is the world's finest dining, wives should be the property of husbands (still the most popular form of marriage, even the US has tried it in the past!) and Sikhism isn't a real religion (no country has ever been dominated by it!).  Yes, appeal to popularity, totally a great logical argument.

Also, if you sub in the definition, not that they're asking why a plurality-centric party doesn't hold a majority, which is kind of a question that answers itself.

//I'm not saying that Libertarianism is great or even particularly viable, in all frankness it isn't.  I'm just pointing out that Salon's opinion writers are as usual making down syndrome kids look like Mensa candidates.
 
2013-06-04 04:45:08 PM
Pay Pal founder and early Facebook investor Peter Thiel has given $1.25 million to an initiative to create floating libertarian countries in international waters, according to a profile of the billionaire in Details magazine.

Thiel has been a big backer of the Seasteading Institute, which seeks to build sovereign nations on oil rig-like platforms to occupy waters beyond the reach of law-of-the-sea treaties. The idea is for these countries to start from scratch--free from the laws, regulations, and moral codes of any existing place. Details says the experiment would be "a kind of floating petri dish for implementing policies that libertarians, stymied by indifference at the voting booths, have been unable to advance: no welfare, looser building codes, no minimum wage, and few restrictions on weapons."


Good luck on Libertarian Island, dipshiats.
 
2013-06-04 04:45:14 PM

phenn: Tigger: TheHighlandHowler: I think many democracies (and republics) are libertarian in their infancies, but as they mature, government grows.  This is partly due to demands from the populace, and politicians' lust for power.

Care to name one?

The US?


memory.loc.gov
 
2013-06-04 04:45:24 PM
How many times did your grandpa fark Ayn Rand?
 
2013-06-04 04:47:01 PM
What did the Libertarian do when asked a question he couldn't answer?

.....wait for it......


.....wait.....


He shrugged.


/here all week
//tip your veal
 
2013-06-04 04:47:08 PM

tallguywithglasseson: Pay Pal founder and early Facebook investor Peter Thiel has given $1.25 million to an initiative to create floating libertarian countries in international waters, according to a profile of the billionaire in Details magazine.

Thiel has been a big backer of the Seasteading Institute, which seeks to build sovereign nations on oil rig-like platforms to occupy waters beyond the reach of law-of-the-sea treaties. The idea is for these countries to start from scratch--free from the laws, regulations, and moral codes of any existing place. Details says the experiment would be "a kind of floating petri dish for implementing policies that libertarians, stymied by indifference at the voting booths, have been unable to advance: no welfare, looser building codes, no minimum wage, and few restrictions on weapons."

Good luck on Libertarian Island, dipshiats.


i.imgur.com

Better start practicing their CQC, I guess?
 
2013-06-04 04:47:29 PM

gittlebass: yes, lets blame the libertarians who are the people with no power but we'll let the democrats and republicans reign free over this economy they've managed to keep so healthy


Odd how the libertarian notion "laissez-faire" is the driving force that tanked our economy over the past 3+ decades.
 
2013-06-04 04:47:31 PM

tallguywithglasseson: Pay Pal founder and early Facebook investor Peter Thiel has given $1.25 million to an initiative to create floating libertarian countries in international waters, according to a profile of the billionaire in Details magazine.

Thiel has been a big backer of the Seasteading Institute, which seeks to build sovereign nations on oil rig-like platforms to occupy waters beyond the reach of law-of-the-sea treaties. The idea is for these countries to start from scratch--free from the laws, regulations, and moral codes of any existing place. Details says the experiment would be "a kind of floating petri dish for implementing policies that libertarians, stymied by indifference at the voting booths, have been unable to advance: no welfare, looser building codes, no minimum wage, and few restrictions on weapons."

Good luck on Libertarian Island, dipshiats.


loose building codes in the middle of the ocean on floating platforms filled with libertarians?

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-06-04 04:49:04 PM

gittlebass: yes, lets blame the libertarians who are the people with no power but we'll let the democrats and republicans reign free over this economy they've managed to keep so healthy


One thing we know for sure: the current system is farked. There are mountains of evidence to back that up.
 
2013-06-04 04:49:23 PM

skullkrusher: gameshowhost: vygramul: Altair: vygramul: gameshowhost: [i40.tinypic.com image 479x229]
failed libertarian attempt to make their vision of the future sound appealing

If there's one thing that truly seems to defy Libertarian theory it's a love for the ultimate in fiat currency: Bitcoin.

as much as I hate to defend libertarians, I'm not really sure I'd call Bitcoin a fiat currency

Oh? What commodity backs it?

PROCESSING POWER™

technically limitations on processing power ;)


That's true.  But it's still weird. :|
 
2013-06-04 04:49:24 PM

cman: All political spectrums are full of shiat

Libertarianism doesnt get a free pass just because I like it. For one to be truly openminded one needs to have an unbiased eye.


That's rather sensible of you. The heck you doing on FARK?

;-)
 
2013-06-04 04:50:32 PM

gameshowhost: [msnbcmedia.msn.com image 423x135] 

libertarian free-market competition


But I thought Taco Bell won the franchise wars?
 
2013-06-04 04:50:33 PM
If you were snorting coke off a hookers ass would you care that a pimp was forcing her to be there?
 
2013-06-04 04:52:29 PM

Somacandra: dittybopper: Unfortunately, nature (and politics) abhors a vacuum, and over time, the pressure to fill that vacuum builds up, and you get more and more regulations.

War has a lot to do with it. It was hard in the U.S. for the North to fight its war with the South without asserting a number of expansionist powers, especially economically. There are important reasons why the National Banking Acts of 1863 and 1864 were passed during the Civil War.


The laws that created the railroads and land grant colleges were passed during the Civil War too. That's because yesterday's small government racists wouldn't let reasonable legislation through when they were in the congress. Much like today.
 
2013-06-04 04:52:58 PM

kvinesknows: If you were snorting coke off a hookers ass would you care that a pimp was forcing her to be there?


Of course, without that forcing you get no tears and everyone knows its better with tears
 
2013-06-04 04:53:07 PM

gameshowhost: skullkrusher: gameshowhost: vygramul: Altair: vygramul: gameshowhost: [i40.tinypic.com image 479x229]
failed libertarian attempt to make their vision of the future sound appealing

If there's one thing that truly seems to defy Libertarian theory it's a love for the ultimate in fiat currency: Bitcoin.

as much as I hate to defend libertarians, I'm not really sure I'd call Bitcoin a fiat currency

Oh? What commodity backs it?

PROCESSING POWER™

technically limitations on processing power ;)

That's true.  But it's still weird. :|


well, it is a fiat currency. It isn't backed by anything. However, the inflation of the "money supply" is restricted so... it's still a fiat currency.
 
2013-06-04 04:53:19 PM
Why aren't you this strawman?
 
2013-06-04 04:53:27 PM

phenn: Tigger: TheHighlandHowler: I think many democracies (and republics) are libertarian in their infancies, but as they mature, government grows.  This is partly due to demands from the populace, and politicians' lust for power.

Care to name one?

The US?


Again, the US as a federal government was vaguely libertarian (i.e., minimal) under the Articles of Confederation.  It'd be hard to argue that any of the states were particularly so (hell, most of them had established churches at the time, restrictions on free speech, etc).  But, by the Constitution's time, we were already well into forming the high-tariff interventionist 'American System' government of Washington and Henry Clay.  Let alone, as Queeq above mentions, the slavery question.

Jefferson was a libertarian dreamer, like so many libertarian theorists of today.  This doesn't mean the US was at any point anything close to a particularly libertarian state.  Attributing any sort of ideological purity to US history is retconning.
 
2013-06-04 04:53:30 PM

gameshowhost: gittlebass: yes, lets blame the libertarians who are the people with no power but we'll let the democrats and republicans reign free over this economy they've managed to keep so healthy

Odd how the libertarian notion "laissez-faire" is the driving force that tanked our economy over the past 3+ decades.


I love it when they make an argument that's easily as valid for the Communist Party of America.
 
2013-06-04 04:54:02 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: phenn: Tigger: TheHighlandHowler: I think many democracies (and republics) are libertarian in their infancies, but as they mature, government grows.  This is partly due to demands from the populace, and politicians' lust for power.

Care to name one?

The US?

[memory.loc.gov image 687x713]


Touche.

But, remember, not all of the founders were slave-owners or even cool with slavery. But, I'm not even trying to defend them. I'm an anarchist these days.
 
2013-06-04 04:54:34 PM

skullkrusher: I have never understood how SIASL was a novel about libertarianism as a political or economic system


I was about to ask this... I don't see how a church that offers orgies and telekinetic powers is somehow a model of libertarianism.
 
2013-06-04 04:54:49 PM

efgeise: gameshowhost: [msnbcmedia.msn.com image 423x135] 

libertarian free-market competition

But I thought Taco Bell won the franchise wars?


Ah, but does Taco Bell take Bitcoins?  I think not.
 
2013-06-04 04:55:11 PM

Lawnchair: Jefferson was a libertarian dreamer, like so many libertarian theorists of today.


And yet governed as one of the least libertarian early Presidents.
 
2013-06-04 04:55:48 PM

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Capitalism is an economic system. Not a system of Government.

If you understood that, you (and the country) would be better off.


Economic systems and governmental systems are not mutually exclusive of each other, nor do they exist in separate vacuums.

/if you YOU understood that, you (and the country) would be better off  :P

vygramul: Depends on which Libertarian you ask. Some Libertarians, in the face of overwhelming historical contradiction, insist the free market is a panacea, and that: corporations that are not transparent would not get any investors; companies who don't put ingredient lists on their products wouldn't be able to make as much money as those who do; that lawsuits will keep companies from poisoning their consumers (but ask a Libertarian what they think about tobacco lawsuits); that restaurants that discriminate against colored folk will make less money than restaurants that do, and so won't do it (despite 100 years of watching that experiment fail).


You fail to recognize the overwhelming role that governmental failure played in any of that (federal subsidies of tobacco farmers, STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.). This shows that your blind faith in government bureaucrats to regulate the market better than underlying market forces just exposes your lack of understanding of what a market economy even is.

A market is simply a means of coordinating productive activity among large, genetically unrelated populations of humans. If we were all still part of small tribes of 20-35 like we were for most of our history, most of the problems of central planning go away since economic information can reasonably be gathered by the central decision-making authorities. Every person's wants and needs (read: their demand) and relative productive contribution to the group (read: supply) can easily be known, tracked, and calculated. Thus, some sort of (semi-)rational allocation of resources can take place. Expanding this relatively accurate economic calculation to a large population of thousands - let alone millions - without some sort of coordination mechanism (read: money and prices) and achieving rational economic allocation of resources is impossible.

Not just really hard. Literally impossible.

This was the valuable insight that Ludwig von Mises had in his famous essay "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth." The common polemic levelled against socialism is the free rider problem. While that is certainly a very destabilizing factor in the operation of the system, it is not sufficient to cause total system failure like we saw with the history of the USSR. Even if you take the socialists' assumptions about people at their face value, socialism is STILL impossible to implement rationally in a large population of people due to the information problem (for more on how prices convey information, watch this short video). Friedrich Hayek expanded on this idea in his essay "The Use of Knowledge in Society." Google it and read up on it if you want to learn something new.
 
2013-06-04 04:56:31 PM

Wendy's Chili: Somacandra: dittybopper: Unfortunately, nature (and politics) abhors a vacuum, and over time, the pressure to fill that vacuum builds up, and you get more and more regulations.

War has a lot to do with it. It was hard in the U.S. for the North to fight its war with the South without asserting a number of expansionist powers, especially economically. There are important reasons why the National Banking Acts of 1863 and 1864 were passed during the Civil War.

The laws that created the railroads and land grant colleges were passed during the Civil War too. That's because yesterday's small government racists wouldn't let reasonable legislation through when they were in the congress. Much like today.


Created the railroads?
 
2013-06-04 04:56:41 PM

gameshowhost: gittlebass: yes, lets blame the libertarians who are the people with no power but we'll let the democrats and republicans reign free over this economy they've managed to keep so healthy

Odd how the libertarian notion "laissez-faire" is the driving force that tanked our economy over the past 3+ decades.


well.......

right libertarianism is opposed to fractional reserve banking. It is also opposed to the Fed's existence but specifically, in this context, the Fed's impact on interest rates. No FRB, no artificially depressed interest rates, no housing bubble.

Of course no restrictions on financial transactions, no attempts to preempt fraud via regulation and reporting requirements... different set of problems.

Our economy was doing rather well for much of 2 of the past 3 decades though
 
2013-06-04 04:58:24 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Lawnchair: Jefferson was a libertarian dreamer, like so many libertarian theorists of today.

And yet governed as one of the least libertarian early Presidents.


Libertarians are often like that. Right-libertarianism is "for me, but not for thee" in convenient pablum form.
 
2013-06-04 04:58:33 PM

gittlebass: yes, lets blame the libertarians who are the people with no power but we'll let the democrats and republicans reign free over this economy they've managed to keep so healthy


Well then maybe we should turn let dead people make all the decisions since living people have screwed things up so much...
 
2013-06-04 04:58:55 PM

Garble: skullkrusher: I have never understood how SIASL was a novel about libertarianism as a political or economic system

I was about to ask this... I don't see how a church that offers orgies and telekinetic powers is somehow a model of libertarianism.


It's not. I am pretty sure someone somewhere said that Stranger in a Strange Land is a libertarian book and that's just been repeated since by people who haven't read it.
It certainly talks of breaking the taboos against sexual freedom and hedonism but there's really nothing there about any libertarian politics or philosophy as we understand it and are discussing it here. Hell, Martian Mike was an anarcho-socialist if anything
 
2013-06-04 04:59:26 PM
This sounds like another thread where the libtardtarian faithful come to protect the purity of their perfect political/economic concept. And, just like their ideological bedfellow Republicans, the libtardtarians are going to claim that the Founding Fathers (and later Saint Reagan) agree with them.

I think the author of TFA started with an interesting idea, but lost it with the explanation. IMHO, there are no Libertarian countries because the idea cannot exist in the real world; it was and will always be an abstract.

Stated in a much better way:

Rev.K: I think my biggest problem with Libertarianism is that it seems to constantly deny the existence of society and boils everything down to the individual.

Sure, it sounds great, until you project that individual behaviour across a whole society, and that's when it becomes pretty obvious that Libertarianism would be a pretty epic fail.

 
2013-06-04 04:59:41 PM
CSB: My libertarian friend (who supports Rand and left a sweet programming gig in manhattan to work on Ron's presidential campaign) recently posted an article on Facebook that had to do with the Megyn Kelly/Erick Erickson deal.

The comments morphed in to pointing out how Megyn was partially right but using hyperbole to support her position. Then, the posts shifted to admonishing regulations in adoption and how big government is horrible (one size fits all fits no one) and local adoption regulation would be much better. (In regards to gay adoption)

I asked how local adoption regulation would be better if local regulations could still discriminate against gays.

The two responses were-
A) Move. I said that's not always logistically possible and the further response was "if you have two feet, you can move".
B) With localized discrimination, less people are discriminated against and it would be easier to fight. Now, I ignore the idiocy of going with a scale argument and pointed out that a huge amount of social change happened at a federal enforcement level and dragged states forward...but that was deemed horrible and not fair for states that didn't agree with it.

When it got to the point where I had to explain why "suck it up and move" is not a valid response to discrimination against gays, I stopped responding and went back to watching the Braves game.

Libertarianism sounds like a fantastic idea when explaining the idea that people should have endless freedoms and blah blah blah. In practice, it is ridiculously flawed and based on the idea that a) people have unlimited resources to deal with life, b) companies/businesses will act in a reasonable manner despite profit margins, c) citizens have the ability to affect the free market fast enough (or to such an agree) that there will be balance in society.
 
2013-06-04 05:00:05 PM
vygramul:

Created the railroads?


www.raremaps.com
 
2013-06-04 05:00:14 PM
abortionsforall.files.wordpress.com\

libertarian highway patrol.
 
2013-06-04 05:01:17 PM

Hydra: STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.


Really? You're blaming Jim Crow Laws for FORCING restaurants to have whites-only counters?

Seriously?

Wow.
 
2013-06-04 05:02:06 PM
The article seems to assert that since no country has adopted purely libertarian structures, that lebertarianism has no place in the public marketplace of ideas - and yet at the same time, seem to use the existence of large scale socialist states to support the concept that socialism is a valid approach - and yet all states that have employed socialism as the exclusive philosophy have failed mightily - and most if not all that are leaning that way are in some level of decay that suggests a slide towards becoming a failed state (20+% structural unemployment in the EU for example).

I don't want a pure libertarian system - and I am not dissing you lefties in FARKland - just pointing out that the author's logic is extremely flawed - I think that some of my braincells have perished from reading this.
 
2013-06-04 05:03:35 PM

bulldg4life: Libertarianism sounds like a fantastic idea when explaining the idea that people should have endless freedoms and blah blah blah. In practice, it is ridiculously flawed and based on the idea that a) people have unlimited resources to deal with life, b) companies/businesses will act in a reasonable manner despite profit margins, c) citizens have the ability to affect the free market fast enough (or to such an agree) that there will be balance in society.


Excellent points, all.

But especially the last one.

I love the glorified consumer experience in the Libertarian utopia, whereby if the market was just truly free, consumers would have all the power and their votes with consumer dollars would hold weight and carry previously unthinkable power.

Consumers totally wouldn't get screwed by a business environment free to to whatever it wanted. Their corporate consciences just wouldn't allow it.
 
2013-06-04 05:03:54 PM

tallguywithglasseson: Why are you calling yourself a libertarian when you're really a neo-confederate?


When the GOP was searching for a term to use for their latest rebranding effort, "libertarian" polled higher than "neo-confederate". That doesn't mean they won't consider using it at some later time.
 
2013-06-04 05:04:25 PM

vygramul: Hydra: STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.

Really? You're blaming Jim Crow Laws for FORCING restaurants to have whites-only counters?

Seriously?

Wow.


you realize that that's what many of them did? They specifically forbade non-segregated businesses and public places.
 
2013-06-04 05:04:42 PM
bulldg4life: ...it is ridiculously flawed and based on the idea that a) people have unlimited resources to deal with life, b) companies/businesses will act in a reasonable manner despite profit margins, c) citizens have the ability to affect the free market fast enough (or to such an agree) that there will be balance in society.

DING DING DING

Funny, I have the people I really disagree with on FARK in hot pink, usually "Douche" or some similar moniker. The amount of hot pink really, really disappeared as the comments went on. It really is tough to defend certain ideals when faced with logic.
 
2013-06-04 05:05:22 PM

justadadX3: most if not all that are leaning that way are in some level of decay that suggests a slide towards becoming a failed state


like germany?
 
2013-06-04 05:05:37 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: gimmegimme: By all means, demonstrate why the comparison is improper.

Libertarianism is not about no laws. Not in any way shape or form. And a Libertarian voter and a volunteer firefighter,  I point and laugh at your farking ignorant picture a post or two up.


What's stopping you from volunteer firefighting in Somalia?
 
2013-06-04 05:05:49 PM

Gecko Gingrich: vygramul: Oh? What commodity backs it?

Hanukkah Gelt.


Wax chocolate is the....oh nonononono....
 
2013-06-04 05:06:39 PM
People in power don't give up power. That's why.
 
2013-06-04 05:06:53 PM

Jim_Callahan: I can only conclude that the author of TFA thinks that the Big Mac is the world's finest dining


No, that's just what The Invisible Hand of the Fee Market determines it to be.
 
2013-06-04 05:07:42 PM
Not sure if serious.

Does Salon really not understand why a philosophy that opposes state power in general does not control any large states?

It's kind of like saying "The one question atheists can't answer is why they don't run any religions."

It's one of those things where you are either stupid to say it, or you are pretending to be stupid.
 
2013-06-04 05:07:43 PM
If you're looking for examples, portions of the early U.S. were fairly libertarian (though that was highly variable depending on the state/locale).  But libertarianism as a political philosophy is extraordinarily new, so it's not really surprising that you don't have historical examples.  Certainly, it was pretty bloody unlikely any libertarian utopias were going to come out of the collapse of the Soviet Union, or the Holy Roman Empire, or, well, you get the picture.  It would be like asking an Englishman in 1214 why he thought a constitutional monarchy might be such a great idea given that it hadn't been tried, ever.

And yes, I know the Magna Carta wasn't a true constitution.
 
2013-06-04 05:08:30 PM

skullkrusher: gameshowhost: gittlebass: yes, lets blame the libertarians who are the people with no power but we'll let the democrats and republicans reign free over this economy they've managed to keep so healthy

Odd how the libertarian notion "laissez-faire" is the driving force that tanked our economy over the past 3+ decades.

well.......

right libertarianism is opposed to fractional reserve banking. It is also opposed to the Fed's existence but specifically, in this context, the Fed's impact on interest rates. No FRB, no artificially depressed interest rates, no housing bubble.

Of course no restrictions on financial transactions, no attempts to preempt fraud via regulation and reporting requirements... different set of problems.

Our economy was doing rather well for much of 2 of the past 3 decades though


Deregulation creating more opaque markets... that's causal.  The Fed's toodling is just an attempt to limit the destructive path(s) of said cause, not a cause in and of itself.
 
2013-06-04 05:08:50 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: gimmegimme: By all means, demonstrate why the comparison is improper.

Libertarianism is not about no laws. Not in any way shape or form. And a Libertarian voter and a volunteer firefighter,  I point and laugh at your farking ignorant picture a post or two up.


And yet you still wonder why FDR was elected over Hoover...
 
2013-06-04 05:08:54 PM
It's been tried, though not under that name. The Articles of Confederation could be considered one such attempt. But much like communism, libertarianism never lasts long in its pure form. Someone always rises to take state-like power, sometimes by dishonest means, sometimes to counter a dishonest attempt, and sometimes to counter an honest large-scale screw-up. However it happens, it's never long before it stops being only state-like.

The reasons for this are also more or less the same: they depend on virtue without accounting for vice. Both set up systems where dishonesty is the only rational move, and then they ask the people to be honest anyway. Some people could manage that, but not enough to hold a society together. If we could, neither of these systems would ever have been invented, because there would have been no need for them. But because we can't, they always end the same way: they lose sight of their goals, start breaking their own definitions, and produce some really, really nasty parts of the world.
 
2013-06-04 05:09:02 PM

Garble: Jim_Callahan: I can only conclude that the author of TFA thinks that the Big Mac is the world's finest dining

No, that's just what The Invisible Hand of the Fee Market determines it to be.


ohsnap.gif
 
2013-06-04 05:10:43 PM

skullkrusher: right libertarianism is opposed to fractional reserve banking. It is also opposed to the Fed's existence but specifically, in this context, the Fed's impact on interest rates. No FRB, no artificially depressed interest rates, no housing bubble.


So how do they explain the bubble in gold, or the bubble in bitcoins?
 
2013-06-04 05:10:45 PM

ManRay: I can answer FTA question (assuming the author is aware of the difference between an anarchist and a libertarian): In general, people are assholes, especially to people they don't know. There have been libertarian societies, but they were small groups of people that interacted with each other regularly. The self regulation comes in to play when you know people personally. It's hard to screw over someone you know, easy to do to a faceless crowd. Past a certain point in population and some person or group will always arise to exert power over everyone else.


A question liberals have problems with:

Is there anything that you think is a good idea that the government should not be involved in?



Actually I have an answer to that, at least from my perspective.

The government is for things you want less of- sick people,illiterate, criminals,death; and to accomplish this they implement preventative programs- hospitals, police/law/rehabilitation, schools, regulations.

The private sector is for things you want more of- consumer goods, food, inventions/innovation. And they accomplish this through businesses, research and development, farming profits.

I think this type of balance works well as a framework for going forward. It allows the back and forth of responsibility while keeping each side in check.
 
2013-06-04 05:11:11 PM

BunkoSquad: Dancin_In_Anson: BunkoSquad: That's almost word-for-word why I'm for single-payer health care.

Because anything other than total government control of the process is anarchy.

I'm actually trying to picture a Libertarian approach to health care and all I can come up with are the smoking crater where the CDC used to be and the "Bring Out Your Dead" cart from Holy Grail.


Yeah and that's why I view Libertarianism with the same jaudiced eye as Pol Pot's political/econonic system he implemented in Cambodia.
 
2013-06-04 05:11:55 PM

gameshowhost: Deregulation creating more opaque markets... that's causal. The Fed's toodling is just an attempt to limit the destructive path(s) of said cause, not a cause in and of itself.


however, over a decade of artificially depressed interest rates and virtually "free" money lent itself quite nicely to a drive in home demand and the subsequent bubble along with the explosion in MBSs freeing that same capital to be lent again at artificially depressed rates.
 
