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 189
    More: Obvious, members of the United Nations, industrial society, advanced countries, political philosophy, infant mortality, open borders, Fraser Institute, economic freedom  
•       •       •

9966 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»



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


Archived thread
2013-06-04 03:42:49 PM
12 votes:
i43.tinypic.com 

*brutal truth about libertarians*
2013-06-04 01:23:59 PM
9 votes:
"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 01:01:43 PM
8 votes:
"Whay are you such a selfish, greedy prick?"
2013-06-04 03:09:19 PM
7 votes:

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 03:00:22 PM
7 votes:

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.
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-06-04 01:15:44 PM
7 votes:
Again... with the language problems.  We're not talking about Libertarianism, we talking Corporate Anarchists.
2013-06-04 02:43:52 PM
6 votes:
Not to defend Libertarianism, but the question itself is a logical fallacy: argumentum e silencio.
2013-06-04 02:33:45 PM
6 votes:
This is a pretty dumb criticism of libertarianism.
2013-06-04 03:14:12 PM
5 votes:
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 01:43:32 PM
5 votes:
I suggest Somalia is just such a libertarian paradise . No ,bureaucrats ,no law , no red tape, nobody getting into your bidness.
2013-06-04 07:45:34 PM
4 votes:
"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 05:08:54 PM
4 votes:
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 03:52:20 PM
4 votes:

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


24.media.tumblr.com
2013-06-04 03:41:09 PM
4 votes:
Libertarianism would be easier to endorse if they'd only express some recognition of externalities.
2013-06-04 03:00:14 PM
4 votes:
Why do you call yourself a Libertarian when you are just a Republican with a penchant for massive bong hits?
2013-06-04 01:33:43 PM
4 votes:
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 01:24:24 PM
4 votes:
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
2013-06-04 01:15:23 PM
4 votes:
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.
2013-06-04 05:29:57 PM
3 votes:

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 05:19:32 PM
3 votes:

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 04:59:41 PM
3 votes:
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 04:41:01 PM
3 votes:

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 04:38:31 PM
3 votes:
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 04:32:54 PM
3 votes:
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 04:24:24 PM
3 votes:
www.ilo.org

Libertarian recreational programs for kids
2013-06-04 04:17:19 PM
3 votes:

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 03:52:33 PM
3 votes:

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 03:37:38 PM
3 votes:
i39.tinypic.com 

libertarian coast guard
2013-06-04 03:28:25 PM
3 votes:
Libertarian Parks Department:

www.tribbleagency.com
2013-06-04 03:20:32 PM
3 votes:
static.neatorama.com

Libertarian building code enforcement
2013-06-04 03:20:28 PM
3 votes:
Libertarian highway system.

www.advamed2009.com
2013-06-04 03:12:21 PM
3 votes:
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 02:53:38 PM
3 votes:
"Shouldn't you be dead from botulism-laden uninspected food by now?"
2013-06-04 02:50:43 PM
3 votes:
i47.tinypic.com 

libertarian baby
2013-06-04 02:38:46 PM
3 votes:
There seem to be a lot of people who don't understand the difference between libertarians and anarchists.
2013-06-04 01:58:54 PM
3 votes:
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 01:07:14 PM
3 votes:
What rhymes with "orange"?
2013-06-05 01:32:20 AM
2 votes:
i40.tinypic.com
2013-06-04 11:33:27 PM
2 votes:
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 08:54:38 PM
2 votes:
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 08:54:08 PM
2 votes:
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 08:52:53 PM
2 votes:

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 07:28:08 PM
2 votes:

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 06:39:15 PM
2 votes:

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 06:19:49 PM
2 votes:

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 06:05:04 PM
2 votes:

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 05:43:29 PM
2 votes:
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 05:42:25 PM
2 votes:
www.leftycartoons.com
2013-06-04 05:38:13 PM
2 votes:
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 05:23:19 PM
2 votes:

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 05:15:19 PM
2 votes:

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 05:13:18 PM
2 votes:
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 05:10:45 PM
2 votes:

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 05:08:50 PM
2 votes:

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 04:49:04 PM
2 votes:

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 04:44:40 PM
2 votes:
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 04:43:51 PM
2 votes:

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 04:36:53 PM
2 votes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology

libertarian intelligent design
2013-06-04 04:28:03 PM
2 votes:
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 04:26:07 PM
2 votes:
But it is a question that Nazis, Communists, fascists, and militant jihadists can answer with pride!
2013-06-04 04:23:39 PM
2 votes:
i40.tinypic.com 

failed libertarian attempt to make their vision of the future sound appealing
2013-06-04 04:21:30 PM
2 votes:
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 04:20:43 PM
2 votes:
Libertarian Public Library

4.bp.blogspot.com
2013-06-04 04:20:25 PM
2 votes:
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 04:18:39 PM
2 votes:
i1055.photobucket.com

Libertarian Instruction Manual
2013-06-04 04:17:01 PM
2 votes:
Libertarian Criminal justice system.

www.practicaltacticaltraining.com
2013-06-04 03:58:31 PM
2 votes:
i42.tinypic.com 

libertarian free-market solution
2013-06-04 03:52:02 PM
2 votes:
i39.tinypic.com
2013-06-04 03:51:49 PM
2 votes:

