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.

(National Review)   Libertarianism is just an ideal   (nationalreview.com) divider line 1480
    More: Followup, modern, communist state  
•       •       •

12191 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Jun 2013 at 11:39 AM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1480 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-14 06:27:36 PM

m00: mccallcl: Libertarian ideas are not worth dying for, and make no mistake: in order for them to be implemented even partway, millions would die.

A "partway" implementation of Libertarian ideas might be:

1) equalize wage tax and capital gains, remove all loopholes especially of the corporate variety. Make it easier to start a small business.
2) No domestic spying - enshrine privacy as a fundamental right, if the 4th wasn't clear enough. Maybe update the 4th amendment to include digital/online. We shouldn't have "warrantless" anything.
3) No foreign wars unless really, really, really necessary. No bullshiat "aid" or "CIA training operatives" or "arms sales" to random factions in random countries.
4) Transparent government, if not to us citizens at least to Congress and our representatives.
5) Break up bank monopolies (especially where a bank does both investment andpersonal banking). Bank monopolies are so anti-free market it's not even funny.
6) stop war on drugs. actually, stop war on any idea. only declare war on countries, organizations, or groups. and then set some exit criteria
7) balance the budget, work to reduce the debt. not just the deficit, but the debt.

But oh no, millions will die.


Because everyone butthurt over the way the US was treated them over the centuries would be like "hey, bygones be bygones let's be pals now" were we to suddenly "go libertarian"; aside from the fact that any of the so-called benefits of libertarianism can be found in other political philosophies that already have viable partisan infrastructures and haven't already been co-opted by a lot of other interests etc.

Few non-libertarians take the philosophy seriously because it's a very vague one that falls to shiat when applied in the real world in any manner libertarians would support.
 
2013-06-14 06:28:00 PM

m00: mccallcl: Libertarian ideas are not worth dying for, and make no mistake: in order for them to be implemented even partway, millions would die.

1) equalize wage tax and capital gains, remove all loopholes especially of the corporate variety. Make it easier to start a small business.


You do realize you can open up a business tomorrow without filing any paperwork on the Federal or State level, right?  How much easier does it need to be?


/SO EASY BONK CAN DO
 
2013-06-14 06:30:40 PM
GRONK READ ROCK.  GRONK LAUGH.
 
2013-06-14 06:34:10 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: whidbey: cybrwzrd: The whole idea of objectivism is that you have a right to work towards your own goals as long as you are not harming another through greed

But there are countless examples of big business corporations and individuals doing exactly that.

The current system isn't that vague. We have income tax and environmental laws. How, as a libertarian, would you justify keeping the statist structure in place to enforce those kinds of laws?

I maintain without the state, you can't enforce the laws.

I'm likely wrong here, but the self-proclaimed libertarians that I have met would tell you that 'no state = no laws' is exactly their point.  They really seem to believe that in the absence of a state, people will evolve their own laws, and enforce them personally.

Based on what Ishkur and cybrwzrd have said though, I doubt I was talking to real libertarians.


Self described Libertarians are about as useful a category as self described Christians - for Christians that can cover people that spend their entire lives helping the poor, up to people that think the poor should all die off and stop cluttering up the place, and that every form of suffering inflicted on them is just what they deserve for being lazy.

Equally someone will call themselves a libertarian and basically wants to eliminate all government, up to people that basically are fine with every existing part of what government currently but thinks there is a better "libertarian" way to do it all.
 
2013-06-14 06:35:57 PM

Aarontology: kronicfeld: The libertarian idea is the only truly new political idea in the last couple thousand years.

Lolwut

OOK NOT BELIEVE IN BIG STATIST CAVE. OOK BELIEVE IN INDIVIDUAL CAVEMAN LIBERTY.


LOOK WHAT YOU DID!!!

/1354 comments later....
 
2013-06-14 06:36:09 PM
GLOBAL WARMROCK IS TRICK
 
2013-06-14 06:38:17 PM
xria:

Equally someone will call themselves a libertarian and basically wants to eliminate all government, up to people that basically are fine with every existing part of what government currently but thinks there is a better "libertarian" way to do it all.

And if that "libertarian way" isn't anarchist it's exactly the same way we do things now but only with a different name, and while the guy suggesting it is describing his "libertarian solution" you realize he has no clue how the government actually operates today (well that's how Fark libertarians are).
 