2013-06-04 05:12:19 PM

gimmegimme: Gecko Gingrich: dittybopper: Unfortunately, nature (and politics) abhors a vacuum, and over time, the pressure to fill that vacuum builds up, and you get more and more regulations. It is the unfortunate nature of organizations (and government is an organization) to expand as much as they possibly can.

Yeah, that and the whole Triangle Shirtwaist Factory thing.

No government know-it-all is going to tell me I can't lock the doors of MY factory to keep MY employees inside.


Technically, the captains of industry who ran Triangle locked the doors to keep their valuable goods inside, not the employees. After the fire started, the bosses climbed to the 10th floor and jumped to safety across the alley to another building; the employees could have escaped too if they really wanted. But they didn't and the market decided their value*.

/*sarcasm.
 
2013-06-04 05:12:38 PM

tallguywithglasseson: Pay Pal founder and early Facebook investor Peter Thiel has given $1.25 million to an initiative to create floating libertarian countries in international waters, according to a profile of the billionaire in Details magazine.

Thiel has been a big backer of the Seasteading Institute, which seeks to build sovereign nations on oil rig-like platforms to occupy waters beyond the reach of law-of-the-sea treaties. The idea is for these countries to start from scratch--free from the laws, regulations, and moral codes of any existing place. Details says the experiment would be "a kind of floating petri dish for implementing policies that libertarians, stymied by indifference at the voting booths, have been unable to advance: no welfare, looser building codes, no minimum wage, and few restrictions on weapons."

Good luck on Libertarian Island, dipshiats.


Yeah, nice way to start wars that end of your floating islands reduced to rubble.
 
2013-06-04 05:12:43 PM

Hydra: Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Capitalism is an economic system. Not a system of Government.

If you understood that, you (and the country) would be better off.

Economic systems and governmental systems are not mutually exclusive of each other, nor do they exist in separate vacuums.

/if you YOU understood that, you (and the country) would be better off  :P

vygramul: Depends on which Libertarian you ask. Some Libertarians, in the face of overwhelming historical contradiction, insist the free market is a panacea, and that: corporations that are not transparent would not get any investors; companies who don't put ingredient lists on their products wouldn't be able to make as much money as those who do; that lawsuits will keep companies from poisoning their consumers (but ask a Libertarian what they think about tobacco lawsuits); that restaurants that discriminate against colored folk will make less money than restaurants that do, and so won't do it (despite 100 years of watching that experiment fail).

You fail to recognize the overwhelming role that governmental failure played in any of that (federal subsidies of tobacco farmers, STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.). This shows that your blind faith in government bureaucrats to regulate the market better than underlying market forces just exposes your lack of understanding of what a market economy even is.

A market is simply a means of coordinating productive activity among large, genetically unrelated populations of humans. If we were all still part of small tribes of 20-35 like we were for most of our history, most of the problems of central planning go away since economic information can reasonably be gathered by the central decision-making authorities. Every person's wants and needs (read: their demand) and relative productive contribution to the group (read: supply) can easily be known, tracked, and calculated. Thus, some sort of (semi-)rational allocation of resources can take place. Expanding this relatively accurate  ...


You should read a book called debunking economics by a professor named steve keen. Here is a link to a youtube video of him speaking:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZKjQtrgdVY
 
2013-06-04 05:13:18 PM
All the Libertarians I'm friends with on Facebook are just conspiracy nuts. You can't even engage with them on any particular issues because most of them speak exclusively in 20 minute YouTube videos or oversimplistic meme pictures.
 
2013-06-04 05:13:39 PM

Rev.K: bulldg4life: Libertarianism sounds like a fantastic idea when explaining the idea that people should have endless freedoms and blah blah blah. In practice, it is ridiculously flawed and based on the idea that a) people have unlimited resources to deal with life, b) companies/businesses will act in a reasonable manner despite profit margins, c) citizens have the ability to affect the free market fast enough (or to such an agree) that there will be balance in society.

Excellent points, all.

But especially the last one.

I love the glorified consumer experience in the Libertarian utopia, whereby if the market was just truly free, consumers would have all the power and their votes with consumer dollars would hold weight and carry previously unthinkable power.

Consumers totally wouldn't get screwed by a business environment free to to whatever it wanted. Their corporate consciences just wouldn't allow it.


That's one thing that bothers me about libertarianism, is the lack of consumer protection.

I like knowing that my food and the products I buy are almost entirely safe, and won't poison me. What's to stop a company in Libertopia from cutting corners and putting sawdust in bread, for example, or something worse?
 
2013-06-04 05:13:47 PM

Rwa2play: tallguywithglasseson: Pay Pal founder and early Facebook investor Peter Thiel has given $1.25 million to an initiative to create floating libertarian countries in international waters, according to a profile of the billionaire in Details magazine.

Thiel has been a big backer of the Seasteading Institute, which seeks to build sovereign nations on oil rig-like platforms to occupy waters beyond the reach of law-of-the-sea treaties. The idea is for these countries to start from scratch--free from the laws, regulations, and moral codes of any existing place. Details says the experiment would be "a kind of floating petri dish for implementing policies that libertarians, stymied by indifference at the voting booths, have been unable to advance: no welfare, looser building codes, no minimum wage, and few restrictions on weapons."

Good luck on Libertarian Island, dipshiats.

Yeah, nice way to start wars that end of your floating islands reduced to rubble.


Their "libertarianism" will last until the first pirate shows up.
 
2013-06-04 05:13:48 PM

skullkrusher: vygramul: Hydra: STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.

Really? You're blaming Jim Crow Laws for FORCING restaurants to have whites-only counters?

Seriously?

Wow.

you realize that that's what many of them did? They specifically forbade non-segregated businesses and public places.


I keep hearing this one, but I never see any citation.
 
2013-06-04 05:13:58 PM

schrodinger: skullkrusher: right libertarianism is opposed to fractional reserve banking. It is also opposed to the Fed's existence but specifically, in this context, the Fed's impact on interest rates. No FRB, no artificially depressed interest rates, no housing bubble.

So how do they explain the bubble in gold, or the bubble in bitcoins?


inefficient markets and irrational exuberance. Of course, the market in commodities and "artificial" currencies lends itself to quick runs and volatility.
 
2013-06-04 05:14:21 PM
The reason you can't have a libertarian country is the same reason you can't have a purely communist country. You can't have people be aligned to that kind of ideology where there's no real compromise. Communists just eliminate all detractors and libertarians wouldn't ever stop someone from forming another type of government that would be more beneficial for them.

Libertarianism is nice but it relies too heavily on people being responsible for their own actions... and we can't have that!
 
2013-06-04 05:14:40 PM

tallguywithglasseson: Pay Pal founder and early Facebook investor Peter Thiel has given $1.25 million to an initiative to create floating libertarian countries in international waters, according to a profile of the billionaire in Details magazine.

Thiel has been a big backer of the Seasteading Institute, which seeks to build sovereign nations on oil rig-like platforms to occupy waters beyond the reach of law-of-the-sea treaties. The idea is for these countries to start from scratch--free from the laws, regulations, and moral codes of any existing place. Details says the experiment would be "a kind of floating petri dish for implementing policies that libertarians, stymied by indifference at the voting booths, have been unable to advance: no welfare, looser building codes, no minimum wage, and few restrictions on weapons."

Good luck on Libertarian Island, dipshiats.


I wonder if there will be any regulations for the building of their country-rafts?
 
2013-06-04 05:14:43 PM

rustypouch: Rev.K: bulldg4life: Libertarianism sounds like a fantastic idea when explaining the idea that people should have endless freedoms and blah blah blah. In practice, it is ridiculously flawed and based on the idea that a) people have unlimited resources to deal with life, b) companies/businesses will act in a reasonable manner despite profit margins, c) citizens have the ability to affect the free market fast enough (or to such an agree) that there will be balance in society.

Excellent points, all.

But especially the last one.

I love the glorified consumer experience in the Libertarian utopia, whereby if the market was just truly free, consumers would have all the power and their votes with consumer dollars would hold weight and carry previously unthinkable power.

Consumers totally wouldn't get screwed by a business environment free to to whatever it wanted. Their corporate consciences just wouldn't allow it.

That's one thing that bothers me about libertarianism, is the lack of consumer protection.

I like knowing that my food and the products I buy are almost entirely safe, and won't poison me. What's to stop a company in Libertopia from cutting corners and putting sawdust in bread, for example, or something worse?


Well, if they kill off all of their customers, there will be no one left to buy from them, will there? The lack of a system works.
 
2013-06-04 05:15:19 PM

schrodinger: skullkrusher: vygramul: Hydra: STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.

Really? You're blaming Jim Crow Laws for FORCING restaurants to have whites-only counters?

Seriously?

Wow.

you realize that that's what many of them did? They specifically forbade non-segregated businesses and public places.

I keep hearing this one, but I never see any citation.


Have you tried going back to high school and paying attention?
 
2013-06-04 05:15:41 PM

Rwa2play: Dancin_In_Anson: gimmegimme: By all means, demonstrate why the comparison is improper.

Libertarianism is not about no laws. Not in any way shape or form. And a Libertarian voter and a volunteer firefighter,  I point and laugh at your farking ignorant picture a post or two up.

And yet you still wonder why FDR was elected over Hoover...


He had a more libertarian message?
 
2013-06-04 05:16:18 PM

vygramul: Hydra: STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.

Really? You're blaming Jim Crow Laws for FORCING restaurants to have whites-only counters?

Seriously?


No, he's right in that many states did ban integrated facilities.

This overlooks the problem that, before the feds got involved, even without state enforcement of such laws (and some states did not have such laws), an integrated lunch counter would be burned to the ground immediately and the local sheriff (who coincidentally smelled of kerosene) would be sadly unable to find the perpetrators.  This is in fact what  did happen throughout the South.
 
2013-06-04 05:16:43 PM
I take them as embarrassed republicans that just want to be left alone, except for when they want stuff. Then they better get it or tyranny and tree of liberty, etc.
 
2013-06-04 05:16:57 PM

tfresh: Libertarianism is nice but it relies too heavily on people being responsible for their own actions


corporations are people, my friend....dumping toxic waste in your yard, then rebranding after they get caught.
 
2013-06-04 05:18:03 PM

qorkfiend: Rwa2play: tallguywithglasseson: Pay Pal founder and early Facebook investor Peter Thiel has given $1.25 million to an initiative to create floating libertarian countries in international waters, according to a profile of the billionaire in Details magazine.

Thiel has been a big backer of the Seasteading Institute, which seeks to build sovereign nations on oil rig-like platforms to occupy waters beyond the reach of law-of-the-sea treaties. The idea is for these countries to start from scratch--free from the laws, regulations, and moral codes of any existing place. Details says the experiment would be "a kind of floating petri dish for implementing policies that libertarians, stymied by indifference at the voting booths, have been unable to advance: no welfare, looser building codes, no minimum wage, and few restrictions on weapons."

Good luck on Libertarian Island, dipshiats.

Yeah, nice way to start wars that end of your floating islands reduced to rubble.

Their "libertarianism" will last until the first pirate shows up.


Yeah, right?  It's nice to extoll the virtues of libertarianism until that nice little monkey-wrench comes along and "POOF" your Libertarian utopia goes up in smoke.
 
2013-06-04 05:19:22 PM
the assumption of rational actors is where i jump off the bus.

yah, *if* you had economic or cultural rational actors, a whole lot of isms start making sense. it's just that the 'if' is so huge and predicated on a fairy tale that makes it impossible to take seriously.
 
2013-06-04 05:19:32 PM

schrodinger: skullkrusher: vygramul: Hydra: STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.

Really? You're blaming Jim Crow Laws for FORCING restaurants to have whites-only counters?

Seriously?

Wow.

you realize that that's what many of them did? They specifically forbade non-segregated businesses and public places.

I keep hearing this one, but I never see any citation.


LMGTFY:

Georgia - All persons licensed to conduct a restaurant, shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room or serve the two races anywhere under the same license.
 
2013-06-04 05:20:11 PM

rustypouch: Rev.K: bulldg4life: Libertarianism sounds like a fantastic idea when explaining the idea that people should have endless freedoms and blah blah blah. In practice, it is ridiculously flawed and based on the idea that a) people have unlimited resources to deal with life, b) companies/businesses will act in a reasonable manner despite profit margins, c) citizens have the ability to affect the free market fast enough (or to such an agree) that there will be balance in society.

Excellent points, all.

But especially the last one.

I love the glorified consumer experience in the Libertarian utopia, whereby if the market was just truly free, consumers would have all the power and their votes with consumer dollars would hold weight and carry previously unthinkable power.

Consumers totally wouldn't get screwed by a business environment free to to whatever it wanted. Their corporate consciences just wouldn't allow it.

That's one thing that bothers me about libertarianism, is the lack of consumer protection.

I like knowing that my food and the products I buy are almost entirely safe, and won't poison me. What's to stop a company in Libertopia from cutting corners and putting sawdust in bread, for example, or something worse?


Over time, the consumers would realize that the company makes shiatty sawdust bread and stop purchasing it forcing the company to make better bread or go out of business.

Sux2bu if you died from the sawdust bread before the company improved though.
 
2013-06-04 05:20:13 PM

skullkrusher: schrodinger: skullkrusher: vygramul: Hydra: STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.

Really? You're blaming Jim Crow Laws for FORCING restaurants to have whites-only counters?

Seriously?

Wow.

you realize that that's what many of them did? They specifically forbade non-segregated businesses and public places.

I keep hearing this one, but I never see any citation.

Have you tried going back to high school and paying attention?


Have you tried actually providing citation?

High school generally covers the state discriminating at the state level (i.e., public schools, voting, etc), and private businesses discriminating at the business level (i.e., restaurants, hotels, etc.).

You're making the argument that restaurants wanted to desegregate but were forced to segregate against their will.  I don't remember this covered anywhere in black history month, but if it actually was covered, I'm sure that you can provide a citation.
 
2013-06-04 05:21:17 PM

Rwa2play: and "POOF" your Libertarian utopia goes up in smoke.


not all of it, people who prepaid the fire department won't.
 
2013-06-04 05:21:36 PM

Lawnchair: Georgia - All persons licensed to conduct a restaurant, shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room or serve the two races anywhere under the same license.


Thank you!
 
2013-06-04 05:21:53 PM
That's the best the left can come up with? Okay, therefore, we must immediately ABANDON current forms of liberal democracy because, back in 1600, one could validly ask the question "Why are there no liberal democracies"? The liberal democracy did not exist until the 18th century. Likewise, one could, also in 1600, ask the question "Why are there no non-oligarchic republics"? Again, an 18th-century invention.

Hell's bells, liberals! How about asking in 1800 "Why hasn't slavery been abolished?"

Liberalism is a mental disorder.
 
2013-06-04 05:22:25 PM

skullkrusher: vygramul: Hydra: STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.

Really? You're blaming Jim Crow Laws for FORCING restaurants to have whites-only counters?

Seriously?

Wow.

you realize that that's what many of them did? They specifically forbade non-segregated businesses and public places.


I think you're jumping the shark on this one, friend.
 
2013-06-04 05:22:34 PM

schrodinger: skullkrusher: schrodinger: skullkrusher: vygramul: Hydra: STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.

Really? You're blaming Jim Crow Laws for FORCING restaurants to have whites-only counters?

Seriously?

Wow.

you realize that that's what many of them did? They specifically forbade non-segregated businesses and public places.

I keep hearing this one, but I never see any citation.

Have you tried going back to high school and paying attention?

Have you tried actually providing citation?

High school generally covers the state discriminating at the state level (i.e., public schools, voting, etc), and private businesses discriminating at the business level (i.e., restaurants, hotels, etc.).

You're making the argument that restaurants wanted to desegregate but were forced to segregate against their will.  I don't remember this covered anywhere in black history month, but if it actually was covered, I'm sure that you can provide a citation.


aww, now where was I doing that?
I can't speak for each (or any) business owner in each state where these laws forced them to segregate regardless of their wishes.

http://www.nps.gov/malu/forteachers/jim_crow_laws.htm

enjoy
 
2013-06-04 05:23:13 PM

gimmegimme: skullkrusher: vygramul: Hydra: STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.

Really? You're blaming Jim Crow Laws for FORCING restaurants to have whites-only counters?

Seriously?

Wow.

you realize that that's what many of them did? They specifically forbade non-segregated businesses and public places.

I think you're jumping the shark on this one, friend.


look who's wrong again...
 
2013-06-04 05:23:19 PM

Lawnchair: vygramul: Hydra: STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.

Really? You're blaming Jim Crow Laws for FORCING restaurants to have whites-only counters?

Seriously?

No, he's right in that many states did ban integrated facilities.

This overlooks the problem that, before the feds got involved, even without state enforcement of such laws (and some states did not have such laws), an integrated lunch counter would be burned to the ground immediately and the local sheriff (who coincidentally smelled of kerosene) would be sadly unable to find the perpetrators.  This is in fact what  did happen throughout the South.


It puts the cart before the horse. Rand Paul argued against the feds lifting the Jim Crow laws. You can't argue the feds are wrong to regulate and then claim that the problem was state laws.
 
2013-06-04 05:24:12 PM
THEN WHO WAS PHONE???

Go on libertarians. Answer it. Just try.
 
2013-06-04 05:24:15 PM

skullkrusher: Have you tried going back to high school and paying attention?


the difference is (I think) when you say states supported & even forced segregation, I think of the voters that put the officials in office to vote a particular socially acceptable way.

the State is simply a reflection of its inhabitants.

do you have a citation for the States forcibly enforcing segregation?
 
2013-06-04 05:24:41 PM
I use Somalia as an endpoint in an anti-Libertarian slippery slope argument.

1: Weak policing leads to provision of security by strong men
2: Strong men become local potentates
3: Strong men become kings
4: Feudalism.

It's a stretch, but it's how Europe went from the Roman empire to Feudal europe after the empire fell apart.

Would it happen that way here? Maybe. I'd bet on corporate overlords instead of feudal lords. Corporations with armies and nuclear weapons.

/Proctor & Gamble presents The Tide wars.
 
2013-06-04 05:24:43 PM

bulldg4life: rustypouch: Rev.K: bulldg4life: Libertarianism sounds like a fantastic idea when explaining the idea that people should have endless freedoms and blah blah blah. In practice, it is ridiculously flawed and based on the idea that a) people have unlimited resources to deal with life, b) companies/businesses will act in a reasonable manner despite profit margins, c) citizens have the ability to affect the free market fast enough (or to such an agree) that there will be balance in society.

Excellent points, all.

But especially the last one.

I love the glorified consumer experience in the Libertarian utopia, whereby if the market was just truly free, consumers would have all the power and their votes with consumer dollars would hold weight and carry previously unthinkable power.

Consumers totally wouldn't get screwed by a business environment free to to whatever it wanted. Their corporate consciences just wouldn't allow it.

That's one thing that bothers me about libertarianism, is the lack of consumer protection.

I like knowing that my food and the products I buy are almost entirely safe, and won't poison me. What's to stop a company in Libertopia from cutting corners and putting sawdust in bread, for example, or something worse?

Over time, the consumers would realize that the company makes shiatty sawdust bread and stop purchasing it forcing the company to make better bread or go out of business. rebrand as "NoDust!" a theoretically sawdust free alternative bread and start all over again

Sux2bu if you died from the sawdust bread before the company improved though.


FTF laissez faire economy.
 
2013-06-04 05:24:51 PM

bulldg4life: rustypouch: Rev.K: bulldg4life: Libertarianism sounds like a fantastic idea when explaining the idea that people should have endless freedoms and blah blah blah. In practice, it is ridiculously flawed and based on the idea that a) people have unlimited resources to deal with life, b) companies/businesses will act in a reasonable manner despite profit margins, c) citizens have the ability to affect the free market fast enough (or to such an agree) that there will be balance in society.

Excellent points, all.

But especially the last one.

I love the glorified consumer experience in the Libertarian utopia, whereby if the market was just truly free, consumers would have all the power and their votes with consumer dollars would hold weight and carry previously unthinkable power.

Consumers totally wouldn't get screwed by a business environment free to to whatever it wanted. Their corporate consciences just wouldn't allow it.

That's one thing that bothers me about libertarianism, is the lack of consumer protection.

I like knowing that my food and the products I buy are almost entirely safe, and won't poison me. What's to stop a company in Libertopia from cutting corners and putting sawdust in bread, for example, or something worse?

Over time, the consumers would realize that the company makes shiatty sawdust bread and stop purchasing it forcing the company to make better bread or go out of business.

Sux2bu if you died from the sawdust bread before the company improved though.


That's about where my thought process goes. But I don't want *anyone* to die before it's found out that a company is adulterating their product.
 
2013-06-04 05:25:38 PM

Rev.K: There is a sh*t-ton of unnecessary noise happening in this video.

The custom of case law as opposed to legislated regulation? I don't see that as relevant.


Sorry to put it this way, but since this is Fark, I kind of have to be a dick: your ignorance of how the law works is showing.

The differences between common law and legislation are EXTREMELY relevant to our discussion here as it is precisely the former that libertarians pay deference to (obviously, progressives pay deference to the latter), and it is the former that is SUPPOSED to inform the latter (although, in this day and age, it doesn't). Obviously, our system of law didn't just fall out of the sky, so it's important to understand and draw distinctions between law that has emerged over time vs. rules that have been legislated by rulers (including elected ones). Libertarians are fine with regulations and general rules that can reasonably be known and understood by everyone - it's the masses of legislated regulations made in the backrooms of Congress that they have most of their problems with. It is IMPOSSIBLE for any one person to know and understand with full comprehension the entire and ever-changing Code of Federal Regulations as well as all of the administrative rules handed down by every single agency of the government (FDA, SEC, IRS, etc.).


A government regulation enforcing the use of recycled paper for government use. He identifies that such a regulation would be detrimental to Maine, a top producer of paper. However, what he doesn't do at all, is attempt to understand the benefit of enacting such a regulation.

- are there cost savings to using recycled paper?
- are there environmental gains to using recycled paper?
- would the use of recycled paper advance other goals of the federal government?

Nope. None of that. A regulation would be bad for business and is therefore bad.


You completely missed his point. It was a point about public choice and protectionist policies designed to keep concentrated benefits (with dispersed costs) in place for political reasons. The senator (a Democrat) used his influence to kill an executive order made by the president at the time (a Democrat) to keep the contemporary legislation forcing the feds to use the products made in his state in effect. It would have cost that senator politically to allow such a chamge in regulation to go through, so he killed it. HE's the one who didn't make any cost/benefit analysis in his political calculation to kill off the regulation. Progress stifled.
 
2013-06-04 05:25:52 PM

Silly_Sot: That's the best the left can come up with? Okay, therefore, we must immediately ABANDON current forms of liberal democracy because, back in 1600, one could validly ask the question "Why are there no liberal democracies"? The liberal democracy did not exist until the 18th century. Likewise, one could, also in 1600, ask the question "Why are there no non-oligarchic republics"? Again, an 18th-century invention.

Hell's bells, liberals! How about asking in 1800 "Why hasn't slavery been abolished?"

Liberalism is a mental disorder.


true, we could get to a point in technological advancement where everyone can have everything they want and power generation is so clean that there is no pollution. Then libertarianism might...might work...
 
2013-06-04 05:26:21 PM

skullkrusher: gameshowhost: Deregulation creating more opaque markets... that's causal. The Fed's toodling is just an attempt to limit the destructive path(s) of said cause, not a cause in and of itself.

however, over a decade of artificially depressed interest rates and virtually "free" money lent itself quite nicely to a drive in home demand and the subsequent bubble along with the explosion in MBSs freeing that same capital to be lent again at artificially depressed rates.


Ah, but the MBSs would have been priced correctly had the proper regulations been in place, which would have forced them to divulge the actual risk.
 
2013-06-04 05:26:54 PM

skullkrusher: gimmegimme: skullkrusher: vygramul: Hydra: STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.

Really? You're blaming Jim Crow Laws for FORCING restaurants to have whites-only counters?

Seriously?

Wow.

you realize that that's what many of them did? They specifically forbade non-segregated businesses and public places.

I think you're jumping the shark on this one, friend.

look who's wrong again...


You do make a good point.  During WWII, the federal government specifically forbade the internment of Japanese Americans.  They all just went into the camps themselves.
 
2013-06-04 05:29:14 PM

Rev.K: [inapcache.boston.com image 850x550]


Libertarian FEMA response


You do not have the right to be assisted. Assistance is an act of kindness born out of good moral fiber.

As for the question: Why aren't there any Libertarian countries?

The answer is that Libertarianism is the product of two savagely corrupted ideologies colliding: out of control Capitalism and Progressive social engineering. There isn't, and has never been, a country on Earth that can be logically compared to the United States - not in geography, land area, protection, population, wealth and government. Libertarians are new and only came into existence  here and now(relatively speaking). Libertarian-esque countries will eventually come into existence too, but they'll look more like Texas and Washington State, and not at all like the anarchist and/or nazi imagery conjured up by clever word smiths and dimwits.
 
