Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Obvious, members of the United Nations, industrial society, advanced countries, political philosophy, infant mortality, open borders, Fraser Institute, economic freedom  
•       •       •

9974 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Jun 2013 at 4:07 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
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
 
Displayed 50 of 611 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report