2013-06-14 06:38:59 PM
ZEROC NOT KNOW WHY ZEROC COME HERE. COULD BE ZEROC WANT SEE OTHER TRIBES AND LAUGH. COULD BE ZEROC JUST BORED. ZEROC STILL COME HERE.

OTHER DAY, ZEROC HEAR WOMAN SAY SHE NOT BELIEVE SKY CHANGE REAL. THINK CONSPIRACY. THINK IF SKY HOTTER IT NOT SNOW MORE IN SOUTH. ZEROC KEEP MOUTH SHUT. NOT CARE IF WOMAN WANT BE STUPID. LET WOMAN BE STUPID. STILL NOT KNOW JOY OF ZUG-ZUG FROM MAN PERSPECTIVE.

ZEROC THINK PROBLEM SIMPLE. TRIBES PROBLEM. TRIBES STUPID. MEN IN TRIBES ONLY LIKE OTHER MEN IN SAME TRIBES. HATE OTHER TRIBES. TRIBES THROW STICKS AT OTHER TRIBES. OTHER TRIBES THROW STICKS BACK. ZEROC GO IN TREE-PLACE TO BE ALONE. LET STICKS HIT OTHER MEN. ZEROC SLEEP IN TREE. STAY ALIVE. NOT CARE ABOUT STICK WAR. NOT CARE ABOUT TRIBE TRUTH. NO TRIBE RIGHT. ALL TRIBES USUALLY WRONG SOME WAY.

NOW ZEROC GO WATCH ZUG-ZUG ON MAGIC BOX. WANT WOMAN BUT WOMAN NOT HERE NOW. WOMAN BUSY. ZEROC WORK FROM THE CAVE SO ZEROC HAVE LOTS TIME ON HANDS.
 
2013-06-14 06:40:24 PM
 
2013-06-14 06:43:34 PM
ME PODROCK, ME SEE WHAT GOING ON IN THIS CAVE.
 
2013-06-14 06:44:33 PM
CAN ME PLAY TOO?

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-06-14 06:47:40 PM
farm4.staticflickr.com

/ME GO TO CAVE NOW
 
2013-06-14 06:48:49 PM
Wow this thread is still derping along. Don't you people have stuff to do--outside?

I'LL TAKE THE GOVERNMENT-FREE ROAST DUCK WITH THE MANGO SALSA
 
2013-06-14 06:51:04 PM
I have read quite a bit of this thread, but I still cannot figure out the formula for determining one's caveman name.
 
2013-06-14 06:51:49 PM
This thread is what is wrong with the world.

BIG SKY MAN FROWNS AT CAVEMEN SHINANIGANS
 
m00
2013-06-14 06:54:53 PM

CheatCommando: This dwarfs them because a certain silliness erupted and was run with. Fully 80 percent of the comments (including some of mine) in here have nothing to do with the topic except in the most tenuous way. I would have to ask if you have even given the most cursory of readings of this thing if you feel that way.


Fair enough, here's my contribution:

IN WEST OLDUVAI, UGG BORN IN CAVEROOM
ON LUSH LANDSCAPE UGG SPEND TIME BEATING ROCKS TO MAKE BOOM
HUNT SMALL GAME, COLLECT SEEDS AND NUTS
UGG TRIBE MOVE OUT OF CAVE INTO GRASS HUT.
ONE DAY AIR GET COLD, GREAT RIVER GO DRY
TRIBE MAKE HUMAN SACRIFICE BUT STILL MANY DIE
OTHER HOMINID ATTACK AND UGG GET HURT
VILLAGE ELDER SAY "UGG, YOU MIGRATE TO EUROPE."

UGG START WALKING NORTH, INVENT TOOL TO CARRY WATER
AFTER MANY YEAR UGG BRAIN GET SMARTER
UGG DEVELOP COMPLEX LANGUAGE, LEARN RITUAL DANCE
UGG THINK "UGG AND UGG OFFSPRING GO TO  PLACE CALLED FRANCE"

UGG ENTER NEW TERRITORY, AND UGG HAPPY THERE
UGG FIND PEOPLE CALLED NEANDERTHAL COVERED IN HAIR
UGG MATE WITH WOMEN
KILL REST UGG DID
THEN UGG DECLARE HIMSELF FRESH PRINCE OF HOMINIDS
 
m00
2013-06-14 06:56:19 PM

bglove25: You do realize you can open up a business tomorrow without filing any paperwork on the Federal or State level, right? How much easier does it need to be?