2013-06-04 05:29:56 PM

timujin: Gecko Gingrich: What rhymes with "orange"?

Sporange


Melange.
 
2013-06-04 05:29:57 PM

Hydra: The defining characteristic between "public" and "private" is the ability for a given entity to have legal, legitimate use of force. A private firm CANNOT force anyone to buy its products since it does not procure its own private military and holds guns to everyone's head (Wal-Mart doesn't have its own army).


This is one of the big failures of libertarians.  They don't understand that "force" extends beyond physical force.  There are other ways of controlling people that don't involve literally putting a gun to someone's head or using the threat of such.  Economic force is one of them.  Walmart doesn't need a gun to force an employee who is less than a week's pay away from not being able to pay rent to do what they want.  No one can make a rational choice when 1 of the options leaves them and their family homeless.
 
2013-06-04 05:30:08 PM

gameshowhost: skullkrusher: gameshowhost: Deregulation creating more opaque markets... that's causal. The Fed's toodling is just an attempt to limit the destructive path(s) of said cause, not a cause in and of itself.

however, over a decade of artificially depressed interest rates and virtually "free" money lent itself quite nicely to a drive in home demand and the subsequent bubble along with the explosion in MBSs freeing that same capital to be lent again at artificially depressed rates.

Ah, but the MBSs would have been priced correctly had the proper regulations been in place, which would have forced them to divulge the actual risk.


this is true, but with a free-floating interest rate the price of lending would put downward pressure on the demand for houses. As I said, a truly libertarian regime would introduce its own set of problems but the housing bubble wouldn't have been one of them - or would likely not have been one of them due to no money multiplier from FRB and interests rates rising as demand for money heated up
 
2013-06-04 05:30:11 PM
and also unicorns.
 
2013-06-04 05:30:44 PM

gimmegimme: skullkrusher: gimmegimme: skullkrusher: vygramul: Hydra: STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.

Really? You're blaming Jim Crow Laws for FORCING restaurants to have whites-only counters?

Seriously?

Wow.

you realize that that's what many of them did? They specifically forbade non-segregated businesses and public places.

I think you're jumping the shark on this one, friend.

look who's wrong again...

You do make a good point.  During WWII, the federal government specifically forbade the internment of Japanese Americans.  They all just went into the camps themselves.


this doesn't even make a little bit of sense
 
2013-06-04 05:31:03 PM
gimmegimme:
Why should I have to pay if my neighbor's house catches fire?

Because you live in the same apartment block as him. And if his apartment goes up in flames, 200 people are out on the street.
 
2013-06-04 05:32:06 PM

tfresh: Libertarianism is nice but it relies too heavily on people being responsible for their own actions... and we can't have that!


That's a misread of fundamental human behavior -- people do *not* take responsibility for their own actions if there's a way they can prevent it from being spotted.  People try to get the most out of the least.  "People like to free ride" is the flipside of the "people like to own property" coin.
 
2013-06-04 05:32:24 PM

skullkrusher: gimmegimme: skullkrusher: gimmegimme: skullkrusher: vygramul: Hydra: STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.

Really? You're blaming Jim Crow Laws for FORCING restaurants to have whites-only counters?

Seriously?

Wow.

you realize that that's what many of them did? They specifically forbade non-segregated businesses and public places.

I think you're jumping the shark on this one, friend.

look who's wrong again...

You do make a good point.  During WWII, the federal government specifically forbade the internment of Japanese Americans.  They all just went into the camps themselves.

this doesn't even make a little bit of sense


Exactly.
 
2013-06-04 05:33:24 PM
Here's something although, the states involvement in segregation comes prior to civil rights & voting.

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/ArticlePrintable.jsp?id=h-361 0

pretty interesting stuff, it's seems so alien nowadays, hence the request for literature.
 
2013-06-04 05:33:28 PM

vygramul: Altair: vygramul: gameshowhost: [i40.tinypic.com image 479x229]
failed libertarian attempt to make their vision of the future sound appealing

If there's one thing that truly seems to defy Libertarian theory it's a love for the ultimate in fiat currency: Bitcoin.

as much as I hate to defend libertarians, I'm not really sure I'd call Bitcoin a fiat currency

Oh? What commodity backs it?


What central bank issues it?
 
2013-06-04 05:33:33 PM

skullkrusher: http://www.nps.gov/malu/forteachers/jim_crow_laws.htm

enjoy


I'm trying to find citations of when these laws were actually passed.

For instance, in Alabama, they made a law preventing blacks and whites from playing together in 1944, and additional laws against discrimination in the 1950s.  You know...  long after segregated businesses were already the norm.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~PUBLIC/civilrights/ordinances.html

In fact, the only reason for these laws existing at all this late in the game seems to be in anticipation of the upcoming Civil Rights Act, the same way that a lot of states are now trying to pass pro-NRA laws in anticipation of federal gun control.
 
2013-06-04 05:35:18 PM

qorkfiend: Their "libertarianism" will last until the first pirate shows up.


Oh, I think pirates would be the last of their concerns, as they'd all be armed to the teeth.

I'd be more concerned with what happens when Jerry tries cooking a turkey with gunpowder in his untreated driftwood apartment complex.

//or at least I would be, if I gave a shiat whether anybody who moved there lived or died
//which I wouldn't, even if it weren't a complete pipe dream
//which it is
 
2013-06-04 05:36:34 PM

skullkrusher: gameshowhost: skullkrusher: gameshowhost: vygramul: Altair: vygramul: gameshowhost: [i40.tinypic.com image 479x229]
failed libertarian attempt to make their vision of the future sound appealing

If there's one thing that truly seems to defy Libertarian theory it's a love for the ultimate in fiat currency: Bitcoin.

as much as I hate to defend libertarians, I'm not really sure I'd call Bitcoin a fiat currency

Oh? What commodity backs it?

PROCESSING POWER™

technically limitations on processing power ;)

That's true.  But it's still weird. :|

well, it is a fiat currency. It isn't backed by anything. However, the inflation of the "money supply" is restricted so... it's still a fiat currency.


you must not fully understand what a fiat currency is

/hint: bitcoin isn't one
 
2013-06-04 05:36:39 PM

schrodinger: skullkrusher: http://www.nps.gov/malu/forteachers/jim_crow_laws.htm

enjoy

I'm trying to find citations of when these laws were actually passed.

For instance, in Alabama, they made a law preventing blacks and whites from playing together in 1944, and additional laws against discrimination in the 1950s.  You know...  long after segregated businesses were already the norm.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~PUBLIC/civilrights/ordinances.html

In fact, the only reason for these laws existing at all this late in the game seems to be in anticipation of the upcoming Civil Rights Act, the same way that a lot of states are now trying to pass pro-NRA laws in anticipation of federal gun control.


I think a time frame was/is important to the discussion but once you establish that, everything makes perfect sense.
 
2013-06-04 05:36:46 PM

tallguywithglasseson: I'd be more concerned with what happens when Jerry tries cooking a turkey with gunpowder in his untreated driftwood apartment complex.


i'd be optimistic for a Bioshock theme park when all was said and done, tho.
 
2013-06-04 05:37:24 PM
Why are there no libertarian countries?

You're forgetting Somalia
 
2013-06-04 05:38:13 PM
Libertarians are mostly just anti-regulation corporate dupes or stoners but part of the appeal is having a philosophy that requires minimal thought because it's never tested.
 
2013-06-04 05:38:28 PM
i677.photobucket.com
 
2013-06-04 05:39:23 PM

Altair: skullkrusher: gameshowhost: skullkrusher: gameshowhost: vygramul: Altair: vygramul: gameshowhost: [i40.tinypic.com image 479x229]
failed libertarian attempt to make their vision of the future sound appealing

If there's one thing that truly seems to defy Libertarian theory it's a love for the ultimate in fiat currency: Bitcoin.

as much as I hate to defend libertarians, I'm not really sure I'd call Bitcoin a fiat currency

Oh? What commodity backs it?

PROCESSING POWER™

technically limitations on processing power ;)

That's true.  But it's still weird. :|

well, it is a fiat currency. It isn't backed by anything. However, the inflation of the "money supply" is restricted so... it's still a fiat currency.

you must not fully understand what a fiat currency is

/hint: bitcoin isn't one


What would you call it? It's certainly not a representative currency.
 
2013-06-04 05:39:55 PM

vygramul: Hydra: STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.

Really? You're blaming Jim Crow Laws for FORCING restaurants to have whites-only counters?

Seriously?

Wow.


Well, you see when government is used by racists for segregation, it's bad.  And when government forces racists to stop said segregation....it's also bad...or something.

I think it's fair to point out that government can be used to legalize bigotry, Jim Crow laws and anti-gay marriage laws are two examples.  On the flip side, and this is something libertarians are loathe to admit, government can protect the rights of those same groups.  Government isn't bad, per se, it's a tool.  It can be used to protect our rights or it can be used to fark us over.
 
2013-06-04 05:40:42 PM

lilbjorn: Why are there no libertarian countries?

You're forgetting Somalia


Somalia doesn't bother with the stupid child labor laws we have here, and they're VERY strong on the Second Amendment.

graphics8.nytimes.com
 
2013-06-04 05:42:01 PM

TheHighlandHowler: I think many democracies (and republics) are libertarian in their infancies, but as they mature, government grows.  This is partly due to demands from the populace, and politicians' lust for power.


Well damn, if there are many of them, it should be really easy to provide an example?
 
2013-06-04 05:42:25 PM
www.leftycartoons.com
 
2013-06-04 05:42:50 PM

Baryogenesis: Hydra: The defining characteristic between "public" and "private" is the ability for a given entity to have legal, legitimate use of force. A private firm CANNOT force anyone to buy its products since it does not procure its own private military and holds guns to everyone's head (Wal-Mart doesn't have its own army).

This is one of the big failures of libertarians.  They don't understand that "force" extends beyond physical force.  There are other ways of controlling people that don't involve literally putting a gun to someone's head or using the threat of such.  Economic force is one of them.  Walmart doesn't need a gun to force an employee who is less than a week's pay away from not being able to pay rent to do what they want.  No one can make a rational choice when 1 of the options leaves them and their family homeless.


And how exactly would anything wal-mart did render them homeless? Will they send an angry letter and just wait for the kids to shuffle out into the rain?

Wait no, the police will go their with guns and remove the family and drag them off to a dungeon or kill them if they resist.
 
2013-06-04 05:43:20 PM

d23: Again... with the language problems.  We're not talking about Libertarianism, we talking Corporate Anarchists.


Well, in that case, we did try that, if you consider the East India Company to count.

The question itself is a bit weasily. There is a first time for everything; there was a time when democracy was new and outrageous.
 
2013-06-04 05:43:29 PM
Ok, I followed the link (I suspect it was a false flag, and every libertarian claims everyone else is doing it wrong (see #8 on why this is really satire)).

1. Myth: Libertarianism is about blind faith in market processes.
Reality: they insist on it regardless of actual amount of faith.

2. Myth: Libertarians think there should be no government.
Reality: There should only be enough government to interfere with the "citizens".  Corporations have no restrictions they can't easily avoid.

3. Myth: Libertarians are selfish.
Reality: You're serious?  Let me laugh harder.  I will admit the existence of clueless kiddie libertarians, but there's only so long till you have to admit you are wearing blinders.

4. Myth: Libertarians don't care if poor people (especially children) starve and sick people die.
Reality:  Tell me when single payer health care is a Libertarian plank.  I'm waiting.

5. Myth: Libertarians think people should be able to do whatever they want.
Reality:  Libertarianism is so broken (how broken is it), that even this massive virtue isn't worth following their idiocy.  Also note that most of the political signs I saw for Ron Paul were anti-gay.  Might want a different poster boy.

6. Myth: Libertarians have a narrow "don't tread on me" ethos.
Reality: even the author admits it (see above).

7. Myth: Libertarians are corporate apologists.
Reality: Libertarians will have corporate lackeys fight you to the death to remove any restrictions on corporations.  Libertarians will also criticize corporations as long as anti-libertarian (and anti-property) anti-SLAPP laws are in place.  Once the glorious revolution removes these threats to property they will be forcibly silenced.

8. Myth: Libertarians agree on everything.
Reality: Admit it, you just made that one up.  The only thing you agree on is to always vote republican.

9. Myth: Libertarianism is untried and would never work.
Reality: Biggest attempts are US Articles of Confederation and the Confederate States of America.  See also the gilded age (check how it was for the 99.9%).

10. Myth: Libertarianism is a "materialistic" worldview.
Reality: Two words: Property confiscation.  Make sure you clean the foam out of you mouth before arguing this one.
 
2013-06-04 05:46:07 PM

qorkfiend: Altair: skullkrusher: gameshowhost: skullkrusher: gameshowhost: vygramul: Altair: vygramul: gameshowhost: [i40.tinypic.com image 479x229]
failed libertarian attempt to make their vision of the future sound appealing

If there's one thing that truly seems to defy Libertarian theory it's a love for the ultimate in fiat currency: Bitcoin.

as much as I hate to defend libertarians, I'm not really sure I'd call Bitcoin a fiat currency

Oh? What commodity backs it?

PROCESSING POWER™

technically limitations on processing power ;)

That's true.  But it's still weird. :|

well, it is a fiat currency. It isn't backed by anything. However, the inflation of the "money supply" is restricted so... it's still a fiat currency.

you must not fully understand what a fiat currency is

/hint: bitcoin isn't one

What would you call it? It's certainly not a representative currency.


A fiat currency is backed by intangible law.

Bitcoins are backed by intangible nothing.

If you want a phrase to call it, "Ponzi scheme" seems accurate.
 
2013-06-04 05:46:15 PM

justadadX3: The article seems to assert that since no country has adopted purely libertarian structures, that lebertarianism has no place in the public marketplace of ideas - and yet at the same time, seem to use the existence of large scale socialist states to support the concept that socialism is a valid approach - and yet all states that have employed socialism as the exclusive philosophy have failed mightily - and most if not all that are leaning that way are in some level of decay that suggests a slide towards becoming a failed state (20+% structural unemployment in the EU for example).

I don't want a pure libertarian system - and I am not dissing you lefties in FARKland - just pointing out that the author's logic is extremely flawed - I think that some of my braincells have perished from reading this.


Reading comprehension: you fail. Chiefly because you fail to distinguish between authoritarian socialism,  and welfare state capitalism. To your mind, there's no economic difference between Soviet era East Germany, and Sweden today.
 
2013-06-04 05:46:50 PM

skullkrusher: gameshowhost: skullkrusher: gameshowhost: Deregulation creating more opaque markets... that's causal. The Fed's toodling is just an attempt to limit the destructive path(s) of said cause, not a cause in and of itself.

however, over a decade of artificially depressed interest rates and virtually "free" money lent itself quite nicely to a drive in home demand and the subsequent bubble along with the explosion in MBSs freeing that same capital to be lent again at artificially depressed rates.

Ah, but the MBSs would have been priced correctly had the proper regulations been in place, which would have forced them to divulge the actual risk.

this is true, but with a free-floating interest rate the price of lending would put downward pressure on the demand for houses. As I said, a truly libertarian regime would introduce its own set of problems but the housing bubble wouldn't have been one of them - or would likely not have been one of them due to no money multiplier from FRB and interests rates rising as demand for money heated up


A free-floating interest rate is just as susceptible to the whims of human irrationality, though, and could easily blow up good public policy that produces positive externalities (like getting home ownership into the hands of as many people as can afford it).  There's no doubt that the Fed's hand in monetary policy is at best a blunt instrument and is imperfect, I definitely agree with you on that, but better them with their paws in the soup than being at the mercy of a potential bubble of cray-cray.

"More transparency" is better than "more reliance on an unfettered market" at this stage. Eventually that can flip, if "more transparency" is applied. Make markets far more transparent and there'd less need for gov't interference (yes, that ~could~ mean "more oversight" but that would also mean "less chance of getting hosed by opaque transactions" and "less people [external to transactions] being on the hook")
 
2013-06-04 05:47:40 PM

Karac: George Bush...turning Iraq into a democracy


img1.fark.net
 
2013-06-04 05:49:32 PM
There are many questions you can ask of libertarians. "Why are there no libertarian countries?" is a rather uninteresting one, the kind you would see on page three of a Fark thread.

But I'm sure this time, the author has put an exciting and novel spin on it.

*reads article*
Or not. Not is good, too.
 
2013-06-04 05:52:40 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Libertarians are mostly just anti-regulation corporate dupes or stoners but part of the appeal is having a philosophy that requires minimal thought because it's never tested.


Yeah, but they're not as harmless as all that. They provide philosophical cover for the rentier capitalists to dismantle the laws that were put in place to protect the people from them, things like early voting, environmental protections, workplace safety regulations, strong unions, and so forth.
 
2013-06-04 05:53:14 PM

schrodinger: skullkrusher: http://www.nps.gov/malu/forteachers/jim_crow_laws.htm

enjoy

I'm trying to find citations of when these laws were actually passed.

For instance, in Alabama, they made a law preventing blacks and whites from playing together in 1944, and additional laws against discrimination in the 1950s.  You know...  long after segregated businesses were already the norm.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~PUBLIC/civilrights/ordinances.html

In fact, the only reason for these laws existing at all this late in the game seems to be in anticipation of the upcoming Civil Rights Act, the same way that a lot of states are now trying to pass pro-NRA laws in anticipation of federal gun control.


Most of the Jim Crow Laws passed after Reconstruction, once the invading Northerners had finished trying to demolish Confederate culture, and been gone long enough they weren't coming back quickly.  In Lies My Teacher Told Me (if I'm remembering the correct book) the South was pretty integrated and relatively equal opportunity (officially) up through the late 1880s to early 20th century, depending on the locale.
 
2013-06-04 05:54:21 PM
The question that Spencerite "libertarians" can't answer is this:  If the scope of government should be limited to enforcing contract and property rights as you say, won't a "libertarian" society eventually create a large and intrusive state apparatus to enforce those rights, given the propensity of people to fight over them?

A couple of others:

Should the right of property include the right to own another human being?  To buy and sell one?

Should a person be able to contract with another person to work for food and shelter only?
 
2013-06-04 05:55:36 PM

schrodinger: skullkrusher: http://www.nps.gov/malu/forteachers/jim_crow_laws.htm

enjoy

I'm trying to find citations of when these laws were actually passed.

For instance, in Alabama, they made a law preventing blacks and whites from playing together in 1944, and additional laws against discrimination in the 1950s.  You know...  long after segregated businesses were already the norm.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~PUBLIC/civilrights/ordinances.html

In fact, the only reason for these laws existing at all this late in the game seems to be in anticipation of the upcoming Civil Rights Act, the same way that a lot of states are now trying to pass pro-NRA laws in anticipation of federal gun control.


Having the laws allowed the state and local communities to use the Police forces to more effectively intimidate those who would challenge a business's segregation policies.
 
2013-06-04 05:55:39 PM
I can see by reading through this thread that public education has done it's job and done it...well.
 
2013-06-04 05:56:22 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: I can see by reading through this thread that public education has done it's job and done it...well.


well, whatever leaves you smug and obtuse, we all know that's what is important.
 
2013-06-04 05:57:13 PM

qorkfiend: Altair: skullkrusher: gameshowhost: skullkrusher: gameshowhost: vygramul: Altair: vygramul: gameshowhost: [i40.tinypic.com image 479x229]
failed libertarian attempt to make their vision of the future sound appealing

If there's one thing that truly seems to defy Libertarian theory it's a love for the ultimate in fiat currency: Bitcoin.

as much as I hate to defend libertarians, I'm not really sure I'd call Bitcoin a fiat currency

Oh? What commodity backs it?

PROCESSING POWER™

technically limitations on processing power ;)

That's true.  But it's still weird. :|

well, it is a fiat currency. It isn't backed by anything. However, the inflation of the "money supply" is restricted so... it's still a fiat currency.

you must not fully understand what a fiat currency is

/hint: bitcoin isn't one

What would you call it? It's certainly not a representative currency.


That's the point.  It's a  new concept that does not fall into any of the the existing categories.  I'd call it Bitcoin.
 
2013-06-04 05:57:25 PM

Altair: vygramul: Altair: vygramul: gameshowhost: [i40.tinypic.com image 479x229]
failed libertarian attempt to make their vision of the future sound appealing

If there's one thing that truly seems to defy Libertarian theory it's a love for the ultimate in fiat currency: Bitcoin.

as much as I hate to defend libertarians, I'm not really sure I'd call Bitcoin a fiat currency

Oh? What commodity backs it?

What central bank issues it?


Pretty much irrelevant once you get into the reasons Libertarians object to fiat currencies. They will hurry to tell you that it's not worth anything. It's fake. There's nothing behind it. It's just a piece of paper. It's only worth something because you THINK it's worth something. And then they'll go for Bitcoin?
 
2013-06-04 05:57:41 PM

wildcardjack: I use Somalia as an endpoint in an anti-Libertarian slippery slope argument.

1: Weak policing leads to provision of security by strong men
2: Strong men become local potentates
3: Strong men become kings
4: Feudalism.

It's a stretch, but it's how Europe went from the Roman empire to Feudal europe after the empire fell apart.

Would it happen that way here? Maybe. I'd bet on corporate overlords instead of feudal lords. Corporations with armies and nuclear weapons.

/Proctor & Gamble presents The Tide wars.


You're assuming something similar isn't already in place.

I know several people who are forced to stay employed by major corporations because if they switched jobs, they would be denied health insurance and would die as a result.
 
2013-06-04 05:59:27 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: I can see by reading through this thread that public education has done it's job and done it...well.


I know i had a "Duh" moment.
 
2013-06-04 06:02:03 PM

Altair: qorkfiend: Altair: skullkrusher: gameshowhost: skullkrusher: gameshowhost: vygramul: Altair: vygramul: gameshowhost: [i40.tinypic.com image 479x229]
failed libertarian attempt to make their vision of the future sound appealing

If there's one thing that truly seems to defy Libertarian theory it's a love for the ultimate in fiat currency: Bitcoin.

as much as I hate to defend libertarians, I'm not really sure I'd call Bitcoin a fiat currency

Oh? What commodity backs it?

PROCESSING POWER™

technically limitations on processing power ;)

That's true.  But it's still weird. :|

well, it is a fiat currency. It isn't backed by anything. However, the inflation of the "money supply" is restricted so... it's still a fiat currency.

you must not fully understand what a fiat currency is

/hint: bitcoin isn't one

What would you call it? It's certainly not a representative currency.

That's the point.  It's a  new concept that does not fall into any of the the existing categories.  I'd call it Bitcoin.


Actually, it falls into "fiat currency" quite neatly. The term wasn't invented because GOVERNMENT said it was valuable. The government says its gold-backed currency was what's legal tender, too. The term was invented because the government said it was valuable DESPITE NO BACKING. Bitcoin is hardly a new category, conceptually. It's a variant of an old category.
 
2013-06-04 06:02:21 PM

Baryogenesis: This is one of the big failures of libertarians.  They don't understand that "force" extends beyond physical force.  There are other ways of controlling people that don't involve literally putting a gun to someone's head or using the threat of such.  Economic force is one of them.  Walmart doesn't need a gun to force an employee who is less than a week's pay away from not being able to pay rent to do what they want.  No one can make a rational choice when 1 of the options leaves them and their family homeless.


The problem you describe is one of scarcity and trade-offs. A Wal-Mart employee chooses to be employed because he demands other goods and services he cannot provide for himself. Wal-Mart can "force" him to do something only to the extent that their employment contract allows them, and the employee is always free to leave and find new employment should he so choose. That might not be a wise decision for the employee since he demands food and other goods, but he is free to choose who employs him.

If food was as plentiful as air, no one would need to produce it, and that employee wouldn't have to work for it in the first place. Scarcity is a current condition of existence - there simply is not enough stuff available to satisfy every single person's wants and needs (this is what drives production in the first place). It is not something that Wal-Mart foists upon the employee as retribution for an act/failing to act in the manner in which it wants. The "force" that libertarians refer to is the only kind of force that humans can use against other humans; the fact that we all need to eat is part of our state of being human, and that's not something anyone can control.

Communist_Manifesto: You should read a book called debunking economics by a professor named steve keen. Here is a link to a youtube video of him speaking:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZKjQtrgdVY


Sure, I'll give it a listen. Bookmarked for when I get the chance.
 