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 03:45:36 PM
2 votes:
Libertarian Social Security:

america20xy.com
2013-06-04 03:44:51 PM
2 votes:

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 03:26:48 PM
2 votes:

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 03:23:40 PM
2 votes:

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 03:21:54 PM
2 votes:

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 03:19:11 PM
2 votes:
inapcache.boston.com


Libertarian FEMA response
2013-06-04 03:17:36 PM
2 votes:
i56.tinypic.com 

libertarian theory applied to reality
2013-06-04 03:17:11 PM
2 votes:
4.bp.blogspot.com

Libertarian aviation regulation
2013-06-04 03:15:36 PM
2 votes:
i53.tinypic.com 

libertarian hazmat suit
2013-06-04 03:12:06 PM
2 votes:
i43.tinypic.com 

libertarian ecology
2013-06-04 03:00:37 PM
2 votes:

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 03:00:31 PM
2 votes:
i40.tinypic.com 

libertarian public swimming pool
2013-06-04 02:58:10 PM
2 votes:

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 02:49:00 PM
2 votes:

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 02:48:56 PM
2 votes:
i47.tinypic.com 

libertarian surgeon general
2013-06-04 02:42:44 PM
2 votes:
msnbcmedia.msn.com 

libertarian free-market competition
2013-06-04 02:40:21 PM
2 votes:

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 02:33:48 PM
2 votes:
Socialist shopping:

cdn-static.zdnet.com

Libertarian shopping:

theeconomiccollapseblog.com
futurespassed.com

assets.nydailynews.com
2013-06-04 01:46:53 PM
2 votes:
May as well say "Hey libs, if Republicans are so hopelessly terrible why does the country keep giving them a chance?"
2013-06-05 06:20:20 PM
1 votes:

Phinn: and freedom of contract (Lochner)
.


Too often interpreted by those who hide behind it as a license to screw over other people, which I am convinced is the "right" that "libertarians" value the most.  Lochner himself, after all, got caught working his bakery employees over sixty hours a week.
2013-06-05 02:55:08 PM
1 votes:

Hydra: schrodinger: Ah, my bad. I just saw the passage and thought you were doing the "Government forced businesses to be racist against their will!" argument.

Even though that's exactly what they were doing, but you go right ahead in thinking they weren't and that Jim Crow wasn't a creature of government at all.


...

Society, unfettered, had a few thousand years to rid itself of racism/discrimination/etc in the marketplace.  So it's the government's fault that it got tired of unfettered shiat and came to a (substandard, but than the status quo) legislative compromise.  Just a few more weeks... boy, that is all that society needed in order for unfetteredness to fart out a rainbow and make everything as good as gold.

That makes sense.
2013-06-05 12:58:00 PM
1 votes:

RanDomino: Although barter leads to capitalism, they are not synonymous.


I highly recommend a book called Debt: The First 5,000 Years.

The author is a bit of a crank when it comes to politics, but his anthropological study of the history of economics is very enlightening, and as far as I can tell, accurate.

One of his several surprising findings is that barter did not precede money.  Credit did.  People in more primitive economies only used money with strangers and enemies (and armies).  Currency was used for situations involving hostility.

In villages and such, where there was long-term cooperation and commerce among peaceful people, trades were made with abstractions -- mutual debts -- not barter and not coins.  The town would then have an annual reckoning festival, and the various obligations could all be evened out, and if someone had given more than he got that year, then someone would give him a pig, and it would all be even again.

Barter only tends to arise where there is first money (in the form of coinage), but due to some crisis, it is suddenly removed from them, like in prisons, or when a region is conquered and all its coinage is seized by the invader.
m00
2013-06-05 12:37:45 PM
1 votes:

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 12:31:25 PM
1 votes:

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?
2013-06-05 11:48:18 AM
1 votes:

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 10:58:13 AM
1 votes:

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 09:27:28 AM
1 votes:
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 08:36:15 AM
1 votes:
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 03:41:56 AM
1 votes:

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 03:27:01 AM
1 votes:

Bith Set Me Up: Why is a raven like a writing desk?


Poe wrote on both.
2013-06-05 01:14:25 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-06-04 11:48:50 PM
1 votes:

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 11:21:32 PM
1 votes:
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 10:55:50 PM
1 votes:
minimal government, free trade, open borders, decriminalized drugs, no welfare state and no public education system =  Somalia?
2013-06-04 10:44:17 PM
1 votes:
Why is the magazine called "Reason" when it contains nothing of the sort?
2013-06-04 10:43:40 PM
1 votes:
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 10:21:53 PM
1 votes:
s1.hubimg.com
Libertarian contract law.