You realize I'm in the process of opening a business, and yes there is a LOT of paperwork and legalities. What's your business called?
 
2013-06-14 06:58:36 PM

m00: mccallcl: Libertarian ideas are not worth dying for, and make no mistake: in order for them to be implemented even partway, millions would die.

A "partway" implementation of Libertarian ideas might be:

1) equalize wage tax and capital gains, remove all loopholes especially of the corporate variety. Make it easier to start a small business.
2) No domestic spying - enshrine privacy as a fundamental right, if the 4th wasn't clear enough. Maybe update the 4th amendment to include digital/online. We shouldn't have "warrantless" anything.
3) No foreign wars unless really, really, really necessary. No bullshiat "aid" or "CIA training operatives" or "arms sales" to random factions in random countries.
4) Transparent government, if not to us citizens at least to Congress and our representatives.
5) Break up bank monopolies (especially where a bank does both investment andpersonal banking). Bank monopolies are so anti-free market it's not even funny.
6) stop war on drugs. actually, stop war on any idea. only declare war on countries, organizations, or groups. and then set some exit criteria
7) balance the budget, work to reduce the debt. not just the deficit, but the debt.

But oh no, millions will die.


1) Liberal idea
2) Liberal idea
3) Liberal idea
4) Universal idea (maybe some far right wingers would disagree)
5) Liberal idea
6) Liberal idea
7) Universal idea (in the way that everyone says it is what they want but no one actually does anything truly about it except for some moderates like Clinton)

Either you are the worst 'libertarian' ever or you are just trolling.
 
2013-06-14 07:00:08 PM
I was a libertarian until I realized that self-rule only really happens in groups.  This led me to think that if another group of people is happy with their design of government, I don't care.  Democracies and republics are attempts to allow people self-rule.  I believe in both of those, but only if it's what the people want.  Forcing democracy on people is just more tyranny.  So go govern yourselves, people, and do your best.  Don't govern me unless I like a favorable amount of the governance.  Force and tyranny are the problem, and they're never worth the effort in the long run.
 
2013-06-14 07:05:21 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: xria:

Equally someone will call themselves a libertarian and basically wants to eliminate all government, up to people that basically are fine with every existing part of what government currently but thinks there is a better "libertarian" way to do it all.

And if that "libertarian way" isn't anarchist it's exactly the same way we do things now but only with a different name, and while the guy suggesting it is describing his "libertarian solution" you realize he has no clue how the government actually operates today (well that's how Fark libertarians are).


LIBEROCK SAY YOU WANT TO SMOKE STINKY WEED THEN YOU SMOKE STINKY WEED. YOU WANT TO SMASH YOU HEAD THEN YOU SMASH YOU HEAD. YOU NOT MAKE SOME OTHER CAVEMAN SMOKE STINKY WEED OR SMASH OTHER CAVEMAN HEAD.
 
m00
2013-06-14 07:05:48 PM

Aldon: 1) Liberal idea
2) Liberal idea
3) Liberal idea
4) Universal idea (maybe some far right wingers would disagree)
5) Liberal idea
6) Liberal idea
7) Universal idea (in the way that everyone says it is what they want but no one actually does anything truly about it except for some moderates like Clinton)

Either you are the worst 'libertarian' ever or you are just trolling.


Funny that you give liberals exclusive claim to freedom, free markets, and taxes NOT being used to advantage one group over the other.  Yet Democrats have controlled the Senate and the Presidency for years and none of these things have happened. In fact, the opposite has happened. We have less freedom, less free markets, and more corporate handouts. So does this mean Democrats are the opposite of Liberals? If so, and if you're a liberal, why do you vote for them?
 
m00
2013-06-14 07:08:53 PM

Aldon: Either you are the worst 'libertarian' ever or you are just trolling.


Maybe you have just been battling strawmen for so long you have no clue what Libertarian means
 
2013-06-14 07:12:35 PM

m00: Funny that you give liberals exclusive claim to freedom, free markets, and taxes NOT being used to advantage one group over the other. Yet Democrats have controlled the Senate and the Presidency for years and none of these things have happened. In fact, the opposite has happened. We have less freedom, less free markets, and more corporate handouts. So does this mean Democrats are the opposite of Liberals? If so, and if you're a liberal, why do you vote for them?