2013-06-04 06:02:32 PM

schrodinger: qorkfiend: Altair: skullkrusher: gameshowhost: skullkrusher: gameshowhost: vygramul: Altair: vygramul: gameshowhost: [i40.tinypic.com image 479x229]
failed libertarian attempt to make their vision of the future sound appealing

If there's one thing that truly seems to defy Libertarian theory it's a love for the ultimate in fiat currency: Bitcoin.

as much as I hate to defend libertarians, I'm not really sure I'd call Bitcoin a fiat currency

Oh? What commodity backs it?

PROCESSING POWER™

technically limitations on processing power ;)

That's true.  But it's still weird. :|

well, it is a fiat currency. It isn't backed by anything. However, the inflation of the "money supply" is restricted so... it's still a fiat currency.

you must not fully understand what a fiat currency is

/hint: bitcoin isn't one

What would you call it? It's certainly not a representative currency.

A fiat currency is backed by intangible law.

Bitcoins are backed by intangible nothing.

If you want a phrase to call it, "Ponzi scheme" seems accurate.


A Ponzi scheme misrepresents itself to its investors.

BitCoin is what it is, openly.

I would term it a "stupid fad bubble." Kind of like tulips.
 
2013-06-04 06:03:06 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: I can see by reading through this thread that public education has done it's job and done it...well.


What job is that exactly?
 
2013-06-04 06:03:29 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com
Libertarian child-care
 
2013-06-04 06:04:56 PM

Mrtraveler01: What job is that exactly?


To educate you on the importance of the role the state....er society has in providing.
 
2013-06-04 06:05:04 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: I can see by reading through this thread that public education has done it's job and done it...


I don't really think you can blame the naivete of Libertarians on public education.
 
2013-06-04 06:05:59 PM

ManRay: In general, people are assholes, especially to people they don't know. There have been libertarian societies, but they were small groups of people that interacted with each other regularly. The self regulation comes in to play when you know people personally. It's hard to screw over someone you know, easy to do to a faceless crowd. Past a certain point in population and some person or group will always arise to exert power over everyone else.


This is basically why Libertarianism doesn't work in a modern society. The honor system has never been proven to work on a large scale.

It only works if everyone plays by the rules and if 1 or more people decide to be an asshole, the whole system goes into disarray.
 
2013-06-04 06:07:19 PM

Dedmon: TheHighlandHowler: I think many democracies (and republics) are libertarian in their infancies, but as they mature, government grows.  This is partly due to demands from the populace, and politicians' lust for power.

Well damn, if there are many of them, it should be really easy to provide an example?


Ummm.....really?

The United States, remember?  It was called "The Articles of Confederation", and it did not work out well at all.....
 
2013-06-04 06:07:35 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Dancin_In_Anson: I can see by reading through this thread that public education has done it's job and done it...

I don't really think you can blame the naivete of Libertarians on public education.


I know, how dare they teach me the epic fail that was the Articles of Confederation.
 
2013-06-04 06:07:53 PM

Snarfangel: There are many questions you can ask of libertarians. "Why are there no libertarian countries?" is a rather uninteresting one, the kind you would see on page three of a Fark thread.

But I'm sure this time, the author has put an exciting and novel spin on it.

*reads article*
Or not. Not is good, too.


Okay. Then let's try this:

Why is it in every country on the planet where people have been free to choose, they've all picked to some greater or lesser degree a government charged with economic regulation and provision of assorted social services, including redistribution of wealth to assist the poor?

Surely it's not because laissez-faire has so little persuasive appeal that it has been unable to win a sustained majority anywhere in history.
 
2013-06-04 06:08:07 PM

BMFPitt: schrodinger: qorkfiend: Altair: skullkrusher: gameshowhost: skullkrusher: gameshowhost: vygramul: Altair: vygramul: gameshowhost: [i40.tinypic.com image 479x229]
failed libertarian attempt to make their vision of the future sound appealing

If there's one thing that truly seems to defy Libertarian theory it's a love for the ultimate in fiat currency: Bitcoin.

as much as I hate to defend libertarians, I'm not really sure I'd call Bitcoin a fiat currency

Oh? What commodity backs it?

PROCESSING POWER™

technically limitations on processing power ;)

That's true.  But it's still weird. :|

well, it is a fiat currency. It isn't backed by anything. However, the inflation of the "money supply" is restricted so... it's still a fiat currency.

you must not fully understand what a fiat currency is

/hint: bitcoin isn't one

What would you call it? It's certainly not a representative currency.

A fiat currency is backed by intangible law.

Bitcoins are backed by intangible nothing.

If you want a phrase to call it, "Ponzi scheme" seems accurate.

A Ponzi scheme misrepresents itself to its investors.

BitCoin is what it is, openly.

I would term it a "stupid fad bubble." Kind of like tulips.


So it's a commodity futures market.
 
2013-06-04 06:08:37 PM

tirob: The question that Spencerite "libertarians" can't answer is this:  If the scope of government should be limited to enforcing contract and property rights as you say, won't a "libertarian" society eventually create a large and intrusive state apparatus to enforce those rights, given the propensity of people to fight over them?

A couple of others:

Should the right of property include the right to own another human being?  To buy and sell one?

Should a person be able to contract with another person to work for food and shelter only?


Conceptually, yes.  However, the voluntary nature of that servitude (necessary for the concept) is pretty ephemeral and on a practical level, impossible to truly verify to an outside observer.  It's like a teacher sleeping with their high school students--due to the inherent power imbalance, it's hard to prove there's no coercion, and to maintain a stable society, we start with the assumption there is.

Coerced slavery is always wrong, but if you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a mentally fit adult wished to voluntarily submit to indentured servitude (renting rather than owning) in accordance with a carefully drawn out contract, I'd say "Fine, if they really want to", though you'd be hard pressed to prove their mental fitness and willingness to submit simultaneously.
 
2013-06-04 06:09:09 PM

BMFPitt: A Ponzi scheme misrepresents itself to its investors.

BitCoin is what it is, openly.

I would term it a "stupid fad bubble." Kind of like tulips.


Just wait until unregulated fractional reserve banking gets its hands on it.
 
2013-06-04 06:10:18 PM

Mrtraveler01: Dancin_In_Anson: I can see by reading through this thread that public education has done it's job and done it...well.

What job is that exactly?


To ensure that cash-strapped public schools keep buying Texan-generated derpy schoolbooks.
 
2013-06-04 06:10:55 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: I can see by reading through this thread that public education has done it's job and done it...well.


You complain about public education?  Big surprise.
 
2013-06-04 06:11:22 PM

Mrtraveler01: Philip Francis Queeg: Dancin_In_Anson: I can see by reading through this thread that public education has done it's job and done it...

I don't really think you can blame the naivete of Libertarians on public education.

I know, how dare they teach me the epic fail that was the Articles of Confederation.


controversy.wearscience.com
 
2013-06-04 06:11:28 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: ManRay: A question liberals have problems with:

Is there anything that you think is a good idea that the government should not be involved in?

I think a me having a night of hot, steamy sex with Salma Hayek is a very good idea, but I don't see any role for the governmentb in it.


I'm pretty sure you would need armed soldiers backed with the full force of government for that to happen.
 
2013-06-04 06:12:12 PM
Communist_Manifesto:  You should read a book called debunking economics by a professor named steve keen. Here is a link to a youtube video of him speaking:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZKjQtrgdVY

Last I heard the estimate of sales/wealth/whatever of imaginary property (sometimes called intellectual property) was upwards of 80% in the US (exports are even higher): http://www.ftc.gov/os/2011/03/110307patentreport.pdf (note, I'm a farker.  Of course I haven't read it).  The point here is that the market completely fails for this type of thing.  Even in the fairy tale world of economic propaganda, the market balances supply and demand.  When you have mostly unlimited resources (economists will snidely point out "supply" is term of art thus meaningless in the real world) all of this goes out the window.

I wish I had an answer about how to both have unlimited access to imaginary property (if only to build on.  Can you imagine what would happen to science if you could only cite papers from 20 years ago or pay heavy fees, lawyers, and trolls?  That's what engineering is like in 21st America) and some means to pay the creators.  But I won't pretend that capitalism and the market still work when it is obviously not built for the vast majority of stuff for sale.
 
2013-06-04 06:12:25 PM

BMFPitt: A Ponzi scheme misrepresents itself to its investors.

BitCoin is what it is, openly.

I would term it a "stupid fad bubble." Kind of like tulips.


Tulips would still serve a purpose even if they were impossible to sell for $$$.

Bitcoins, not so much.
 
2013-06-04 06:13:14 PM
Here's two questions that I have for "libertarians": Can you explain your political philosophy in a way that doesn't make you sound like a dick? Can you provide proof of a successful "libertarian" government? One that embodies your specific dystopian/Utopian ideals?
 
2013-06-04 06:13:38 PM

vygramul: Actually, it falls into "fiat currency" quite neatly. The term wasn't invented because GOVERNMENT said it was valuable. The government says its gold-backed currency was what's legal tender, too. The term was invented because the government said it was valuable DESPITE NO BACKING. Bitcoin is hardly a new category, conceptually. It's a variant of an old category.


And it's not the first non-government currency created, even in the States.  Usually, the Secret Service cracks down on those guys (possibly unconstitutionally so), but in a few cases where the organization isn't deemed a threat, they stick around for a bit.  Didn't Emperor Norton have local restaurants and businesses accept his currency?
 
2013-06-04 06:15:10 PM
ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2013-06-04 06:15:44 PM
schrodinger:

Bitcoins, not so much.

you laugh now, but when i've got the world's coolest Pog collection, we'll see who laughs last.
 
2013-06-04 06:16:06 PM
What is six times nine
 
2013-06-04 06:16:09 PM
rustypouch:
That's about where my thought process goes. But I don't want *anyone* to die before it's found out that a company is adulterating their product.

Then you should buy your own mass spectrometer and test everything you buy before you use or ingest it.

/slacker
//but only buy your mass spec from a reputable dealer
 
2013-06-04 06:16:46 PM

palelizard: Didn't Emperor Norton have local restaurants and businesses accept his currency?

www.zpub.com
 
2013-06-04 06:17:12 PM
Well, I don't really think that the end can be assessed as of itself as being the end because what does the end feel like? It's like saying when you try to extrapolate the end of the universe, you say, if the universe is indeed infinite, then how - what does that mean? How far is all the way, and then if it stops, what's stopping it, and what's behind what's stopping it? So, what's the end, you know, is my question to you.
 
2013-06-04 06:18:05 PM
I don't get the bitcoin thing. What useful purpose is it supposed to serve?
 
2013-06-04 06:18:05 PM

palelizard: vygramul: Actually, it falls into "fiat currency" quite neatly. The term wasn't invented because GOVERNMENT said it was valuable. The government says its gold-backed currency was what's legal tender, too. The term was invented because the government said it was valuable DESPITE NO BACKING. Bitcoin is hardly a new category, conceptually. It's a variant of an old category.

And it's not the first non-government currency created, even in the States.  Usually, the Secret Service cracks down on those guys (possibly unconstitutionally so), but in a few cases where the organization isn't deemed a threat, they stick around for a bit.  Didn't Emperor Norton have local restaurants and businesses accept his currency?


Usually, currencies in the U.S. got cracked down on because they were doing other things illegally as well. But other currencies exist all over the place, even if they're not called currency. But take Disney Dollars, for example.
 
2013-06-04 06:18:44 PM

Mrtraveler01: I don't get the bitcoin thing. What useful purpose is it supposed to serve?


You can buy drugs and child porn without linking to a bank account.
 
2013-06-04 06:19:06 PM

HighOnCraic: Well, I don't really think that the end can be assessed as of itself as being the end because what does the end feel like? It's like saying when you try to extrapolate the end of the universe, you say, if the universe is indeed infinite, then how - what does that mean? How far is all the way, and then if it stops, what's stopping it, and what's behind what's stopping it? So, what's the end, you know, is my question to you.


it's like falling into a zen K-hole.
 
2013-06-04 06:19:49 PM

Hydra: The problem you describe is one of scarcity and trade-offs. A Wal-Mart employee chooses to be employed because he demands other goods and services he cannot provide for himself. Wal-Mart can "force" him to do something only to the extent that their employment contract allows them, and the employee is always free to leave and find new employment should he so choose. That might not be a wise decision for the employee since he demands food and other goods, but he is free to choose who employs him.

If food was as plentiful as air, no one would need to produce it, and that employee wouldn't have to work for it in the first place. Scarcity is a current condition of existence - there simply is not enough stuff available to satisfy every single person's wants and needs (this is what drives production in the first place). It is not something that Wal-Mart foists upon the employee as retribution for an act/failing to act in the manner in which it wants. The "force" that libertarians refer to is the only kind of force that humans can use against other humans; the fact that we all need to eat is part of our state of being human, and that's not something anyone can control


And this right here is part of why libertarianism lacks persuasive appeal, and has never and will never win a sustained majority of public support in any country ever. You harp on the semantics of "force" in such a way that reveals a total failure to grasp that the "free" market is highly coercive. You pretend that because nobody is pointing a gun at his head, that the Wal-Mart employee has "freedom." But workers everywhere know that freedom is illusory because they've inhabited the real world for more than five minutes. They do what the boss says because they have to.
 
2013-06-04 06:20:41 PM
The question should involve more fish and/or coconuts.

/You can't spell austrian economics without autism
 
2013-06-04 06:21:06 PM
Why is a raven like a writing desk?
 
2013-06-04 06:21:33 PM

palelizard: tirob:


Coerced slavery is always wrong, but if you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a mentally fit adult wished to voluntarily submit to indentured servitude


Prove to whom?  There you go setting up a state.

palelizard:  in accordance with a carefully drawn out contract, I'd say "Fine, if they really want to", though you'd be hard pressed to prove their mental fitness and willingness to submit simultaneously.

Prove their mental fitness, etc., to whom?  The Libertarian Tribunal for the Parsing of Contracts Between Indentured Servants and Their Owners?
 
2013-06-04 06:22:25 PM

skullkrusher: SpiderQueenDemon: DjangoStonereaver: The fact that it was created by Robert Heinlein for STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND, and was never meant
to be taken seriously as an actual political system?

This.

I mean, my political belief system was made up by some white guys in wigs, some muckrakers, some suffragettes and a few safety experts and engineers who said 'let's try paying people a wage that'll let them buy the product and, y'know, not kill them,' but at least it's been play-tested.

/progressive
//used to be liberal, but we seem to need progressives more
///2013 just seems too much like the Gilded Age on repeat

I have never understood how SIASL was a novel about libertarianism as a political or economic system


I think perhaps I should have said THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS instead, but the idea that private enterprise
and individualism gets things done where government collectivism is a hindrance to progress runs as a thread through
much of Heinlein's work.
 
2013-06-04 06:23:14 PM
I misread this, and wondered why a thread about Librarians was on the politics tab
and was hoping for hot librarians
 
2013-06-04 06:28:55 PM
24.media.tumblr.com
The world may never know.
 
2013-06-04 06:29:15 PM

skullkrusher: Garble: skullkrusher: I have never understood how SIASL was a novel about libertarianism as a political or economic system

I was about to ask this... I don't see how a church that offers orgies and telekinetic powers is somehow a model of libertarianism.

It's not. I am pretty sure someone somewhere said that Stranger in a Strange Land is a libertarian book and that's just been repeated since by people who haven't read it.
It certainly talks of breaking the taboos against sexual freedom and hedonism but there's really nothing there about any libertarian politics or philosophy as we understand it and are discussing it here. Hell, Martian Mike was an anarcho-socialist if anything


The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is the libertarian (they called it "rational anarchist") one.  Pretty much anything after he married Ginny is going to be somewhat libertarian (with plenty of speeches/propaganda infodumps), but MiaHM is the biggie that is libertarian.

From memory Stranger in a strange land was all about breaking any taboo Heinlein could think of.  Mike/martians/Church of all Worlds were for: wild sexual abandon (and only "luck" prevented Mike from contacting the ghey, although he did try a devil's threesome in the uncut work), cannibalism, non-traditional marriage (I think they had about 10 wives and 10 husbands, although a few remained officially "married" and no attempt to balance the number of each), certain hints of incest and underage sex (I don't think there was anything beyond a hint in the uncut edition either), extreme humanism (no god but yourself: try arguing that in any red state and many blue areas), a certain hippy contempt for money (with a carnie's view of the marks).  I'm sure there are more sacred cows that Heinlein came up with and gave a good kicking, It's been awhile since I read it.
 
2013-06-04 06:38:21 PM

Mrtraveler01: ManRay: In general, people are assholes, especially to people they don't know. There have been libertarian societies, but they were small groups of people that interacted with each other regularly. The self regulation comes in to play when you know people personally. It's hard to screw over someone you know, easy to do to a faceless crowd. Past a certain point in population and some person or group will always arise to exert power over everyone else.

This is basically why Libertarianism doesn't work in a modern society. The honor system has never been proven to work on a large scale.

It only works if everyone plays by the rules and if 1 or more people decide to be an asshole, the whole system goes into disarray.


The problem isn't just people.  You've noticed how corporations act like psychopaths?  Now give them unlimited power.  Enjoy your new world.
 
2013-06-04 06:39:15 PM

yet_another_wumpus: Mrtraveler01: ManRay: In general, people are assholes, especially to people they don't know. There have been libertarian societies, but they were small groups of people that interacted with each other regularly. The self regulation comes in to play when you know people personally. It's hard to screw over someone you know, easy to do to a faceless crowd. Past a certain point in population and some person or group will always arise to exert power over everyone else.

This is basically why Libertarianism doesn't work in a modern society. The honor system has never been proven to work on a large scale.

It only works if everyone plays by the rules and if 1 or more people decide to be an asshole, the whole system goes into disarray.

The problem isn't just people.  You've noticed how corporations act like psychopaths?  Now give them unlimited power.  Enjoy your new world.


www.commonblog.com
 
2013-06-04 06:40:57 PM
SOCIAL CONTRACT, noobs. Society is better off with it. Deal. move on.
 
2013-06-04 06:47:03 PM

DjangoStonereaver: I think perhaps I should have said THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS instead, but the idea that private enterpriseand individualism gets things done where government collectivism is a hindrance to progress runs as a thread throughmuch of Heinlein's work.


and in cases it's true, and in other cases is isn't, life is more complicated then the political theories of man
 
2013-06-04 06:58:26 PM

bugontherug: Snarfangel: There are many questions you can ask of libertarians. "Why are there no libertarian countries?" is a rather uninteresting one, the kind you would see on page three of a Fark thread.

But I'm sure this time, the author has put an exciting and novel spin on it.

*reads article*
Or not. Not is good, too.

Okay. Then let's try this:

Why is it in every country on the planet where people have been free to choose, they've all picked to some greater or lesser degree a government charged with economic regulation and provision of assorted social services, including redistribution of wealth to assist the poor?

Surely it's not because laissez-faire has so little persuasive appeal that it has been unable to win a sustained majority anywhere in history.


I am saying that the question asked by the author is boring because it assumes that every idea that has been tried is superior to every idea that has not been tried. Surely you can think of at least one counter-example.
 
2013-06-04 06:58:44 PM

Mrtraveler01: This is basically why Libertarianism doesn't work in a modern society. The honor system has never been proven to work on a large scale.

It only works if everyone plays by the rules and if 1 or more people decide to be an asshole, the whole system goes into disarray.


It's funny to me that libertarian's philosophy generally depends on people doing the right thing, yet they have the reputation of being greedy pricks. Statis built their philosophy on people generally doing the wrong thing (hence the need for government correction ), yet have reputation for being compassionate. That always seemed backwards to me.
 
2013-06-04 07:02:10 PM

ManRay: It's funny to me that libertarian's philosophy generally depends on people doing the right thing, yet they have the reputation of being greedy pricks.


It shakes out when you realize that right-libertarianism is snake oil and you realize that most libertarians just want to be first in line to hit the "Betray" button as hard and as fast as they can.
 
2013-06-04 07:03:16 PM

udhq: wildcardjack: I use Somalia as an endpoint in an anti-Libertarian slippery slope argument.

1: Weak policing leads to provision of security by strong men
2: Strong men become local potentates
3: Strong men become kings
4: Feudalism.

It's a stretch, but it's how Europe went from the Roman empire to Feudal europe after the empire fell apart.

Would it happen that way here? Maybe. I'd bet on corporate overlords instead of feudal lords. Corporations with armies and nuclear weapons.

/Proctor & Gamble presents The Tide wars.

You're assuming something similar isn't already in place.

I know several people who are forced to stay employed by major corporations because if they switched jobs, they would be denied health insurance and would die as a result.


Hmm, but a) the corporations aren't engaging more citizens in thier ranks b) obamacare ditches preexisting conditions and the ADA protects disabilities.

Although that would explain the Republicorp vitriol for the ACA.
 
2013-06-04 07:09:54 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: ManRay: A question liberals have problems with:

Is there anything that you think is a good idea that the government should not be involved in?

I think a me having a night of hot, steamy sex with Salma Hayek is a very good idea, but I don't see any role for the governmentb in it.


I'm all for a night of hot, steamy sex with Salma Hayek myself.  Unfortunately I don't think it's going to happen without some sort of goverment intervention.
 
2013-06-04 07:11:23 PM

palelizard: Most of the Jim Crow Laws passed after Reconstruction, once the invading Northerners had finished trying to demolish Confederate culture, and been gone long enough they weren't coming back quickly. In Lies My Teacher Told Me (if I'm remembering the correct book) the South was pretty integrated and relatively equal opportunity (officially) up through the late 1880s to early 20th century, depending on the locale.


That sounds like the "Confederate myth of Reconstruction" that Loewen excoriates in that book.

Maybe I'm not reading your post correctly.
 
2013-06-04 07:11:31 PM
Is that question: how did you make yourself totally immune to reason?

Libertarianism works as well in practice as communism. They are opposite extremes yet both fail for the same reason which is people are selfish. People don't want to share, be it their accumulated wealth or their labor.
 
2013-06-04 07:12:13 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: It shakes out when you realize that right-libertarianism is snake oil and you realize that most libertarians just want to be first in line to hit the "Betray" button as hard and as fast as they can.


I guess that means the leftists are the only ones being honest about their opinions of their fellow man?
 
2013-06-04 07:16:00 PM

gimmegimme: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x300]

Libertarian fire department on the job.

Bitcoin miner
 
2013-06-04 07:19:00 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: BunkoSquad: That's almost word-for-word why I'm for single-payer health care.

Because anything other than total government control of the process is anarchy.


which single payer isn't AT ALL.

Such a liar.
 
2013-06-04 07:24:19 PM
Unfortunately, the majority of people can't understand why something is bad until they have a real-world example of it; that's why almost no one is currently advocating communism. We should give the libertarians a bit of the nation to make their utopian society and let them fail in spectacular fashion. Then maybe the idiocy that is libertarianism will finally die off.
 
2013-06-04 07:24:30 PM

tirob: Prove their mental fitness, etc., to whom?  The Libertarian Tribunal for the Parsing of Contracts Between Indentured Servants and Their Owners?


Only an anarchist denies the benefits or need for a state.  The rest of the world just disagrees as to the scope (in terms of how much the government touches) and to the degree (in terms of how much it controls what it touches).  My particular brand of libertarianism leans towards limited scope with high degree, but among that scope is enforcing and regulating contract law.

tallguywithglasseson: That sounds like the "Confederate myth of Reconstruction" that Loewen excoriates in that book.

Maybe I'm not reading your post correctly.


My point, somewhat rambling and sarcastically made, was Jim Crow laws were created after Reconstruction.  During Reconstruction when the South was under basically military occupation, things were more equal by military enforcement.   The previous poster had asked when Jim Crow laws were enacted.  And as to why, it's because the South, despite being defeated, didn't want to lose graciously.
 
2013-06-04 07:24:59 PM
There IS a Libertarian country!! It's the same place that all true Scotsmen live!!!
 
2013-06-04 07:27:50 PM
Why doesn't glue stick to the inside of the bottle?
 
2013-06-04 07:28:08 PM

Befuddled: Unfortunately, the majority of people can't understand why something is bad until they have a real-world example of it; that's why almost no one is currently advocating communism. We should give the libertarians a bit of the nation to make their utopian society and let them fail in spectacular fashion. Then maybe the idiocy that is libertarianism will finally die off.


No because it would fail and they would then say "Well it failed therefore it wasn't a true libertarian society". They already do that with countries now that massively fail using libertarian principals. They go "Well they only did this one principal, that's why it failed they need to do all of it to work". Which makes no sense because if it is so fragile that you must have it 100% in effect just right for it to work the system is flawed. This could be said about communism too.
 
2013-06-04 07:28:39 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: I can see by reading through this thread that public education has done it's job and done it...well.


Public schooling didn't teach me how awesome libertarians are, but it did teach me the difference between possessives and contractions.
 
2013-06-04 07:29:19 PM

schrodinger: skullkrusher: vygramul: Hydra: STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.

Really? You're blaming Jim Crow Laws for FORCING restaurants to have whites-only counters?