/Couldn't find a better picture.
2013-06-04 09:59:17 PM
1 votes:

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 09:32:25 PM
1 votes:

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 09:20:58 PM
1 votes:

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 09:05:50 PM
1 votes:

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 08:43:08 PM
1 votes:

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 08:38:30 PM
1 votes:
What is a verbose contrarian?
2013-06-04 08:32:38 PM
1 votes:
Because it is a crappy philosophy that doesn't work in the real world, that's why.
2013-06-04 07:39:37 PM
1 votes:
In D_I_A's defense, I'll bet public education really does suck in Texas.
2013-06-04 07:34:49 PM
1 votes:
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 07:30:25 PM
1 votes:
"Name another amendment from the Constitution other than freedom of speech and right to bear arms?"
2013-06-04 07:28:39 PM
1 votes:

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 07:24:59 PM
1 votes:
There IS a Libertarian country!! It's the same place that all true Scotsmen live!!!
2013-06-04 07:11:31 PM
1 votes:
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 07:03:16 PM
1 votes:

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 07:02:10 PM
1 votes:

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 06:21:33 PM
1 votes:

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 06:05:59 PM
1 votes:

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 06:03:29 PM
1 votes:
3.bp.blogspot.com
Libertarian child-care
2013-06-04 06:02:21 PM
1 votes:

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 05:52:40 PM
1 votes:

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 05:46:07 PM
1 votes:

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 05:40:42 PM
1 votes:

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 05:39:55 PM
1 votes:

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 05:33:33 PM
1 votes:

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 05:32:06 PM
1 votes:

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 05:26:54 PM
1 votes:

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 05:25:52 PM
1 votes:

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 05:25:38 PM
1 votes:

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 05:19:22 PM
1 votes:
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 05:13:39 PM
1 votes:

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 05:11:11 PM
1 votes:

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 05:03:54 PM
1 votes:

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 05:03:35 PM
1 votes:

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 05:00:14 PM
1 votes:
abortionsforall.files.wordpress.com\

libertarian highway patrol.
2013-06-04 04:53:19 PM
1 votes:
Why aren't you this strawman?
2013-06-04 04:47:29 PM
1 votes:

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 04:45:24 PM
1 votes:
How many times did your grandpa fark Ayn Rand?
2013-06-04 04:45:08 PM
1 votes:
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 04:42:27 PM
1 votes:

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 04:39:25 PM
1 votes:
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 04:38:54 PM
1 votes:

vygramul: Oh? What commodity backs it?


Hanukkah Gelt.
2013-06-04 04:31:02 PM
1 votes:

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 04:28:49 PM
1 votes:
WHY ARE THERE STILL MONKEYS?!
2013-06-04 04:28:08 PM
1 votes:

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 04:24:59 PM
1 votes:

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 04:23:02 PM
1 votes:

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 04:22:24 PM
1 votes:
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 04:21:47 PM
1 votes:

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 04:17:03 PM
1 votes:

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 04:14:59 PM
1 votes:
i1013.photobucket.com
2013-06-04 04:10:26 PM
1 votes:
came to see libertarians mocked and ridiculed, leaving satisfied
2013-06-04 04:01:44 PM
1 votes:
farm5.staticflickr.com 

libertarian refreshments
2013-06-04 04:01:20 PM
1 votes:

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 04:00:33 PM
1 votes:

i.imgur.com
Libertarian Urban Planning
2013-06-04 04:00:20 PM
1 votes:

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 03:59:26 PM
1 votes:
Why are you calling yourself a libertarian when you're really a neo-confederate?
2013-06-04 03:42:24 PM
1 votes:

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 03:40:28 PM
1 votes:
Why is submitter's mom such a whore?
2013-06-04 03:35:56 PM
1 votes:
i39.tinypic.com 

libertarian athletic competition
2013-06-04 03:32:57 PM
1 votes:
a.espncdn.com 

libertarian quarterback
2013-06-04 03:29:58 PM
1 votes:

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 03:18:28 PM
1 votes:

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 03:17:09 PM
1 votes:

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 03:15:42 PM
1 votes:

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 03:13:37 PM
1 votes:
i53.tinypic.com 

libertarian corrective eye surgery
2013-06-04 03:07:39 PM
1 votes:
i51.tinypic.com 

libertarian economics
2013-06-04 03:06:39 PM
1 votes:

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 03:05:49 PM
1 votes:

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 03:05:23 PM
1 votes:
Libertarian Medicare:

tommangan.net
2013-06-04 02:56:52 PM
1 votes:
i54.tinypic.com
2013-06-04 02:48:58 PM
1 votes:

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

Sporange


melange
2013-06-04 02:46:50 PM
1 votes:

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 02:46:16 PM
1 votes:
"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 02:43:32 PM
1 votes:
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 02:39:53 PM
1 votes:
i48.tinypic.com

libertarian taxidermy
2013-06-04 02:17:35 PM
1 votes:

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 01:52:37 PM
1 votes:
"how did this elephant get into my pajamas?"
2013-06-04 01:51:12 PM
1 votes:
WTF is wrong with you?
2013-06-04 01:44:11 PM
1 votes:

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 01:42:36 PM
1 votes:
"What is libertarianism? Certainly not what YOU think it is..........................................................heh. Sheeple."
2013-06-04 01:40:03 PM
1 votes:

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 01:39:21 PM
1 votes:
"What's your Fark handle?"
2013-06-04 01:06:46 PM
1 votes:
Why are leather dusters so damn stylish?
 
Displayed 189 of 189 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report