Seriously?

Wow.

you realize that that's what many of them did? They specifically forbade non-segregated businesses and public places.

I keep hearing this one, but I never see any citation.


The GOVERNMENT just did it on it's own.  No sir, not a single person in the South supported this, but the GOVERNMENT did it DOWN their THROATS.
 
2013-06-04 07:30:25 PM
"Name another amendment from the Constitution other than freedom of speech and right to bear arms?"
 
2013-06-04 07:31:31 PM

Ned Stark: Baryogenesis: Hydra: The defining characteristic between "public" and "private" is the ability for a given entity to have legal, legitimate use of force. A private firm CANNOT force anyone to buy its products since it does not procure its own private military and holds guns to everyone's head (Wal-Mart doesn't have its own army).

This is one of the big failures of libertarians.  They don't understand that "force" extends beyond physical force.  There are other ways of controlling people that don't involve literally putting a gun to someone's head or using the threat of such.  Economic force is one of them.  Walmart doesn't need a gun to force an employee who is less than a week's pay away from not being able to pay rent to do what they want.  No one can make a rational choice when 1 of the options leaves them and their family homeless.

And how exactly would anything wal-mart did render them homeless? Will they send an angry letter and just wait for the kids to shuffle out into the rain?

Wait no, the police will go their with guns and remove the family and drag them off to a dungeon or kill them if they resist.


The point is Wal-Mart isn't literally forcing them out of their home, but they still have power over their workers. Do X, Y, Z or you're fired is a type on control especially when the choice is between rent, food and Wal-Mart's demands.
 
2013-06-04 07:33:53 PM

Baryogenesis: The point is Wal-Mart isn't literally forcing them out of their home, but they still have power over their workers. Do X, Y, Z or you're fired is a type on control especially when the choice is between rent, food and Wal-Mart's demands.


A libertarian does not understand this point.

Every last time someone makes this point, you are guaranteed to get a response that implies the person should find another job, move to where a better job is available, or deal with it.
 
2013-06-04 07:34:20 PM

Darth_Lukecash: Two things that stand out: that skepticism of government, yet groups of people making decisions are some how better. And somehow libertarians are closer to their communities.


"Groups of people making decisions" is exactly what government is...
=Smidge=
 
2013-06-04 07:34:49 PM
I thought that after the CIA overthrew the lawfully elected government in Chile and installed Pinochet, the neo-con lunatics convinced Pinochet to enact many libertarian policies and those policies failed miserably, so much so that Pinochet had to enact basically socialist economic policies to fix things. So libertarianism has been tried and it failed.
 
2013-06-04 07:34:59 PM
Who is John Galt?
 
2013-06-04 07:35:20 PM

gameshowhost: [i47.tinypic.com image 500x282] 

libertarian surgeon general


I see Doctor Lizardo got a cushy government job.
 
2013-06-04 07:35:31 PM

palelizard: My point, somewhat rambling and sarcastically made, was Jim Crow laws were created after Reconstruction. During Reconstruction when the South was under basically military occupation, things were more equal by military enforcement. The previous poster had asked when Jim Crow laws were enacted. And as to why, it's because the South, despite being defeated, didn't want to lose graciously.


Phew. Sounded like it had to be sarcasm, but you know, Poe's law and all that.

But yeah, if not for the Federal government, the local (i.e., better) government wouldn't have had those nasty Jim Crow laws.
And if not for said laws, the good white citizens of the South would have Free Marketed their way to equality much faster. As evidenced by all the lynchings of blacks by whites.
 
2013-06-04 07:36:10 PM
How did I miss this thread?
 
2013-06-04 07:39:35 PM

OhioUGrad: "Name another amendment from the Constitution other than freedom of speech and right to bear arms?"


Libertarians are very big on the 4th Amendment. And the 10th for that matter.
 
2013-06-04 07:39:37 PM
In D_I_A's defense, I'll bet public education really does suck in Texas.
 
2013-06-04 07:43:52 PM

bulldg4life: A libertarian does not understand this point.

Every last time someone makes this point, you are guaranteed to get a response that implies the person should find another job, move to where a better job is available, start their own company or deal with it


You forgot a choice.
 
2013-06-04 07:45:34 PM
"Why do you ignore the parts of history where unregulated commerce got us used meat stores and piles of chalk and lye masquerading as butter?"

"Why should we trust people to not break the rules in an unregulated market when we can't trust them to do so now? Is your position really that if there were no authorities to bribe, everyone would behave?"

"Why is it that practically every historical example of libertarian concepts at work- such as privatized fire departments -has had to be replaced with organized, well-regulated efforts for the safety of everyone involved?"

"Would you willingly live in an area without a police force?"

"Do you think it's significant that the most famous works championing versions of libertarianism are works of fiction and not philosophical/economic treatises?"

"You do know Ron Paul is full of shiat, right?"

Sorry, had too much straw for just one strawman.
 
2013-06-04 07:48:38 PM

Anonymous Bosch: "Why do you ignore the parts of history where unregulated commerce got us used meat stores and piles of chalk and lye masquerading as butter?"

"Why should we trust people to not break the rules in an unregulated market when we can't trust them to do so now? Is your position really that if there were no authorities to bribe, everyone would behave?"

"Why is it that practically every historical example of libertarian concepts at work- such as privatized fire departments -has had to be replaced with organized, well-regulated efforts for the safety of everyone involved?"

"Would you willingly live in an area without a police force?"

"Do you think it's significant that the most famous works championing versions of libertarianism are works of fiction and not philosophical/economic treatises?"

"You do know Ron Paul is full of shiat, right?"

Sorry, had too much straw for just one strawman.


Then by all means tell us where libertarianism has worked.
 
2013-06-04 07:55:54 PM
upload.wikimedia.org

I think this is the only time Frank Chu has ever made sense.
 
2013-06-04 07:56:41 PM

Anonymous Bosch: "Why do you ignore the parts of history where unregulated commerce got us used meat stores and piles of chalk and lye masquerading as butter?"

"Why should we trust people to not break the rules in an unregulated market when we can't trust them to do so now? Is your position really that if there were no authorities to bribe, everyone would behave?"

"Why is it that practically every historical example of libertarian concepts at work- such as privatized fire departments -has had to be replaced with organized, well-regulated efforts for the safety of everyone involved?"

"Would you willingly live in an area without a police force?"

"Do you think it's significant that the most famous works championing versions of libertarianism are works of fiction and not philosophical/economic treatises?"

"You do know Ron Paul is full of shiat, right?"

Sorry, had too much straw for just one strawman.


Translation: Those questions will show my positions are dumb therefore I am going to insult them.
 
2013-06-04 08:09:23 PM

palelizard: tirob: Prove their mental fitness, etc., to whom?  The Libertarian Tribunal for the Parsing of Contracts Between Indentured Servants and Their Owners?

Only an anarchist denies the benefits or need for a state.  The rest of the world just disagrees as to the scope (in terms of how much the government touches) and to the degree (in terms of how much it controls what it touches).  My particular brand of libertarianism leans towards limited scope with high degree, but among that scope is enforcing and regulating contract law.


I get it.  I know enough Spencer to know what you believe.  But if there's one thing we know about indentures, it's that people run away from them.  For a government to enforce contracts of indenture, it needs not only courts, but police with a long reach, both to retrieve the runaways and to make sure they live up to their "agreements" once they are caught.  Your state with "limited scope" will turn into a police state nightmare in no time flat.  Better just to prohibit "contracts" of this kind; we'll actually get a less intrusive state that way, whether you like the regulation or not.
 
2013-06-04 08:22:09 PM

skullkrusher: It's not. I am pretty sure someone somewhere said that Stranger in a Strange Land is a libertarian book and that's just been repeated since by people who haven't read it.


One of the points of the article is that since Libertarians don't have a lot of real-world examples of their philosophy in action, they have to pick and choose a lot.

I've noticed Libertarians tend to post-mortem proselytize even more than the Mormons. Thomas Jefferson? Nevermind all the good he thought a responsible government could do, he liked freedom and therefore is now retroactively a libertarian. Suddenly every idea that Libertarians like becomes a Libertarian Idea.
 
2013-06-04 08:32:38 PM
Because it is a crappy philosophy that doesn't work in the real world, that's why.
 
2013-06-04 08:38:30 PM
What is a verbose contrarian?
 
2013-06-04 08:39:08 PM

bugontherug: Hydra: The problem you describe is one of scarcity and trade-offs. A Wal-Mart employee chooses to be employed because he demands other goods and services he cannot provide for himself. Wal-Mart can "force" him to do something only to the extent that their employment contract allows them, and the employee is always free to leave and find new employment should he so choose. That might not be a wise decision for the employee since he demands food and other goods, but he is free to choose who employs him.

If food was as plentiful as air, no one would need to produce it, and that employee wouldn't have to work for it in the first place. Scarcity is a current condition of existence - there simply is not enough stuff available to satisfy every single person's wants and needs (this is what drives production in the first place). It is not something that Wal-Mart foists upon the employee as retribution for an act/failing to act in the manner in which it wants. The "force" that libertarians refer to is the only kind of force that humans can use against other humans; the fact that we all need to eat is part of our state of being human, and that's not something anyone can control

And this right here is part of why libertarianism lacks persuasive appeal, and has never and will never win a sustained majority of public support in any country ever. You harp on the semantics of "force" in such a way that reveals a total failure to grasp that the "free" market is highly coercive. You pretend that because nobody is pointing a gun at his head, that the Wal-Mart employee has "freedom." But workers everywhere know that freedom is illusory because they've inhabited the real world for more than five minutes. They do what the boss says because they have to.


Exactly. The worker is only free to quit and look for work. Very few people can quit a job and be employed somewhere else the next day. IF that Wal-Mart worker could walk across the street and get a comparable job at Target then then they would be free. S/he could freely choose employment based on whatever factors they choose and not based on needing to pay bills and buy food.
 
2013-06-04 08:43:08 PM

ManRay: I can answer FTA question (assuming the author is aware of the difference between an anarchist and a libertarian): In general, people are assholes, especially to people they don't know. There have been libertarian societies, but they were small groups of people that interacted with each other regularly. The self regulation comes in to play when you know people personally. It's hard to screw over someone you know, easy to do to a faceless crowd. Past a certain point in population and some person or group will always arise to exert power over everyone else.


Hahahahaha! This is utter bullshiat. I'm trying to imagine the last ponzi scheme or investment scam I heard about that didn't involve the conman screwing over people they knew personally. For crying out loud, some of them steal from their own parents or people they go to church with! They live in the same neighborhoods with the people they're stabbing in the back. Not only that, there's a reason that a lot of them set themselves up in some of the less regulated financial markets or instruments --- because they know they can get away with no one watching over them.
 
2013-06-04 08:45:38 PM

skullkrusher: SpiderQueenDemon: DjangoStonereaver: The fact that it was created by Robert Heinlein for STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND, and was never meant
to be taken seriously as an actual political system?

This.

I mean, my political belief system was made up by some white guys in wigs, some muckrakers, some suffragettes and a few safety experts and engineers who said 'let's try paying people a wage that'll let them buy the product and, y'know, not kill them,' but at least it's been play-tested.

/progressive
//used to be liberal, but we seem to need progressives more
///2013 just seems too much like the Gilded Age on repeat

I have never understood how SIASL was a novel about libertarianism as a political or economic system


I came here to say THIS.   It was much more akin to the Bible and about love and such as.
 
2013-06-04 08:52:53 PM

gimmegimme: Anonymous Bosch: "Why do you ignore the parts of history where unregulated commerce got us used meat stores and piles of chalk and lye masquerading as butter?"

"Why should we trust people to not break the rules in an unregulated market when we can't trust them to do so now? Is your position really that if there were no authorities to bribe, everyone would behave?"

"Why is it that practically every historical example of libertarian concepts at work- such as privatized fire departments -has had to be replaced with organized, well-regulated efforts for the safety of everyone involved?"

"Would you willingly live in an area without a police force?"

"Do you think it's significant that the most famous works championing versions of libertarianism are works of fiction and not philosophical/economic treatises?"

"You do know Ron Paul is full of shiat, right?"

Sorry, had too much straw for just one strawman.

Then by all means tell us where libertarianism has worked.


Pretty sure that libertarian systems break down once a second human being is introduced into the equation.
 
2013-06-04 08:54:08 PM
Libertarians have an answer to every basic question. The internal logic is elegantly consistent, which is why is often appeals to logic-minded people. That doesn't mean it's correct. I'm sure "the world is made of 4 elements: Fire, Water, Earth, and Wind," was an appealing concept, thought up by a brilliant guy. It's so appealing that we still see it in our culture, even though it's completely wrong.

"The spirit of system, a fertile Source of error, fertile in most sciences, is peculiarly so in political economy. It is a foe to solid knowledge; the more insidious and fatal because it usually accompanies superior mental capacity, being very nearly allied to that love and relish of truth which distinguishes minds of a superior order. The spirit of system consists in a tendency to reduce all phenomena to a few general rules, and to find a greater degree of order, symmetry, and simplicity in the natural, moral, or political world than really exists, or can exist. Instead of expanding the mind to the rich and endless variety and subtlety [sic] of nature or art, it would contract that variety to the narrow limits of the human understanding. It finds ready acceptance with all men; for it flatters both the pride and the indolence of human nature. It is much easier to comprehend and apply a few general rules than to understand the complicated structure and regulations of human society. Any man may make a parade of knowledge by dogmatizing [sic] about imaginary general principles, but to master facts, details, and the results of experience, is a long, toilsome, and humbling occupation."

- Sir John Barnard Byles

...that pretty much sums up the Libertarian mind. Sometimes those simple, unifying ideas turn out right, and are revolutionary, but sometimes they don't. It's easy enough to full in love with an elegant idea you wish were true, especially when the empirical evidence needed to refute it has to come from the soft and incomplete science of economics.
 
2013-06-04 08:54:38 PM
There was a libertarian country. It was called Kowloon. It didn't turn out so well.

Party Game!  See if you can tell in this picture which area is Kowloon and which area is Hong Kong.

upload.wikimedia.org

Also, this documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lby9P3ms11w
 
2013-06-04 09:00:14 PM
USA version 1.0 and 1.1
 
2013-06-04 09:01:00 PM
Maternal mortality in Mauritius is at 60 deaths per 1,000 live births, compared to 21 in the U.S.

21 women out of every 1,000 giving birth in the U.S. die?  2.1 women out of every 100 women? One out of every fifty?

Um. . .shenanigans.
 
2013-06-04 09:01:58 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Karac: Please, enlighten us then as to the true Libertarianism.

Enlighten yourself.


After reading what that link, the Libertarian belief is not a bad one...the problem isn't the belief system, the problem is the Libertarians themselves.  Take the de facto leader of the Libertarian movement, RON PAUL!!!!  He can't wait to tell you how much he hates the government spending your hard earned tax dollars, but then he submitted requests for over $157M of pork spending in 2011 and over $398M in 2012, and the mirage reveals itself to be total bullshiat.  Everything I have seen from Libertarians echos this kind of hypocrisy...
 
2013-06-04 09:05:50 PM

DirkValentine: Dancin_In_Anson: BunkoSquad: That's almost word-for-word why I'm for single-payer health care.

Because anything other than total government control of the process is anarchy.

which single payer isn't AT ALL.

Such a liar.


The services provided are defined by the entity paying.  If the only payer is the government then the government has total control over services provided.

This has become a major issue in Canada because there is no private option (other than coming to the US) if the government won't pay.
 
2013-06-04 09:11:06 PM

Rwa2play: tallguywithglasseson: Pay Pal founder and early Facebook investor Peter Thiel has given $1.25 million to an initiative to create floating libertarian countries in international waters, according to a profile of the billionaire in Details magazine.

Thiel has been a big backer of the Seasteading Institute, which seeks to build sovereign nations on oil rig-like platforms to occupy waters beyond the reach of law-of-the-sea treaties. The idea is for these countries to start from scratch--free from the laws, regulations, and moral codes of any existing place. Details says the experiment would be "a kind of floating petri dish for implementing policies that libertarians, stymied by indifference at the voting booths, have been unable to advance: no welfare, looser building codes, no minimum wage, and few restrictions on weapons."

Good luck on Libertarian Island, dipshiats.

Yeah, nice way to start wars that end of your floating islands reduced to rubble.


I, for one, welcome their new pirate overlords.
 
2013-06-04 09:15:07 PM

Sgygus: We can't have a true libertarian country because human beings are useless and weak.


You left out "stupid".
 
2013-06-04 09:17:00 PM

tallguywithglasseson: In D_I_A's defense, I'll bet public education really does suck in Texas.


True dat. I really like living in Austin, but I'd move if I had kids, to avoid putting them in Texas' "education" system.
 
2013-06-04 09:18:11 PM

Karac: Darth_Lukecash: Honest Bender: Karac: Just shows how little faith libertarians have in their own ideas.

You're absolutely right.  My faith in libertarianism is insufficient to motivate me to insight an armed revolution.  You caught me.

That's the problem with libertarians. The second you attempt to force your views own someone else, you've already broke your own ideals.

The fact is this, people do not act in everyone's best interest, business do not do the right thing because of long term. People will largely act in self interest.

Thus Libertarians are complete and absolute adolescence of politics.

If a business can make $100 in profit by polluting a river until it catches fire it will.
A libertarian believes that enough people will realize that that business is behind the disaster and avoid their products enough to reduce that profit to a loss.
A realist realizes that the business will hide the source of the pollution, blame it on somebody else, or just move to China because who can even spell the name of one of their rivers?


China is state run, authoritarian libertarianism.
 
2013-06-04 09:20:58 PM

gameshowhost: [i43.tinypic.com image 776x509] 

*brutal truth about libertarians*


Pfft.  What does that guy know about the meaning of words?

He should stick to being a political pundit.
 
2013-06-04 09:27:50 PM

This Face Left Blank: Maternal mortality in Mauritius is at 60 deaths per 1,000 live births, compared to 21 in the U.S.

21 women out of every 1,000 giving birth in the U.S. die?  2.1 women out of every 100 women? One out of every fifty?

Um. . .shenanigans.


That has to be per 100,000.
 
2013-06-04 09:32:05 PM
CDC shows ~650 pregnancy-related deaths per year... ~4m births per year... that works out to ~16.25.
 
2013-06-04 09:32:25 PM

Mrtraveler01: Dancin_In_Anson: I can see by reading through this thread that public education has done it's job and done it...well.

What job is that exactly?


My guess is it is the standard "Everyone would see the greatness that Libertarianism would obviously be, if not for the state indoctrinating everyone to worship massive government intervention in their lives".

Libertarians always remind me of the scene in Life of Brian "What have the Romans government ever done for us?", so that basically all the benefits of governments have done over the millenia can be hand waved away, so that you can concentrate on all the negatives and pretend that getting rid of most of the government would remove all/most of the negatives but the positives would just magically stay around because otherwise Libertarianism would be a disaster that would make Stalinism look like a step up.

/also bobtheangryflower.jpg on DiA for "it's"
 
2013-06-04 09:41:42 PM

gameshowhost: CDC shows ~650 pregnancy-related deaths per year... ~4m births per year... that works out to ~16.25.


US is 24.
 
2013-06-04 09:48:49 PM
A similar question that I have asked libertarians, only to hear evasive answers, is this one:

Can you name one country that does not provide publicly funded primary education, and is not a shiathole (by American standards) for the typical working-class person living there?  For the purposes of this question, a religious school system that is supported or subsidized with public money would have to be considered a publicly funded school system.

I maintain that public primary education is a necessary (though not a sufficient) condition for a country to not be a shiathole.  I would like to see libertarians provide at least one counterexample before advocating the abolition of publicly funded education in the United States, as many libertarians do.
 
2013-06-04 09:50:30 PM
"Who put the Bomp in the Bomp, Bomp, Bomp?"
 
2013-06-04 09:51:02 PM

gimmegimme: Dancin_In_Anson: Honest Bender: There seem to be a lot of people who don't understand the difference between libertarians and anarchists.

They're getting better...Almost 2 hours in and no idiotic LOL Somalia yet.

Oh, wait.

sithon: I suggest Somalia is just such a libertarian paradise . No ,bureaucrats ,no law , no red tape, nobody getting into your bidness.

I stand corrected.

By all means, demonstrate why the comparison is improper.


Yes, I'd be interested as to why its improper too.
 
2013-06-04 09:55:57 PM

gameshowhost: CDC shows ~650 pregnancy-related deaths per year... ~4m births per year... that works out to ~16.25.


How many births are multiples?  That would make the number of pregnancies carried to term slightly less than the number of births, bringing the maternal deaths per pregnancy carried to term just a little closer to the 21 figure.

Yes, I know that natural multiples are quite rare, but nowadays we have quite a bit of IVF and fertility drug use increasing the number of multiples.
 
2013-06-04 09:58:46 PM

mrlewish: Honest Bender: If your approach is so great, why hasn't any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?
Lack of opportunity would be my guess.  You can't just relocate somewhere and declare a new government.  And no government is going to willingly give up power.

So you're saying that it would work except for human nature?  Sort of like Communism.


Sort of like any form of government, really.  Can you name a form of government that isn't eventually spoiled by human greed and selfishness?
 
2013-06-04 09:59:17 PM

Befuddled: I thought that after the CIA overthrew the lawfully elected government in Chile and installed Pinochet, the neo-con lunatics convinced Pinochet to enact many libertarian policies and those policies failed miserably, so much so that Pinochet had to enact basically socialist economic policies to fix things. So libertarianism has been tried and it failed.


So a military dictator who took power in a coup enacted "libertarian policies"?

img.fark.net
 
2013-06-04 10:07:59 PM

Baryogenesis: The point is Wal-Mart isn't literally forcing them out of their home, but they still have power over their workers. Do X, Y, Z or you're fired is a type on control especially when the choice is between rent, food and Wal-Mart's demands.


except... they are.
 
2013-06-04 10:10:28 PM

Mr. Eugenides: DirkValentine: Dancin_In_Anson: BunkoSquad: That's almost word-for-word why I'm for single-payer health care.

Because anything other than total government control of the process is anarchy.

which single payer isn't AT ALL.

Such a liar.

The services provided are defined by the entity paying.  If the only payer is the government then the government has total control over services provided.

This has become a major issue in Canada because there is no private option (other than coming to the US) if the government won't pay.


Well that's a sweet deal if you have enough money.   Except over here you are farkED if you don't have health insurance.   There is no "oh, well, I have to wait a month or two for a doctor visit".  There is no doctor visit other than the ER, and they will fark your financial ass.

I would be happy with single payer with private options above and beyond regular care.

Curious - what type of procedure are you talking about specifically?
 
2013-06-04 10:21:53 PM
s1.hubimg.com
Libertarian contract law.

/Couldn't find a better picture.
 
2013-06-04 10:25:30 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: gimmegimme: By all means, demonstrate why the comparison is improper.

Libertarianism is not about no laws. Not in any way shape or form. And a Libertarian voter and a volunteer firefighter,  I point and laugh at your farking ignorant picture a post or two up.


The difficulty is that the folks that Libertarians continue to put onto ballots keep reinforcing that image. You want folks to take you seriously? Put up sane candidates, who don't make me think of this, again, and again...

lh3.googleusercontent.com
 
2013-06-04 10:30:55 PM
Every country that has been subjected to neoliberal austerity in the past 50-odd years qualifies.


Urbn
--- because they know they can get away with no one watching over them.

Once.
 
2013-06-04 10:38:08 PM
sithon
I suggest Somalia is just such a libertarian paradise . No ,bureaucrats ,no law , no red tape, nobody getting into your bidness.

Libertarians are big fans of the "Xeer" polycentric legal system indigenous to Somalia, in which elders from the tribes of the victim and accused get together and have a court. Obviously, totally analogous to the corporate-owned privatized courts these guys somehow manage to advocate with a straight face.
 
2013-06-04 10:39:01 PM

DirkValentine: Mr. Eugenides: DirkValentine: Dancin_In_Anson: BunkoSquad: That's almost word-for-word why I'm for single-payer health care.

Because anything other than total government control of the process is anarchy.

which single payer isn't AT ALL.

Such a liar.

The services provided are defined by the entity paying.  If the only payer is the government then the government has total control over services provided.

This has become a major issue in Canada because there is no private option (other than coming to the US) if the government won't pay.

Well that's a sweet deal if you have enough money.   Except over here you are farkED if you don't have health insurance.   There is no "oh, well, I have to wait a month or two for a doctor visit".  There is no doctor visit other than the ER, and they will fark your financial ass.

I would be happy with single payer with private options above and beyond regular care.

Curious - what type of procedure are you talking about specifically?


In the two cases I personally know about it was and MRI and a CAT scan.  In both cases it was for cancer diagnosis in a member of a "low risk" group so the wait was 9 to 18 months.  In both cases the patients were essentially told that it was unlikely they had cancer.  One did, the other didn't, and I don't want to get any more detailed than that.

It's not like there's a huge flow of Canadians coming into the US for tests and procedures.  Probably 1 per 1000 to 1 per 500 Canadians.  So that's what maybe 30,000 to 100,000 incidents.  So it's small, but it does exist.
 
2013-06-04 10:43:40 PM
My main complaint about libertarianism is that conveniently provided excuses for maintaining segregation (which wasn't so great for my older relatives in Alabama).  It was a way of saying, "I don't believe in segregation at all, I just think that Federal laws or Supreme Court decisions outlawing segregation are much worse than segregation, and people who don't like segregation should just work things out at the local level."  That's a brief synopsis of the chapter on civil rights from "The Conscience of a Conservative."

The counter-argument is that Goldwater wasn't a "true Libertarian," since his foreign policy ideas would've needed a huge military and espionage network to wipe Communism off the face of the earth...
 
2013-06-04 10:44:17 PM
Why is the magazine called "Reason" when it contains nothing of the sort?
 
2013-06-04 10:48:42 PM

vygramul: Hydra: STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.

Really? You're blaming Jim Crow Laws for FORCING restaurants to have whites-only counters?

Seriously?

Wow.


That's pretty much true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jim_Crow_laws_by_State

This one probably made things difficult:

"printed, typewritten or written matter urging or presenting for public acceptance or general information, arguments or suggestions in favor of social equality or of inter
marriage between whites and Negroes, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to fine not exceeding five hundred (500.00) dollars or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or both."

/The Jim Crow South was the sort of society that should've horrified true libertarians. . .
 
2013-06-04 10:53:57 PM
if dolphins are so smart, then why do they live in igloos?
 
2013-06-04 10:55:50 PM
minimal government, free trade, open borders, decriminalized drugs, no welfare state and no public education system =  Somalia?
 
2013-06-04 10:58:35 PM

Moodybastard: minimal government, free trade, pirates, open borders, decriminalized drugs, no welfare state warlords in control of the food and no public education system and child soldiers =  Somalia?


FTFY
 
2013-06-04 11:16:02 PM
Why don't you either kill yourself, shut up, or man up and get on the god-damned dance floor?
 
2013-06-04 11:21:32 PM
Mine would be:
"How do you defend a philosophy of voluntary interaction in a modern world of 7 billion people where no man is an island, and science has shown us the mechanics of infectious disease, pollution and ecological footprints?"

Libertarianism might have been a ideal to strive toward 500 years ago, when the ozone layer wasn't a thing and you could wander off into the wilderness and live in isolation for your entire life. That time is far gone.
 
2013-06-04 11:23:26 PM

HighOnCraic: vygramul: Hydra: STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.

Really? You're blaming Jim Crow Laws for FORCING restaurants to have whites-only counters?

Seriously?

Wow.

That's pretty much true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jim_Crow_laws_by_State

This one probably made things difficult:

"printed, typewritten or written matter urging or presenting for public acceptance or general information, arguments or suggestions in favor of social equality or of inter
marriage between whites and Negroes, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to fine not exceeding five hundred (500.00) dollars or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or both."

/The Jim Crow South was the sort of society that should've horrified true libertarians. . .


So pro gay marriage libertarians would be the likely culprits in a racist legal structure? There is a lot of shoe-horning going on in this thread to make the "threat of libertarianism" fit some pre-established mold. I'm not saying that's ill informed, but, potato logic seems to work well here when the circle jerk of farkleftist rally round the old Red Flag. The rest of us think that maybe your arguments are only solid with other people who are already on your team.
TEAM!
 
2013-06-04 11:24:55 PM

Craptastic: Here's two questions that I have for "libertarians": Can you explain your political philosophy in a way that doesn't make you sound like a dick? Can you provide proof of a successful "libertarian" government? One that embodies your specific dystopian/Utopian ideals?


So... no? That's about what I figured.

/RON PAUL!
 
2013-06-04 11:33:27 PM
Why are there no libertarian countries?

Why were there no democracies prior to Greece? Because nobody had tried it yet. There's a first time for everything.
 
2013-06-04 11:38:54 PM

HighOnCraic: vygramul: Hydra: STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.

Really? You're blaming Jim Crow Laws for FORCING restaurants to have whites-only counters?

Seriously?

Wow.

That's pretty much true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jim_Crow_laws_by_State

This one probably made things difficult:

"printed, typewritten or written matter urging or presenting for public acceptance or general information, arguments or suggestions in favor of social equality or of inter
marriage between whites and Negroes, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to fine not exceeding five hundred (500.00) dollars or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or both."

/The Jim Crow South was the sort of society that should've horrified true libertarians. . .


It's putting the cart before the horse to say the Jim Crow laws are why this happened.
 
2013-06-04 11:39:49 PM

Mr. Eugenides: It's not like there's a huge flow of Canadians coming into the US for tests and procedures.  Probably 1 per 1000 to 1 per 500 Canadians.  So that's what maybe 30,000 to 100,000 incidents.  So it's small, but it does exist.


Many of the Canadians who come to the US for tests and procedures are in fact covered under the Canadian health care system.  With a big chunk of the population living close to the US border, for many Canadians the nearest population center is in the USA, and it is more cost effective to send them there.
 
2013-06-04 11:44:32 PM

jjorsett: Why are there no libertarian countries?

Why were there no democracies prior to Greece? Because nobody had tried it yet. There's a first time for everything.




Let us know how it works out.
 
2013-06-04 11:47:07 PM
 how is it that not a single country in the world in the early twenty-first century is organized along libertarian lines?

Right next to the purely Democratic and pure Socialist ones.
 
2013-06-04 11:48:50 PM

Communist_Manifesto: You should read a book called debunking economics by a professor named steve keen. Here is a link to a youtube video of him speaking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZKjQtrgdVY


Got a chance to watch the video. There is actually a fair amout of points that I agree with him on since many of his criticisms are of the methodology used by mainstream economists in the way they ignore certain factors and aggregate everything together. I won't get into the nitty gritty technical stuff of it since no one's gonna care about that, but thanks for the link.

bugontherug: And this right here is part of why libertarianism lacks persuasive appeal, and has never and will never win a sustained majority of public support in any country ever.


Because much of this stuff is counter-intuitive and not obvious to people with simplistic views of how an economy works or are easily swayed by smooth politicians who are trying to get re-elected by promising more spoils taken from one subset of the population and given to another. Especially when it's their own personal gravy train that's under assault.

You harp on the semantics of "force" in such a way that reveals a total failure to grasp that the "free" market is highly coercive. You pretend that because nobody is pointing a gun at his head, that the Wal-Mart employee has "freedom." But workers everywhere know that freedom is illusory because they've inhabited the real world for more than five minutes. They do what the boss says because they have to.

You failed to comprehend even what is meant by "force" or "freedom" in the first place - hence the need for the semantic explanation.

People choose to enter into employment contracts because they don't want to have to grow and make their own food. If Wal-Mart didn't exist and no one was allowed to work for anyone else, we would ALL have to work at providing for our own sustenance. This was the state of being human for hundreds of thousands of years.

You're confusing "force" with scarcity of resources. The fact that we have scarcity is an economic reality. Stop saying it's a result of the free market (this would still be a reality even if there were no free markets and absolutely everything was controlled by central planners). You're flatly wrong, and any economist from the right to the left side of the spectrum would say so.


Baryogenesis: Exactly. The worker is only free to quit and look for work. Very few people can quit a job and be employed somewhere else the next day.


It happens all the time. Examine any jobs data published by literally any government or private agency, and you'll see that thousands of jobs are started and lost every single day. People are CONSTANTLY starting their own businesses, getting hired, quitting old jobs they hated, partnering with other people to begin their own businesses, doing private consulting work, etc. Are you naive enough to think that an economy of 300 million people (looking just at the United States) ISN'T in constant flux, and are you so ignorant of economics not to understand a basic concept like frictional unemployment?

IF that Wal-Mart worker could walk across the street and get a comparable job at Target then then they would be free. S/he could freely choose employment based on whatever factors they choose and not based on needing to pay bills and buy food.

EVERYONE NEEDS TO PAY BILLS AND BUY FOOD. That's a result of the scarcity of resources. This is basic economics. How is this so hard to understand?

You level the same tired pseudo-marxist arguments against the free market, yet you turn a completely blind eye to the millions of people who died as a result of government subverting and eliminating the free market over the last century. How can you be so wedded to such an ideology that has been proven to be so flatly dangerous and downright murderous in our past experiences and attempts to eliminate them?
 
2013-06-04 11:54:53 PM
Critiquing Rational Actors

...So, if someone believes in a "just world" in which people generally get what they deserve, and is confronted with a situation where innocent victims get hurt, his or her world view is threatened. Rather than change the world view, such people change their view of the innocent victims, by blaming them: they must have done something to deserve it.

It is rather easy to see how this might work in the economic or political arena. If there are poor people, and our democratic, free economic system rewards work and effort, then the people who are poor must be defective: they refuse to work, or don't want to work. There is no reason to help them or "reward" them for their poverty. Nor is there any reason to provide them with health care or any other care. That would deprive good people of their hard-earned money. It would deprive them of their "freedom." Anyone who proposes such a thing must be irrational at best, and a diabolical socialist or communist at worst.
 
2013-06-04 11:57:37 PM

HighOnCraic: My main complaint about libertarianism is that conveniently provided excuses for maintaining segregation (which wasn't so great for my older relatives in Alabama).  It was a way of saying, "I don't believe in segregation at all, I just think that Federal laws or Supreme Court decisions outlawing segregation are much worse than segregation, and people who don't like segregation should just work things out at the local level."  That's a brief synopsis of the chapter on civil rights from "The Conscience of a Conservative."

The counter-argument is that Goldwater wasn't a "true Libertarian," since his foreign policy ideas would've needed a huge military and espionage network to wipe Communism off the face of the earth...


It should be obvious that Goldwater only speaks for himself and people who agree with him rather than ALL libertarians. Try telling a Friedmanite, a Randian, and a Rothbardian that "all libertarians think alike," and they'd each shoot you to shreds with the 3D gun they printed out (after they're done shooting up each other).

/Rand was a biatch
 
2013-06-05 12:20:22 AM
"Who put the Ram in the rama-lama-ding-dong?"
 
2013-06-05 01:00:25 AM
No one has mentioned the Republic of Minerva? A little ctl-f'ing seems to turn up nothing. Not that anyone reads the posts this far in, but still, the premise is not completely valid.

(Still, when your nation fails because the king of Tonga has his warriors _ROW_ to your island and you lack defense to stop their _SPEARS_, it does say something...)
 
2013-06-05 01:01:06 AM

Wendy's Chili: The laws that created the railroads and land grant colleges were passed during the Civil War too. That's because yesterday's small government racists wouldn't let reasonable legislation through when they were in the congress. Much like today.


I assume you meant gave away tons of land to the railroads?
 
2013-06-05 01:08:01 AM
Hydra
Funny how as a linguist he fails even to define what "private tyrannies" are in the first place.

The internal structure of practically every corporation is essentially fascist.

A private firm CANNOT force anyone to buy its products since it does not procure its own private military and holds guns to everyone's head

Not necessarily, but it can hold a gun to the heads of potential competitors and suggest they take up a new line of work.

his ever-expanding government.

Chomsky is an Anarchist, so that's a hell of a claim.

Economic systems and governmental systems are not mutually exclusive of each other, nor do they exist in separate vacuums.

Is this where I get to tell you that capitalism has never existed without a powerful State acting as its enforcer?

Expanding this relatively accurate economic calculation to a large population of thousands - let alone millions - without some sort of coordination mechanism (read: money and prices) and achieving rational economic allocation of resources is impossible.

Syndicalism.

Sadly, I know that because you said "rational" you probably meant "anyone who's rich automatically deserves it".

the information problem

There is more than enough of everything for some inaccuracy to be acceptable.

Scarcity is a current condition of existence - there simply is not enough stuff available to satisfy every single person's wants and needs

Libertarians, and capitalists of all stripes for that matter, love to conflate wants and needs, but there is a definite difference between food, shelter, and medical care and solid-gold Ferraris, a yacht made out of space shuttles, a scale model of the beer volcano in Pastafarian heaven, etc.


skullkrusher
yeah, it has nothing to do with the fact that anarchism on any sort of meaningful scale is childish and naive

Did you once have a messy breakup with an anarchist or something?


Dusk-You-n-Me
Marxism of the Right

Libertarians need to be asked some hard loaded questions.


FTFTFA

What if a free society needed to draft its citizens in order to remain free?

As if that's the only way for people to organize for mutual defense?

What if it needed to limit oil imports to protect the economic freedom of its citizens from unfriendly foreigners?

As if having oil = economic freedom?
Also: If there's one thing all capitalists seem to be able to agree on, it's that brown people are scary.

What if it needed to force its citizens to become sufficiently educated to sustain a free society?

As if people have to be forced to be educated?

What if it needed to deprive landowners of the freedom to refuse to sell their property as a precondition for giving everyone freedom of movement on highways?

As if private property is freedom?

What if it needed to deprive citizens of the freedom to import cheap foreign labor in order to keep out poor foreigners who would vote for socialistic wealth redistribution?

Voting? In a stateless society?
Also: As if capitalism could survive without a State?

Empirically, most people don't actually want absolute freedom, which is why democracies don't elect libertarian governments.

People who want nothing to do with the State don't vote. It's often chalked up to "apathy" but "fark you, leave me alone" is a positive political statement.

a libertarian government could never be achieved democratically but would have to be imposed by some kind of authoritarian state

Or people manage to liberate themselves from the existing authoritarian state.

But without a sufficiently strong state, individual freedom falls prey to other more powerful individuals.

If libertarians would spend two farking seconds to consider that most people would join voluntary 'non-profit' militias, they would have an easy answer to this.


Isitoveryet
the State is simply a reflection of its inhabitants.

Looooooooooooooooooooooooooolllllllllllllll


rustypouch
That's about where my thought process goes. But I don't want *anyone* to die before it's found out that a company is adulterating their product.

Hypothetically, there could be private consumer protection groups which would screen products and inform buyers which ones are or aren't safe. Naturally, there would have to be consumer protection groups to watch those consumer protection groups and tell people which ones are or aren't trustworthy. Those ones would need to be watched by other ones, and it's turtles all the way down.


Headso
true, we could get to a point in technological advancement where everyone can have everything they want and power generation is so clean that there is no pollution. Then libertarianism might...might work...

Compared to the pre-industrial times, we're already close enough. The problem is that the machines are privately owned by capitalists, so most of the extra productivity is turned into profit to be spent on crashing solid gold Ferraris into mansions while millions of people starve.


Mrtraveler01
The honor system has never been proven to work on a large scale.

Honor-based systems were (and somewhat still are, although broken) ubiquitious before capitalism.


Befuddled
Is that question: how did you make yourself totally immune to reason?

They were somehow tricked into reading about praxeology.


Smidge204
"Groups of people making decisions" is exactly what government is...

Government is an institution, bureaucracy, agency, 'corporation'. Without professional decision-makers and enforcers, it's not a government.
 
2013-06-05 01:14:25 AM

vygramul: TheHighlandHowler: I think many democracies (and republics) are libertarian in their infancies, but as they mature, government grows.  This is partly due to demands from the populace, and politicians' lust for power.

It could be that they find out that libertarianism doesn't work.

Or it could be that communism works great, but that politicians' lust for power and the demands from the populace spoil those systems, too.


It's because libertarianism combines the most extreme aspects of personal self-interest and greed ("f*ck you, I got mine) and unrealistic idealism and faith in others ("people will change if it's in their best interests to change"). The idea that people should be allowed to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else because their actions will be circumscribed by the reactions of other like-minded individuals is patently absurd. The error is obvious to anyone who realizes that people WILL act against their own interests out of pettiness or meanness or short-sightedness; and some people are unable to control their actions without strong social or temporal strictures such as religion or laws.

The other reason is one of definition. If a theme of libertarianism is that anyone may do what he pleases with minimal intrusion, so long as no one is harmed, then what exactly is harm? Who determines the degree of harm? If there is minimal regulation, what is the consequence of harm and who administers it? All this has to be defined and then implemented...and now you no longer have a fully libertarian society. It's got nothing to do with "lust for power," or "demands from the populace," except insofar as a desire for something besides anarchy and/or endless debate and argument about getting things done is "popular demand." There's a limit to how much can be accomplished by social consensus and social disapproval, and once a society grows beyond that point, a more restrictive government is inevitable and essential.

Or else the society must fragment and revert to a more manageable size. You don't get the benefits of a large civilization and the freedom of a band-level society at the same time.
 
2013-06-05 01:14:35 AM
Hydra
People choose to enter into employment contracts because they don't want to have to grow and make their own food.

Currently, people can't be subsistence farmers because they would still have to pay property taxes.
Without a State to artificially create property taxes, a gift economy based on collective agriculture and industry would be orders of magnitude more popular than a vestigial capitalist economy.

The fact that we have scarcity is an economic reality.

It's not as I addressed above.
 
2013-06-05 01:15:17 AM
RON PAUL is a religious nut.  He's ok with theocracy as long as its state governments that do it instead of the federal government.  Paul and his Christian Reconstructionist pals can all fark off.
 
2013-06-05 01:32:20 AM
i40.tinypic.com
 
2013-06-05 02:51:32 AM

DirkValentine: I would be happy with single payer with private options above and beyond regular care.


I don't see why people would have a problem with this.  It seems that it is any governments job to provide for its citizens.

It just seems that there are people who would, philosophically, object to slavery not because it makes men chattel, but because the master is supposed to feed, shelter, and treat his workforce.  That's socialism!
 
2013-06-05 03:02:39 AM
Asking why libertarians haven't been able to run an entire nation is a little premature, dontchathink?  Maybe focus on getting more than 1% of the general, or a single governorship, or a single senate seat, or a single congressional seat...hell, how about a single state senate or congressional seat?  Shooting for the moon when you can't even light your own fart is pretty, what can i call it, delusional, no?
 
2013-06-05 03:13:06 AM
Well the reason why libertarians can't answer that is because you keep asking right wing neocons the question.

Hint: libertarian isn't code word for "reagan loving GOP Hanger on", though that's what the the younger Paul would tell you.

Actual libertarianism isn't about promoting a pro-jesus, fundamentalist state. It's about the fundamental expansion of liberty for all peoples. An actual libertarian would consider gay marriage as just as good and important as free access to firearms. An actual libertarian would tell you that an atheist, a jew, a christian and a muslim should have equal rights in America, and would vociferously decry any legislative attempt at discrimination.

But we don't have actual libertarians grandstanding in America. We just have Rand Paul style, right wing fundamentalists, who have so poisoned the idea of libertarianism with their fundamentalist christian wackjobs, sitting around circle jerking to Ayn Rand, one of the biggest hypocrites/heros of Rand Paul cause. Objectivists are not libertarians. Objectivists are not libertarians. Objectivists are not libertarians. End of story.
 
2013-06-05 03:27:01 AM

Bith Set Me Up: Why is a raven like a writing desk?


Poe wrote on both.
 
2013-06-05 03:41:56 AM

I Ate Shergar: Bith Set Me Up: Why is a raven like a writing desk?

Poe wrote on both.


Because it can produce a few notes, tho they are very flat; and it is never put with the wrong end in front!
 
2013-06-05 03:44:26 AM
and it is never put with the wrong end in front!

nevar*
 
2013-06-05 04:05:32 AM

Hydra: Baryogenesis: Exactly. The worker is only free to quit and look for work. Very few people can quit a job and be employed somewhere else the next day.

It happens all the time. Examine any jobs data published by literally any government or private agency, and you'll see that thousands of jobs are started and lost every single day. People are CONSTANTLY starting their own businesses, getting hired, quitting old jobs they hated, partnering with other people to begin their own businesses, doing private consulting work, etc. Are you naive enough to think that an economy of 300 million people (looking just at the United States) ISN'T in constant flux, and are you so ignorant of economics not to understand a basic concept like frictional unemployment?


Nationwide unemployment figures and frictional unemployment mean precisely jack shiat to the guy out of work who quit because his boss at Wal-Mart made him work off the clock or denied him health benefits or sexually harassed him or what have you.  Of course unemployment is happening all the time.  No one is disputing that, so don't be absurd.  That doesn't mean the unemployed folks aren't going without or losing their homes or their medical coverage, etc.  There is a cost with changing jobs and many, many people can't afford to quit.  A choice between working and eating isn't a free choice.

Can an average person quit their job at Wal-Mart and get comparable employment the next day?  The next week?  The next month?  How long can the average person get by with no income?

According to the BLS, more than half of currently unemployed people have been unemployed for more than 15 weeks and the median length of unemployment is between 16 and 19 weeks. This is for the past 6 months, so obviously the economic downturn and slow recovery are part of that issue.  Even if we revise those numbers down to account for the effects of a sluggish economy, the average person is still looking at 2-3 months of unemployment.  Again, the choice between working to pay the bills and 3 months of unemployment isn't a free one.

Hydra: [Baryogenesis:]  IF that Wal-Mart worker could walk across the street and get a comparable job at Target then then they would be free. S/he could freely choose employment based on whatever factors they choose and not based on needing to pay bills and buy food.

EVERYONE NEEDS TO PAY BILLS AND BUY FOOD. That's a result of the scarcity of resources. This is basic economics. How is this so hard to understand?


No duh, but that's not the actual argument.  Of course everyone needs to pay bills and buy food.  Therefore they NEED a job to pay for that stuff.  Therefore losing that job is an enormous hardship for most people.  Therefore, a person can't make a rational choice between keeping a job and not paying rent.  An employer can say do X, Y, Z or you're fired (which means no money for FOOD, kinda important).  Their employer has power over their employees if said employees can't easily get a different job.

And that comes down to pretty basic supply and demand.  There is a huge supply of unskilled labor and a decreasing demand for it due to automation, globalization, union busting and computerization, among other things.

Hydra: You level the same tired pseudo-marxist arguments against the free market, yet you turn a completely blind eye to the millions of people who died as a result of government subverting and eliminating the free market over the last century. How can you be so wedded to such an ideology that has been proven to be so flatly dangerous and downright murderous in our past experiences and attempts to eliminate them?


Yeah dude, pointing out that businesses can and do exercise power over their employees and/or the economy at large is obviously the same thing as advocating totalitarian marxism and the murder of millions.

But hey, if you like that game

www.mhslibrary.org

FREE MARKET!!!
 
2013-06-05 04:06:48 AM
Of course the libertarian ideal's been tried. It's called the State of Nature - I believe Hobbes had some nice things to say about it.
 
2013-06-05 04:58:50 AM

Jim_Callahan: By Salon's logic, which boils down to "6.5 billion customers can't be wrong", I can only conclude that the author of TFA thinks that the Big Mac is the world's finest dining, wives should be the property of husbands (still the most popular form of marriage, even the US has tried it in the past!) and Sikhism isn't a real religion (no country has ever been dominated by it!).  Yes, appeal to popularity, totally a great logical argument.

Also, if you sub in the definition, not that they're asking why a plurality-centric party doesn't hold a majority, which is kind of a question that answers itself.

//I'm not saying that Libertarianism is great or even particularly viable, in all frankness it isn't.  I'm just pointing out that Salon's opinion writers are as usual making down syndrome kids look like Mensa candidates.


The masses are not very good at picking the best.  Terrible, in fact.  Generally, they are good at rejecting the very worst, though.
 
2013-06-05 05:04:58 AM

RanDomino: Also: As if capitalism could survive without a State?


Ding-ding-ding!  Excellent summary of why Spencerite "libertarianism" is a steaming pile.  You *can't* safeguard the property and contract rights that are necessary to the formation of capital without a state, or without something very much like one.
 
2013-06-05 05:06:58 AM
Meh, Libertarianism would work great if only everyone abided by the rules.
 
2013-06-05 05:51:43 AM
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-06-05 07:09:50 AM

udhq: Dedmon: TheHighlandHowler: I think many democracies (and republics) are libertarian in their infancies, but as they mature, government grows.  This is partly due to demands from the populace, and politicians' lust for power.

Well damn, if there are many of them, it should be really easy to provide an example?

Ummm.....really?

The United States, remember?  It was called "The Articles of Confederation", and it did not work out well at all.....


How exactly were the confederates a libertarian system?
 
2013-06-05 07:14:41 AM
I've never seen some get smacked down so hard and still think they won the argument as DIA. What a moron.
 
2013-06-05 07:16:04 AM
"When are you moving out of your parents' place?"
 
2013-06-05 07:26:25 AM

Hydra: Funny how as a linguist he fails even to define what "private tyrannies" are in the first place. That being said, I suppose we can deduce that what he really means by the term is a "free-market cartel" or some sort of a "natural" oligopoly or monopoly that emerges as a result of collusion. They drop their prices together below their cost of production to force all other competitors out of the market only to raise them back up and reap monopoly profits. As explained by one libertarian thinker Murray Rothbard here, that was largely a myth - whenever they would try to raise their prices back up, new firms/the older ones that were forced out would enter the market again. Here's a video from Milton Friedman on the subject and a longer one from Burt Folsom. There are actually some good explanations that are out there - the trick is finding them.


That is one small aspect of "private tyrannies" and it is astoundingly stupid to say it won't happen when it does in fact happen even with laws preventing it.  To think weakening legal defenses will make it less likely is absurd.

The defining characteristic between "public" and "private" is the ability for a given entity to have legal, legitimate use of force. A private firm CANNOT force anyone to buy its products since it does not procure its own private military and holds guns to everyone's head (Wal-Mart doesn't have its own army). Instead, we have a public defense system in which the legal, legitimatized use of force is given to a special entity called the government. All situations that Chomsky was referring to where corporate interests were enshrined into law through legislation by the government have occurred precisely as a result of his ever-expanding government. Read up on some public choice theory if you want to learn more.

In libertarian fantasy land where every person will always have access to multiple open markets.
 
2013-06-05 07:44:25 AM

Hydra: The defining characteristic between "public" and "private" is the ability for a given entity to have legal, legitimate use of force. A private firm CANNOT force anyone to buy its products since it does not procure its own private military and holds guns to everyone's head (Wal-Mart doesn't have its own army).


Private firms in the USA have forced people to buy their products and have responded with an army - complete with an air force & chemical weapons - when people complained.
 
2013-06-05 07:48:33 AM

Karac: Hydra: The defining characteristic between "public" and "private" is the ability for a given entity to have legal, legitimate use of force. A private firm CANNOT force anyone to buy its products since it does not procure its own private military and holds guns to everyone's head (Wal-Mart doesn't have its own army).

Private firms in the USA have forced people to buy their products and have responded with an army - complete with an air force & chemical weapons - when people complained.


If we totally stripped the govt's power to limit corporations the free market would totally prevent that from happening again.
 
2013-06-05 08:36:15 AM
The two main problems with the Libertarian idea are:
1) No land left in the world to start one
2) It does NOT SCALE.

It works well with small government AND a small homogeneous (idea-wise) population ...ONLY.

/libertarian
 
2013-06-05 08:55:01 AM
"When are you going to get a job and move out of my basement?"
 
2013-06-05 09:01:08 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Karac: Please, enlighten us then as to the true Libertarianism.

Enlighten yourself.


Reading through that I came up with a new motto for Libertarians.

(Drum role)

It's. "We'll get back to you on that"

Libertarians literally apparently answer that to everything.

"How will you build roads?"

"We'll get back you on that"

"Since your not anarchists, which laws do you support"

"We'll get back to you on that"

"What will you do about corruption?"

"We'll get back to you on that"

"How will you stop people/companies from destroying the environment"

"We'll get back to you on that"
 
2013-06-05 09:01:08 AM
You know what else wasn't tried before it was tried? Everything.

Although, the only place libertarianism can possibly happen is in a republic with several member states that allows each state to make its own rules apart from the rules written into the union charter that everyone must abide by. In other words---- a working 10th Amendment.

There needs to be an escape hatch for those in your state who can't accept your brand of libertarianism. You shouldn't want them there anyway unless you want to enslave them to finance your libertarian lifestyle.
 
2013-06-05 09:08:04 AM

mr lawson: The two main problems with the Libertarian idea are:
1) No land left in the world to start one
2) It does NOT SCALE.

It works well with small government AND a small homogeneous (idea-wise) population ...ONLY.

/libertarian



Ok, so that's cool.  I'm assuming you live in America, though, so how is it relevant to your political beliefs?
 
2013-06-05 09:10:50 AM
Baryogenesis
A choice between working and eating isn't a free choice.

farm2.staticflickr.com


Biological Ali
Of course the libertarian ideal's been tried. It's called the State of Nature - I believe Hobbes had some nice things to say about it.

a1.phobos.apple.com
 
2013-06-05 09:17:37 AM
Real Communism has also never been tried, or so I'm told by Marxists who like to deny the disastrous past attempts at collectivist societies.
 
2013-06-05 09:26:24 AM

wxboy: "What is the Dewey Decimal number for a biography on Theodore Roosevelt?"


It would depend on the language the biography is written in.
 
2013-06-05 09:27:28 AM
Libertarianism in the idyllic sense creates this amazing environment where private initiative, entrepreneurism, and creative productivity flourishes.  In practice it's a fantasy philosophy that tricks Americans into blaming the government as the party "holding them back," when in reality the problem is entrenched moneyed interests (the primary beneficiaries of the "libertarian" philosophy) manipulating the government in their favor.  So, rather than blaming fraudsters on wall street, big banks, or corporate lobbyists for creating the system where their wages are stagnant, their health care is exorbitantly expensive, and their house is lost to foreclosure, they blame themselves for not being "Galt" enough, or blame the government for stifling "competition," usually, in their view, because the government is "giving away" so much of THEIR money to minorities.  (interesting that they tend to not really talk all that much about the massive special interest/corporate welfare provided by the government).

The most ironic thing about it is that they're correct, in a way.  The government has been taken over by moneyed/corporate special interests who have completely rigged the system in their favor.  The most absurd example of libertarians being complicit in this is the libertarian willingness to accept the philosophy of Citizens United - that corporations (i.e., entities created and recognized under the LAW, in other words, entities whose very existence requires governmental recognition) are "people" who are entitled to influence elections and governmental officials as much as they want, and that this is a fundamental aspect of "liberty."

So it's especially absurd when a "free market libertarian" votes for a republican, on the grounds that republicans better reflect their libertarian views.  In reality, the GOP represents the worst of both worlds: decrying the government while using governmental power to benefit moneyed special interests at the expense of everyone else.  And the GOP isn't even subtle about its desire to be bribed by moneyed interests.  When Mitch McTurtle stands up and says that requiring corporations to disclose their poltiical activities and funding sources will lead to "discrimination" against entrenched moneyed interests who are trying to influence elections... well,  you know that something is seriously wrong.
 
2013-06-05 09:29:54 AM

I_C_Weener: Why the Dewey Decimal System puts comics in the same section as reference?


It doesn't. The DDC for comic books is 741.5. Dewey doesn't have a number for reference. Reference books would be numbered based on the subject matter contained in the work.
 
2013-06-05 09:32:15 AM
Is there a defender of libertarianism on this thread willing to toss out a description of how libertarianism, properly implemented would work?

I am trying to keep an open mind, but none of the libertarians I have met in my life (so far) seem to be able to explain what it means and how it actually would work.

/Sincere question
 
2013-06-05 09:44:36 AM
It's a profoundly stupid question.

States are organized FOR THE PURPOSE of dominating and robbing a population.  That mode of social organization grows out of the age-old habit of conquering and enslaving.  That's where debt itself comes from -- obligations that are unilaterally imposed on subjugated people, which they must pay as tribute, for the privilege of not being killed outright.

Why aren't States more free than they are?  Because they are CONCEIVED and DESIGNED from the ground-up to use people as livestock.  People are the best livestock in the world, as long as you disable the part where they try to get away all the time.

The modern State is just a more sophisticated version of straightforward chattel slavery.  They call it taxation now, instead of tribute, and the people calling themselves agents of the State are called "bureaucrats," instead of standing armies. (Standing armies are for foreigners ... who pay tribute in the form of resources instead of cash money.)  The age-old system of turning people into service-slaves have been upgraded to turning them into free-range money-based slaves.

Part of the evolution of slavery has been to greatly improve the PR.  A small group of oppressors can't control a much larger population by constant force, so there needs to be some kind of reliable psychological control mechanism.  Disarming the slaves and enforced illiteracy were two of the methods of choice for a long time, but the other primary method, used since ancient times, has always been religion -- you set the dominant caste up as the image of gods, and teach the subordinates that they "owe" the gods their lives.  That way, they enslave themselves, and save the masters a LOT of headaches.  All you need is a priestly class to deliver the constant admonitions to serve.

These psychological means of maintaining servitude have greatly improved.  Although religion never fully went away, it's been modernized, and now takes the form of State-approved media, whose job it is to constantly cheerlead for Statism generally, and spew a constant barrage of propaganda that reinforces this idea of duty and obligation and service to the State.

Asking why States aren't in the habit of being more freedom-oriented is like asking why we don't see too many piranhas that choose to be vegetarians -- they weren't made that way.
 
2013-06-05 09:53:26 AM

Phinn: States are organized FOR THE PURPOSE of dominating and robbing a population.


I am sure you would enjoy a lot more freedom without the state...
 
2013-06-05 09:57:54 AM
SpectroBoy
Is there a defender of libertarianism on this thread willing to toss out a description of how libertarianism, properly implemented would work?

Not that kind of libertarian, but

First there are really three kinds of libertarians- Zero-government arch-capitalists, 'small government' libertarians, and anti-capitalist Anarchists. The latter is wholly unrelated to the others.
'Small government' libertarians think that the only role for the government is to protect property and national defense. They often point to a mythical golden age before the slaves were freed and the natives exterminated by the State to make way for bootstrappy settlers the government was 'corrupted'. However, they neglect to account for the problem that if things were so great then, why did it all go pear-shaped? The government's job of protecting property and defense inevitably leads to environmental regulation and labor laws, so small-government libertarianism inevitably leads to the same big government.

Anti-State libertarians think that everything would be done through private transactions and that a perfect market would be allowed to arise without the distorting influence of the government. All problems would be solved by the God-like Market and anyone who's badly off would have only themselves to blame. In case of conflict or crime, everyone would have what amounts to an insurance corporation with private enforcers which would hunt down the perpetrator and extract justice from them. Voluntarily. In the event that they have their own insurance corporation, the two would (voluntarily) hire a "dispute resolution organization" (private court) to, fairly and impartially for some reason, make a decision, which the insurance corporations would voluntarily abide by. And they would treat the perpetrator well, rather than driving APCs into their neighborhood and blasting away indiscriminately in order to act with minimum risk and maximum efficiency, because the person they're after might be a customer some day. Seriously, this is what they actually believe. And if you feel your insurance corporation isn't treating you right, you can buy insurance against that.
This is a pretty brilliant description from their own sources although they've already managed to contort their position to wash their hands of it. Link is to index page; start with page 1.
 
2013-06-05 10:11:30 AM
"If your approach is so great, why hasn't any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?"

I thought we kinda did in 1776 or so.

(American Libertarian =/= Anarcho-Capitalist)
 
2013-06-05 10:16:59 AM

dittybopper: Karac: Honest Bender: If your approach is so great, why hasn't any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?
Lack of opportunity would be my guess.  You can't just relocate somewhere and declare a new government.   And no government is going to willingly give up power.

Just shows how little faith libertarians have in their own ideas.
Did George Washington let the British unwillingness to give up power stop him from founding the USA?

Interesting that you bring that up:  The USA was pretty damned libertarian when it was founded.  In fact, the Constitution itself is pretty damned libertarian.  *PARTS* of the USA weren't very libertarian, of course, but as a whole, on the federal level, it was largely that way.   It was a big "Fark you, let us run our affairs as we see fit" not just collectively, but also at the individual level.

Unfortunately, nature (and politics) abhors a vacuum, and over time, the pressure to fill that vacuum builds up, and you get more and more regulations.  It is the unfortunate nature of organizations (and government is an organization) to expand as much as they possibly can.


Libertarianism probably works great when you have a massive amount of resources and unowned land to claim, frontier dangers to nationalize around, and the like. And slave labor.

Of course, the land was owned, we just stole it.

And the frontier dangers were solved with vigilante justice more often than not, and certainly not any fair voting.

I mean seriously, aside ftom the ability to pull an oregon trail, wtf was so libertarian back then? People like dia say they don't want somalia, but it sure sounds like you do.
 
2013-06-05 10:34:49 AM

Altair: skullkrusher: gameshowhost: skullkrusher: gameshowhost: vygramul: Altair: vygramul: gameshowhost: [i40.tinypic.com image 479x229]
failed libertarian attempt to make their vision of the future sound appealing

If there's one thing that truly seems to defy Libertarian theory it's a love for the ultimate in fiat currency: Bitcoin.

as much as I hate to defend libertarians, I'm not really sure I'd call Bitcoin a fiat currency

Oh? What commodity backs it?

PROCESSING POWER™

technically limitations on processing power ;)

That's true.  But it's still weird. :|

well, it is a fiat currency. It isn't backed by anything. However, the inflation of the "money supply" is restricted so... it's still a fiat currency.

you must not fully understand what a fiat currency is

/hint: bitcoin isn't one


no, it isn't a fiat currency in that it isn't issued by a government. However, it has no intrinsic value or backing so fiat is the most accurate way to describe it.

http://economics.about.com/od/money/a/Types-Of-Money.htm

It isn't a commodity or backed by a commodity... that leaves us with fiat.
 
2013-06-05 10:35:44 AM
Somalia was overtly and aggressively socialist for 20-30 years, which is what drove its economy into the ground.
 
2013-06-05 10:51:42 AM

tallguywithglasseson: In D_I_A's defense, I'll bet public education really does suck in Texas.


Can anyone really be surprised when they're more interested in building these:

photographyblog.dallasnews.com

instead of libraries?

It's all about "Screw libraries and education! Ya gotta beat "X" HS so I can relive my glory days 'cause I wasn't good enough to play D-I CFB."
 
2013-06-05 10:55:27 AM

Bucky Katt: RON PAUL is a religious nut.  He's ok with theocracy as long as its state governments that do it instead of the federal government.  Paul and his Christian Reconstructionist pals can all fark off.


Pretty much that; If Ron Paul ever runs for the Presidency again, I want Christie to debate him one-on-one.  Just for laughs.
 
2013-06-05 10:57:42 AM

RanDomino: Hydra: Funny how as a linguist he fails even to define what "private tyrannies" are in the first place.

The internal structure of practically every corporation is essentially fascist.


Belgian Congo comes pretty close to "private tyranny" - and I'm sure there are 19th century examples that are literally so.

RanDomino: Hydra: A private firm CANNOT force anyone to buy its products since it does not procure its own private military and holds guns to everyone's head

Not necessarily, but it can hold a gun to the heads of potential competitors and suggest they take up a new line of work.


Not even. A private firm CAN force people to buy their products, they just have to structure employment and end-user license-agreements the right way. Monsanto doesn't let farmers who bought their seeds grow the plants, harvest them, and plant the seeds they collect from them. They have to buy a new batch. In fact, SCOTUS just ruled this legal this week. Extrapolating from that isn't really all that hard to do.

RanDomino: Hydra: his ever-expanding government.

Chomsky is an Anarchist, so that's a hell of a claim.


He does lie a lot.

RanDomino: Hydra: Economic systems and governmental systems are not mutually exclusive of each other, nor do they exist in separate vacuums.

Is this where I get to tell you that capitalism has never existed without a powerful State acting as its enforcer?


Economic systems and governmental systems can be mutually exclusive. You can't have a socialist government and a lassaiz-faire free market economic system. I don't think it's fair to say that capitalism has never existed without a powerful state acting as its enforcer - more like capitalism has had trouble existing without a powerful state acting as its protector. Capitalism requires the state to step in and make sure trades are voluntary - this includes transparency and equal information. And if capitalism requires an enforcer, so does every other system - except the theoretical ones.

RanDomino: Hydra: Expanding this relatively accurate economic calculation to a large population of thousands - let alone millions - without some sort of coordination mechanism (read: money and prices) and achieving rational economic allocation of resources is impossible.

Syndicalism.


This is where he's right. The thing about prices is that they create efficiencies. During the Cold War, the East Germans tried selling cars to the West. But they couldn't figure out if they were making or losing money because the production system was socialized from raw materials to assembly, so they couldn't tell if their system was more or less efficient than the cars with which they were competing. Prices carry information. No prices, and you lose resolution, if not the information entirely.

RanDomino: Sadly, I know that because you said "rational" you probably meant "anyone who's rich automatically deserves it".


Unfortunately, too many people make moral assessments based on bottom-line. If there's one thing Jesus was right about, it's how hard it is to be a good person and be rich at the same time. And I'm even going to include people like the Gates' in that.

RanDomino: Hydra:the information problem

There is more than enough of everything for some inaccuracy to be acceptable.

Scarcity is a current condition of existence - there simply is not enough stuff available to satisfy every single person's wants and needs

Libertarians, and capitalists of all stripes for that matter, love to conflate wants and needs, but there is a definite difference between food, shelter, and medical care and solid-gold Ferraris, a yacht made out of space shuttles, a scale model of the beer volcano in Pastafarian heaven, etc.


And medical care (and food and shelter) is not so scarce we can't give everyone in the U.S. what they reasonably require.
 
2013-06-05 10:58:13 AM

hinten: Meh, Libertarianism would work great if only everyone abided by the rules.


Libertarianism will never work because of human nature.  If Communism in the USSR never worked due to human nature, what makes Libertarians think they'll be able to pull it off?
 
2013-06-05 11:04:53 AM

Gyrfalcon: vygramul: TheHighlandHowler: I think many democracies (and republics) are libertarian in their infancies, but as they mature, government grows.  This is partly due to demands from the populace, and politicians' lust for power.

It could be that they find out that libertarianism doesn't work.

Or it could be that communism works great, but that politicians' lust for power and the demands from the populace spoil those systems, too.

It's because libertarianism combines the most extreme aspects of personal self-interest and greed ("f*ck you, I got mine) and unrealistic idealism and faith in others ("people will change if it's in their best interests to change"). The idea that people should be allowed to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else because their actions will be circumscribed by the reactions of other like-minded individuals is patently absurd. The error is obvious to anyone who realizes that people WILL act against their own interests out of pettiness or meanness or short-sightedness; and some people are unable to control their actions without strong social or temporal strictures such as religion or laws.


Libertarianism makes the same fundamental error about human nature that Communism does. It just does it regarding a different aspect of human psyche.

The other reason is one of definition. If a theme of libertarianism is that anyone may do what he pleases with minimal intrusion, so long as no one is harmed, then what exactly is harm? Who determines the degree of harm? If there is minimal regulation, what is the consequence of harm and who administers it? All this has to be defined and then implemented...and now you no longer have a fully libertarian society. It's got nothing to do with "lust for power," or "demands from the populace," except insofar as a desire for something besides anarchy and/or endless debate and argument about getting things done is "popular demand." There's a limit to how much can be accomplished by social consensus and social disapproval, and once a society grows beyond that point, a more restrictive government is inevitable and essential.

Or else the society must fragment and revert to a more manageable size. You don't get the benefits of a large civilization and the freedom of a band-level society at the same time.


This is why Libertarians don't mix well with externalities. They don't want to recognize how much just about anything we do impacts the wallets of our neighbors. You should be able to shoot yourself in the head, right? Well, except I have to send the cops to do an investigation on my dime to make sure that you really DID shoot yourself, and not some serial killer. Anything that a libertarian would say in response is to try to wave-off the externality, or involves government regulation. Heck - even my decision as to what car I drive has an effect on my neighbor's property value!
 
2013-06-05 11:08:57 AM
Monsanto's licensing scheme is anti-libertarian. Calling it "intellectual property" doesn't make it actual property.

It's just a state-sponsored special privilege against competition -- a monopoly -- which is what patents and copyrights were openly called, before the state's propaganda machine re-labeled them as "property" in order to give them the appearance of legitimacy.

Therefore, as an example of looming corporate oppression of the global food supply, the Monsanto seed patents are a problem originating with the State, not with property and free markets.
 
2013-06-05 11:09:16 AM

RanDomino: Currently, people can't be subsistence farmers because they would still have to pay property taxes.
Without a State to artificially create property taxes, a gift economy based on collective agriculture and industry would be orders of magnitude more popular than a vestigial capitalist economy.


This is coming up on Ben Franklin's conclusion: you can only accumulate wealth thanks to society. Without society creating a government, anything above subsistence would be difficult to maintain, as you couldn't possibly be secure in storing wealth. As a result, anything above subsistence is really not entirely yours, because without society, you ain't got it.
 
2013-06-05 11:11:09 AM

studs up: HighOnCraic: vygramul: Hydra: STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.

Really? You're blaming Jim Crow Laws for FORCING restaurants to have whites-only counters?

Seriously?

Wow.

That's pretty much true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jim_Crow_laws_by_State

This one probably made things difficult:

"printed, typewritten or written matter urging or presenting for public acceptance or general information, arguments or suggestions in favor of social equality or of inter
marriage between whites and Negroes, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to fine not exceeding five hundred (500.00) dollars or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or both."

/The Jim Crow South was the sort of society that should've horrified true libertarians. . .

So pro gay marriage libertarians would be the likely culprits in a racist legal structure? There is a lot of shoe-horning going on in this thread to make the "threat of libertarianism" fit some pre-established mold. I'm not saying that's ill informed, but, potato logic seems to work well here when the circle jerk of farkleftist rally round the old Red Flag. The rest of us think that maybe your arguments are only solid with other people who are already on your team.
TEAM!


Hydra: HighOnCraic: My main complaint about libertarianism is that conveniently provided excuses for maintaining segregation (which wasn't so great for my older relatives in Alabama).  It was a way of saying, "I don't believe in segregation at all, I just think that Federal laws or Supreme Court decisions outlawing segregation are much worse than segregation, and people who don't like segregation should just work things out at the local level."  That's a brief synopsis of the chapter on civil rights from "The Conscience of a Conservative."

The counter-argument is that Goldwater wasn't a "true Libertarian," since his foreign policy ideas would've needed a huge military and espionage network to wipe Communism off the face of the earth...

It should be obvious that Goldwater only speaks for himself and people who agree with him rather than ALL libertarians. Try telling a Friedmanite, a Randian, and a Rothbardian that "all libertarians think alike," and they'd each shoot you to shreds with the 3D gun they printed out (after they're done shooting up each other).

/Rand was a biatch



I already addressed your complaint that Goldwater doesn't speak for ALL libertarians, since his foreign policy involved massive interference in Soviet satellite nations, including tactical nuclear strikes (I wonder if Rand Paul, who made such a huge fuss over Obama's use of drone strikes that result in collateral damage, has ever read about Goldwater's advocacy of dropping nukes on Communist countries, and if so, if he realizes the scale of collateral damage that such attacks would cause).


From wiki:United States Senator Barry Goldwater's libertarian-oriented challenge to authority had a major impact on the libertarian movement, through his book The Conscience of a Conservative and his run for president in 1964.


So yeah, I agree that Goldwater doesn't speak for ALL libertarians, but it's silly to use the "No true Scotsman" defense to say that his opinions are meaningless in regards to how libertarians felt about civil rights.It's not like he was just some random dude posting anonymously on the internet.Is there any libertarian politician who had more political  than Goldwater?  Have any of them denounced Goldwater's views on civil rights?


I'm sticking with my disagreement with his libertarian argument against the Brown v. Board of Education decision, which was based on the libertarian concept that the Federal government should have no role in overturning local customs in the segregated South.The full text of The Conscience of a Conservative is available online, if you care to read it.Chapter Four (I think) covers his thoughts on civil rights.Basically he says that segregated schools are wrong, but using Federal power to integrate schools is even more wrong.


I'm just saying that the libertarian argument against integration (i.e. it shouldn't be enforced by the Federal government as long as local governments in the South felt it was necessary, because racists should be free to segregate) was a bad argument.Pro-freedom libertarians should've worked against segregation, because it violated freedom, specifically in regards to the Mississippi law I referred to, which was a blatant violation of the First Amendment and a clear example of how the "free market" could never have ended segregation, since it was illegal to even publish material in favor of integration.It would be great if libertarians would just admit that when it came to segregation, the idea that local governments were inherently superior to the Federal government was not a rational position to hold at that time. Sure, they could argue that the use Federal power was absolutely wrong on any other domestic issue, as long as they admitted that when it came to overturning Jim Crow laws, Federal power was necessary.Hell, even William Buckley, who made a career out of opposing Federal intervention against segregation, admitted that he was wrong.Local governments were the source of tyranny that libertarians should have opposed back then.Google the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission, which was basically the Patriot Act on steroids when it came to spying on integrationists and actively participated in the murders of civil rights activists (Cheney, Goodman, and Schwerner).The libertarian "team" ignored the fact that Jim Crow laws violated the principles they claimed to hold so dear to their hearts.That's why I remain skeptical of their belief system.I wouldn't have bothered reading Goldwater's book if I didn't believe in "studying it out."Having done so, I'm still not convinced that libertarians were honestly interested in "liberty for all." See also:Ron and Rand Paul's criticism of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.


Libertarians who are in favor of gay rights should probably study out Ron Paul's "We The People Act," which "forbids all Federal courts from hearing any cases on abortion, sexual practices, and establishment of religion, unless such a case were a challenge to the Constitutionality of federal law, and makes federal court decisions on those subject nonbinding as precedent in state courts, and forbids federal courts from spendin money to enforce their judgments."

But I guess Ron Paul isn't a "true libertarian."

I'm not arguing that libertarianism was designed intentionally as a defense of segregation. It was just a matter of bad timing; the idea of denouncing Federal power was appealing to Southerners whose racist customs were slowly being revoked by Federal power.  I just think contemporary libertarians should be more honest about the fact that their belief system was open to such exploitation in the past.
 
2013-06-05 11:11:38 AM

asmodeus224: Asking why libertarians haven't been able to run an entire nation is a little premature, dontchathink?  Maybe focus on getting more than 1% of the general, or a single governorship, or a single senate seat, or a single congressional seat...hell, how about a single state senate or congressional seat?  Shooting for the moon when you can't even light your own fart is pretty, what can i call it, delusional, no?


You're probably right. Hence the Libertarian plan to try to get them to move to N.H. and try to take over the state government.
 
2013-06-05 11:14:25 AM

Rwa2play: hinten: Meh, Libertarianism would work great if only everyone abided by the rules.

Libertarianism will never work because of human nature.  If Communism in the USSR never worked due to human nature, what makes Libertarians think they'll be able to pull it off?


Perhaps my jokes are to obtuse to land effectively.
 
2013-06-05 11:26:23 AM

Dedmon: udhq: Dedmon: TheHighlandHowler: I think many democracies (and republics) are libertarian in their infancies, but as they mature, government grows.  This is partly due to demands from the populace, and politicians' lust for power.

Well damn, if there are many of them, it should be really easy to provide an example?

Ummm.....really?

The United States, remember?  It was called "The Articles of Confederation", and it did not work out well at all.....

How exactly were the confederates a libertarian system?


Lol, wut?
 
2013-06-05 11:36:41 AM

Rwa2play: hinten: Meh, Libertarianism would work great if only everyone abided by the rules.

Libertarianism will never work because of human nature.  If Communism in the USSR never worked due to human nature, what makes Libertarians think they'll be able to pull it off?


Part of the reason Communism didn't work in the USSR was the fact that they had to deal with a major super-power spending billions of dollars to defeat Communism, particularly through proxy wars in the third world.  Sure, it might've collapsed on its own, but the Cold War certainly had an impact.
 
2013-06-05 11:40:14 AM

Phinn: Monsanto's licensing scheme is anti-libertarian. Calling it "intellectual property" doesn't make it actual property.

It's just a state-sponsored special privilege against competition -- a monopoly -- which is what patents and copyrights were openly called, before the state's propaganda machine re-labeled them as "property" in order to give them the appearance of legitimacy.

Therefore, as an example of looming corporate oppression of the global food supply, the Monsanto seed patents are a problem originating with the State, not with property and free markets.


Most Libertarian luminaries disagree. Ayn Rand felt IP laws were necessary, and Reason.com and the CATO institute, along with others, copyright their works. Without IP protections, you won't get innovation except under the same conditions Communists claim you'll get them.

When it comes to IP, Libertarians are divided at worst. Subtract out the college-aged libertarians who just want to pirate entertainment products, and the field becomes pretty imbalanced in favor of IP.
 
2013-06-05 11:45:34 AM

Phinn: Monsanto's licensing scheme is anti-libertarian. Calling it "intellectual property" doesn't make it actual property.

It's just a state-sponsored special privilege against competition -- a monopoly -- which is what patents and copyrights were openly called, before the state's propaganda machine re-labeled them as "property" in order to give them the appearance of legitimacy.

Therefore, as an example of looming corporate oppression of the global food supply, the Monsanto seed patents are a problem originating with the State, not with property and free markets.


The other problem with this claim is that now you're saying the State has to intervene in contract law to prevent Monsanto from being able to create the license for use. So, really, the State is the only thing PREVENTING corporate oppression.
 
2013-06-05 11:48:18 AM

Dedmon: udhq: Dedmon: TheHighlandHowler: I think many democracies (and republics) are libertarian in their infancies, but as they mature, government grows.  This is partly due to demands from the populace, and politicians' lust for power.

Well damn, if there are many of them, it should be really easy to provide an example?

Ummm.....really?

The United States, remember?  It was called "The Articles of Confederation", and it did not work out well at all.....

How exactly were the confederates a libertarian system?


Those are two different things.

Articles of Confederation:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation

Confederate States of America:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America

Study it out!
 
2013-06-05 11:50:11 AM

RanDomino: Government is an institution, bureaucracy, agency, 'corporation'. Without professional decision-makers and enforcers, it's not a government.


An "institution" is a social structure, not a building. Any social structure or system of rules constitutes an institution. If you have a group of people agreeing to work together to make decisions, then that a form of institution too.

A bureaucracy occurs whenever you have designated certain people certain responsibilities. When tasks are divided up among several people you have created a form of bureaucracy.

If the decision of the group is to have any weight, it must be enforced. You have just invoked agency.

So if your "group of people making decisions" is to have any impact or effectiveness, it must have all the same qualities that you have just given to a government. If you don't have these things at least in some measure, then you don't have anything that could be rightfully called a society anymore; it's just everyone for themselves.
=Smidge=
 
2013-06-05 12:09:55 PM

vygramul: HighOnCraic: vygramul: Hydra: STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.

Really? You're blaming Jim Crow Laws for FORCING restaurants to have whites-only counters?

Seriously?

Wow.

That's pretty much true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jim_Crow_laws_by_State

This one probably made things difficult:

"printed, typewritten or written matter urging or presenting for public acceptance or general information, arguments or suggestions in favor of social equality or of inter
marriage between whites and Negroes, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to fine not exceeding five hundred (500.00) dollars or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or both."

/The Jim Crow South was the sort of society that should've horrified true libertarians. . .

It's putting the cart before the horse to say the Jim Crow laws are why this happened.


I just cited a list of Jim Crow laws.  Specifically, the one in Georgia is applicable:  "All persons licensed to conduct a restaurant, shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room or serve the two races anywhere under the same license."
 
2013-06-05 12:17:25 PM

HighOnCraic: vygramul: HighOnCraic: vygramul: Hydra: STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.

Really? You're blaming Jim Crow Laws for FORCING restaurants to have whites-only counters?

Seriously?

Wow.

That's pretty much true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jim_Crow_laws_by_State

This one probably made things difficult:

"printed, typewritten or written matter urging or presenting for public acceptance or general information, arguments or suggestions in favor of social equality or of inter
marriage between whites and Negroes, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to fine not exceeding five hundred (500.00) dollars or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or both."

/The Jim Crow South was the sort of society that should've horrified true libertarians. . .

It's putting the cart before the horse to say the Jim Crow laws are why this happened.

I just cited a list of Jim Crow laws.  Specifically, the one in Georgia is applicable:  "All persons licensed to conduct a restaurant, shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room or serve the two races anywhere under the same license."


Yes you did. It's still putting the cart before the horse to say the Jim Crow laws are why this happened. It's like saying the U.S. went to war with Japan because the U.S. Congress passed a Declaration of War against Japan.
 
2013-06-05 12:28:22 PM

vygramul: HighOnCraic: vygramul: HighOnCraic: vygramul: Hydra: STATE-ENFORCED Jim Crow laws, etc.

Really? You're blaming Jim Crow Laws for FORCING restaurants to have whites-only counters?

Seriously?

Wow.

That's pretty much true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jim_Crow_laws_by_State

This one probably made things difficult:

"printed, typewritten or written matter urging or presenting for public acceptance or general information, arguments or suggestions in favor of social equality or of inter
marriage between whites and Negroes, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to fine not exceeding five hundred (500.00) dollars or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or both."

/The Jim Crow South was the sort of society that should've horrified true libertarians. . .

It's putting the cart before the horse to say the Jim Crow laws are why this happened.

I just cited a list of Jim Crow laws.  Specifically, the one in Georgia is applicable:  "All persons licensed to conduct a restaurant, shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room or serve the two races anywhere under the same license."

Yes you did. It's still putting the cart before the horse to say the Jim Crow laws are why this happened. It's like saying the U.S. went to war with Japan because the U.S. Congress passed a Declaration of War against Japan.


I'm not sure where you're going with this.
 
2013-06-05 12:28:33 PM

vygramul: I don't think it's fair to say that capitalism has never existed without a powerful state acting as its enforcer - more like capitalism has had trouble existing without a powerful state acting as its protector. Capitalism requires the state to step in and make sure trades are voluntary - this includes transparency and equal information. And if capitalism requires an enforcer, so does every other system - except the theoretical ones.


Capitalism has always existed, in every culture at every time. Capitalism occurs anytime Grog says that he will give Gorp two deer if Gorp makes Grog a better spear. This requires no government, and no enforcement. Capitalism occurs anytime one group of people decide to trade a portion of their grain harvest to another group of people for their meat, or when a group of people will trade some of their grain to people with boats so they can go sell grain for meat with another group. No government, no enforcement needed.

National capitalism, as all national enterprises of any kind requires a government and enforcement. Capitalism does not require an enforcer to work, rather, any sufficiently large enterprise or system requires it. Capitalism, Religion, Socialism, Transportation, etc. all exist independently of an enforcing agent, but once they achieve a sufficient 'size', an enforcing agency becomes necessary.

It is a requirement of scale, not of principle.
 
2013-06-05 12:31:25 PM

vygramul: Yes you did. It's still putting the cart before the horse to say the Jim Crow laws are why this happened.


You're being rather disingenuous.

Sure, the law was enacted because racism already existed.  But the law codified racism, and prevented the opening of integrated businesses, and penalized those who dared open them.

It didn't engender racism, but it sure as hell enshrined it.  And it legislated resistance to change.  Are you seriously trying to argue that that did not affect subsequent behavior?
 
m00
2013-06-05 12:32:35 PM
There sure is a lot of effort from the media going into writing opinion pieces to discredit Libertarianism. And here I thought it was irrelevant!

What a sad state of affairs we are in when simply saying "I believe that personal liberty and freedom is a paramount value of an enlightened culture" causes so much hatred, scorn, derision and insults towards the speaker.
 
2013-06-05 12:33:34 PM

hinten: Rwa2play: hinten: Meh, Libertarianism would work great if only everyone abided by the rules.

Libertarianism will never work because of human nature.  If Communism in the USSR never worked due to human nature, what makes Libertarians think they'll be able to pull it off?

Perhaps my jokes are to obtuse to land effectively.


Possibly; I was being serious however, no offense.
 
2013-06-05 12:34:26 PM

HighOnCraic: Basically he says that segregated schools are wrong, but using Federal power to integrate schools is even more wrong...I'm just saying that the libertarian argument against integration (i.e. it shouldn't be enforced by the Federal government as long as local governments in the South felt it was necessary, because racists should be free to segregate) was a bad argument.Pro-freedom libertarians should've worked against segregation, because it violated freedom, specifically in regards to the Mississippi law I referred to, which was a blatant violation of the First Amendment and a clear example of how the "free market" could never have ended segregation, since it was illegal to even publish material in favor of integration.


A libertarian would, logically, oppose BOTH the Federal intervention AND the censorship laws (as well as free association limits) . But a small government libertarian would also believe that it is up to the local constituency to correct their local governance problems.
 
2013-06-05 12:35:58 PM

BojanglesPaladin: vygramul: I don't think it's fair to say that capitalism has never existed without a powerful state acting as its enforcer - more like capitalism has had trouble existing without a powerful state acting as its protector. Capitalism requires the state to step in and make sure trades are voluntary - this includes transparency and equal information. And if capitalism requires an enforcer, so does every other system - except the theoretical ones.

Capitalism has always existed, in every culture at every time. Capitalism occurs anytime Grog says that he will give Gorp two deer if Gorp makes Grog a better spear. This requires no government, and no enforcement. Capitalism occurs anytime one group of people decide to trade a portion of their grain harvest to another group of people for their meat, or when a group of people will trade some of their grain to people with boats so they can go sell grain for meat with another group. No government, no enforcement needed.

National capitalism, as all national enterprises of any kind requires a government and enforcement. Capitalism does not require an enforcer to work, rather, any sufficiently large enterprise or system requires it. Capitalism, Religion, Socialism, Transportation, etc. all exist independently of an enforcing agent, but once they achieve a sufficient 'size', an enforcing agency becomes necessary.

It is a requirement of scale, not of principle.


And yet when Gorp takes the spear he just made, and holds it at Grog's neck and demands a third deer, you need authority to step in and enforce the contract. I can give you an example of two people having communism work in the stone-age, too. That doesn't mean the example is actually meaningful.
 
m00
2013-06-05 12:37:45 PM

HighOnCraic: But I guess Ron Paul isn't a "true libertarian."


I think these sorts of characterizations which tie all the principles or traits of a person to a given movement is unfair. It's as unfair as saying "Nixon was a dishonest liar, therefore dishonesty is necessarily a tenant of conservatism" or "Carter was incompetent, therefore all liberals are incompetent." Of course, we do have people making these arguments but I think this is what's generally wrong with political discourse.
 
2013-06-05 12:38:32 PM
vygramul
They have to buy a new batch.

Not necessarily. They could choose to go out of business. Or heed our warnings about buying from a patently evil corporation.

He does lie a lot.

Whatever

Capitalism requires the state to step in and make sure trades are voluntary - this includes transparency and equal information.

Moreover, protection of the integrity of property titles.

And if capitalism requires an enforcer, so does every other system - except the theoretical ones.

More generally, a system of enforcement.

During the Cold War, the East Germans tried selling cars to the West. But they couldn't figure out if they were making or losing money because the production system was socialized from raw materials to assembly, so they couldn't tell if their system was more or less efficient than the cars with which they were competing. Prices carry information. No prices, and you lose resolution, if not the information entirely.

Apples to oranges. Of course a method that doesn't play by a system's rules doesn't work when applied to that system. Were they able to manufacture and distribute cars internally?

This is coming up on Ben Franklin's conclusion: you can only accumulate wealth thanks to society. Without society creating a government, anything above subsistence would be difficult to maintain, as you couldn't possibly be secure in storing wealth. As a result, anything above subsistence is really not entirely yours, because without society, you ain't got it.

"society" and security != "government"


Smidge204
An "institution" is a social structure, not a building. Any social structure or system of rules constitutes an institution. If you have a group of people agreeing to work together to make decisions, then that a form of institution too.

A government exists to perpetuate itself rather than to fulfill any legitimate goal.

A bureaucracy occurs whenever you have designated certain people certain responsibilities. When tasks are divided up among several people you have created a form of bureaucracy.

A bureaucracy is a specialist class which makes those decisions its exclusive domain.

If the decision of the group is to have any weight, it must be enforced. You have just invoked agency.

I meant "agency" in the sense of "institution". An entity in itself which provides a veil to the individuals and their actions.

So if your "group of people making decisions" is to have any impact or effectiveness, it must have all the same qualities that you have just given to a government.

Then there is a difference between "the government" and "government" but the word must still be different to avoid confusion. I still doubt that you will find many people who would agree that direct democracy and/or collective decision-making and direct action, with federation-style coordination, is a "government".
 
2013-06-05 12:39:19 PM

Deucednuisance: vygramul: Yes you did. It's still putting the cart before the horse to say the Jim Crow laws are why this happened.

You're being rather disingenuous.

Sure, the law was enacted because racism already existed.  But the law codified racism, and prevented the opening of integrated businesses, and penalized those who dared open them.

It didn't engender racism, but it sure as hell enshrined it.  And it legislated resistance to change.  Are you seriously trying to argue that that did not affect subsequent behavior?


I'm saying that the Free Market failed to end it, and that's why the federal government had to step in. Rand Paul (and many libertarians) say that the CRA of 1964 was wrong not because racism is ok, but because the free market should end it and not the feds. To then argue that the free market COULDN'T fix it because of Jim Crow Laws while MAINTAINING THE SAME POSITION is far more disingenuous than anything I could possibly have pinned on me.
 
2013-06-05 12:41:15 PM

RanDomino: Apples to oranges. Of course a method that doesn't play by a system's rules doesn't work when applied to that system. Were they able to manufacture and distribute cars internally?


For a little while. Then their economy collapsed because they simply couldn't manage resources as well as prices could.
 
2013-06-05 12:42:31 PM

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: Basically he says that segregated schools are wrong, but using Federal power to integrate schools is even more wrong...I'm just saying that the libertarian argument against integration (i.e. it shouldn't be enforced by the Federal government as long as local governments in the South felt it was necessary, because racists should be free to segregate) was a bad argument.Pro-freedom libertarians should've worked against segregation, because it violated freedom, specifically in regards to the Mississippi law I referred to, which was a blatant violation of the First Amendment and a clear example of how the "free market" could never have ended segregation, since it was illegal to even publish material in favor of integration.

A libertarian would, logically, oppose BOTH the Federal intervention AND the censorship laws (as well as free association limits) . But a small government libertarian would also believe that it is up to the local constituency to correct their local governance problems.


How were locals supposed to change things when it was illegal, according to local laws, to print material that advocated change?  Never mind the fact that most of the people who wanted to change things were prohibited from voting, and outsiders who tried to help change things were murdered by local law enforcement.

How could you change the local censorship law without Federal intervention?

Even Bill Buckley admitted that he was wrong on that issue.

Asked by Time in 2004 whether he regretted any positions he had taken in the past, Buckley said simply, "Yes. I once believed we could evolve our way up from Jim Crow. I was wrong: federal intervention was necessary."
 http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1543/article_detail.as p
 
2013-06-05 12:45:05 PM
BojanglesPaladin
Capitalism has always existed, in every culture at every time. Capitalism occurs anytime Grog says that he will give Gorp two deer if Gorp makes Grog a better spear. This requires no government, and no enforcement. Capitalism occurs anytime one group of people decide to trade a portion of their grain harvest to another group of people for their meat, or when a group of people will trade some of their grain to people with boats so they can go sell grain for meat with another group. No government, no enforcement needed.

Although barter leads to capitalism, they are not synonymous. "Capitalism" refers specifically to investment capital. Without investment, it's not capitalism. But that requires interaction with other people and protection of capital goods, which means some kind of organization to protect commodity stockpiles from looting. Which means either government or mercenaries (which leads to government).


m00
There sure is a lot of effort from the media going into writing opinion pieces to discredit Libertarianism. And here I thought it was irrelevant!

What a sad state of affairs we are in when simply saying "I believe that personal liberty and freedom is a paramount value of an enlightened culture" causes so much hatred, scorn, derision and insults towards the speaker.


Libertarianism is used as ideological cover to push an agenda of dismantling civil society and forking over public assets to private corporations, giving them blatantly unfair favors, lowering their taxes while raising fees and effectively raising fees and lowering services for poor people, annihilating environmental protections and gutting unions, etc.
 
2013-06-05 12:47:02 PM

m00: HighOnCraic: But I guess Ron Paul isn't a "true libertarian."

I think these sorts of characterizations which tie all the principles or traits of a person to a given movement is unfair. It's as unfair as saying "Nixon was a dishonest liar, therefore dishonesty is necessarily a tenant of conservatism" or "Carter was incompetent, therefore all liberals are incompetent." Of course, we do have people making these arguments but I think this is what's generally wrong with political discourse.


Surely you can provide an example of a libertarian who has argued that Federal power was necessary to end segregation in the South. . .

I thought RON PAUL was the most popular libertarian ever.  It turns out he doesn't like haggis. . .
 
m00
2013-06-05 12:49:13 PM

vygramul: I'm saying that the Free Market failed to end it, and that's why the federal government had to step in. Rand Paul (and many libertarians) say that the CRA of 1964 was wrong not because racism is ok, but because the free market should end it and not the feds. To then argue that the free market COULDN'T fix it because of Jim Crow Laws while MAINTAINING THE SAME POSITION is far more disingenuous than anything I could possibly have pinned on me.


Libertarian philosophy doesn't maintain that there is no proper place for government. For example, you're always going to need a governing body to enforce laws and contracts. If I own a piece of land, and a corporation is dumping industrial waste on that land, they would be violating my property rights. In a world without government, that corporation might raise a private army (or higher Blackwater) to take my land from me. Protecting rights is why a government needs to exist in some form. But there is a world of difference between "securing freedoms for the individual" and the billion other things governments currently do which secure special advantages for special groups who happen to have the money to influence the very elections which select that government.

Honestly, there are legitimate issues with the procedural aspects of CRA -- no legislation is without flaws. I think it just so happens that some prominent Libertarians (prominent because the media pays attention to them) use these procedural complaints to pander to some less-enlightened segments of the population.
 
2013-06-05 12:49:45 PM

vygramul: I'm saying that the Free Market failed to end [racism]


You mean the "free market" that did not exist because the markets for restaurants and transportation were prevented by legislation and police enforcement from being free?  That one?
 
2013-06-05 12:51:06 PM

m00: What a sad state of affairs we are in when simply saying "I believe that personal liberty and freedom is a paramount value of an enlightened culture" causes so much hatred, scorn, derision and insults towards the speaker.


You are seeing a societal shift away from the historical perspective that has driven the last thousand years of civilization.

In decline is the notion that the individual, and his accomplishments constitute the primary and central value in a society.
In ascendancy is the notion that the society itself (or state), rather than fungible individual units, is the primary and central value in a society.

Those who feel that civilization is advanced by "converging socio-economic trends" rather than the actions of specific individuals, and that the state has is a superior claim on the decisions, welfare and prosperity of its citizens than the individuals themselves, tend to bristle when they hear talk of "personal responsibility", "individual liberty", "self-reliance" and the like because that runs counter to the worldview that all people are effectively units and interchangeable, and can't be trusted to determine their own fate.

So, usually, they heap scorn and mock these ideas, or insist that they mean something other than they do to dissuade the gullible from noticing that they are submitting to the authority of an over-body and becoming less free by inches.
 
2013-06-05 12:52:02 PM
vygramul
For a little while. Then their economy collapsed because they simply couldn't manage resources as well as prices could.

Conjecture. The USSR had an oil crash in the early 1980s and was less adept at using mass media manipulation to disrupt civil society than the US. If it was solely a matter of pricing then it could have fallen apart any time in the previous 30 or 70 years. Anyway, the US economy is currently collapsing so the comparison is null.
 
m00
2013-06-05 12:53:09 PM

RanDomino: Libertarianism is used as ideological cover to push an agenda of dismantling civil society and forking over public assets to private corporations, giving them blatantly unfair favors, lowering their taxes while raising fees and effectively raising fees and lowering services for poor people, annihilating environmental protections and gutting unions, etc.


You mean unlike Conservatism, Liberalism, Socialism...
 
2013-06-05 12:54:38 PM

Phinn: vygramul: I'm saying that the Free Market failed to end [racism]

You mean the "free market" that did not exist because the markets for restaurants and transportation were prevented by legislation and police enforcement from being free?  That one?


You're absolutely correct that the "free market" in the South wasn't remotely free.  But the argument presented by many libertarians (Goldwater, Ron and Rand Paul) was that the Federal government had no right to get involved, and that this "free market" that only exists in their minds would've solved everything.
 
2013-06-05 12:55:59 PM
m00
you're always going to need a governing body to enforce laws and contracts.

and I'm sure it won't be corrupted by bribery, kickbacks, a revolving door, nepotism...

If I own a piece of land, and a corporation is dumping industrial waste on that land, they would be violating my property rights. In a world without government, that corporation might raise a private army (or higher Blackwater) to take my land from me. Protecting rights is why a government needs to exist in some form.

So get together with your neighbors and form a militia. If it's not strong enough, appeal to the regional federation for mutual aid. You did organize a regional federation, right?


BojanglesPaladin
So, usually, they heap scorn and mock these ideas

No, we're scorning and mocking you.
 
2013-06-05 12:56:34 PM

m00: RanDomino: Libertarianism is used as ideological cover to push an agenda of dismantling civil society and forking over public assets to private corporations, giving them blatantly unfair favors, lowering their taxes while raising fees and effectively raising fees and lowering services for poor people, annihilating environmental protections and gutting unions, etc.

You mean unlike Conservatism, Liberalism, Socialism...


All sides are bad!  Voter Libertarian!
 
2013-06-05 12:57:28 PM

HighOnCraic: m00: RanDomino: Libertarianism is used as ideological cover to push an agenda of dismantling civil society and forking over public assets to private corporations, giving them blatantly unfair favors, lowering their taxes while raising fees and effectively raising fees and lowering services for poor people, annihilating environmental protections and gutting unions, etc.

You mean unlike Conservatism, Liberalism, Socialism...

All sides are bad!  Voter Libertarian!


D'oh!