Yes , because Republicans have yielded absolutely no power in the last ten years.
 
2013-06-14 07:14:06 PM
HNORG READ THRED , SPIT BEAN JUICE ON CAVE WALL. SOMEONE OWE HNORG NEW CHISEL!
 
m00
2013-06-14 07:20:42 PM

Zerochance: Yes , because Republicans have yielded absolutely no power in the last ten years.


So you're saying that despite a Democrat controlled Senate and a two-term Democratic President, all of the NSA stuff (even the new powers granted under Obama) and all of the drone stuff, and all of the expansion of executive power... that's Republican's fault. In 2006 when Democrats took control of BOTH the House AND the Senate... unbalanced budget, war on drugs, corporate handouts... Republicans fault.

I got that right?
 
2013-06-14 07:33:00 PM

m00: Aldon: 1) Liberal idea
2) Liberal idea
3) Liberal idea
4) Universal idea (maybe some far right wingers would disagree)
5) Liberal idea
6) Liberal idea
7) Universal idea (in the way that everyone says it is what they want but no one actually does anything truly about it except for some moderates like Clinton)

Either you are the worst 'libertarian' ever or you are just trolling.

Funny that you give liberals exclusive claim to freedom, free markets, and taxes NOT being used to advantage one group over the other.  Yet Democrats have controlled the Senate and the Presidency for years and none of these things have happened. In fact, the opposite has happened. We have less freedom, less free markets, and more corporate handouts. So does this mean Democrats are the opposite of Liberals? If so, and if you're a liberal, why do you vote for them?


I didn't say "Democrat" you did.  The current Democrat in the White House is a right (conservative) leaning moderate. But that doesn't really have anything to do about libertarians or what I posted previously.

The fact is that almost all the things you point out as 'libertarian' lean mostly to the liberal side of things, and currently people who call themselves 'libertarians' are almost all aligned with far right conservatives.  The things you described you would like happen in this country would only happen with more liberal leaning people in the government, yet the far majority of 'libertarians' are voting for conservatives.

Hey, I'm just trying to figure out why there is such a disconnect with you.
 
2013-06-14 07:34:13 PM

m00: Zerochance: Yes , because Republicans have yielded absolutely no power in the last ten years.

So you're saying that despite a Democrat controlled Senate and a two-term Democratic President, all of the NSA stuff (even the new powers granted under Obama) and all of the drone stuff, and all of the expansion of executive power... that's Republican's fault. In 2006 when Democrats took control of BOTH the House AND the Senate... unbalanced budget, war on drugs, corporate handouts... Republicans fault.

I got that right?


No, I'm saying that it's extremely disingenuous to blame Democrats entirely.  They're the ones flinging the poop, but it was Republicans that took the dump.
 
2013-06-14 07:56:18 PM
On the topic of Libertarians and cavemen, is this guy (possibly NSFW) still maintaining his policy of cutting off all communication with Democrats? If so, has it forced him to leave society?

/Probably not, considering that his post was removed and I had to link to an archived page.
 
m00
2013-06-14 07:56:23 PM

Aldon: I didn't say "Democrat" you did. The current Democrat in the White House is a right (conservative) leaning moderate. But that doesn't really have anything to do about libertarians or what I posted previously.

The fact is that almost all the things you point out as 'libertarian' lean mostly to the liberal side of things, and currently people who call themselves 'libertarians' are almost all aligned with far right conservatives. The things you described you would like happen in this country would only happen with more liberal leaning people in the government, yet the far majority of 'libertarians' are voting for conservatives.

Hey, I'm just trying to figure out why there is such a disconnect with you.


It's not like the venn diagram of Liberalism, Conservatism, and Libertarianism has 0 intersection. Of course there is intersection. In fact, with Liberalism and Libertarianism the most obvious intersection is called "Classical Liberalism." The Libertarian spectrum is actually quite broad. You have everything from Green Libertarianism to Libertarian Socialists and it connects to both ends of the anarchy spectrum including Anarcho-Syndicalism and Free-market Anarchism.

Basically, it's not surprising that various ideological movements have common ground. We're all human beings here.

So when a poster suggested that any even partway implementation of Libertarianism would cause the deaths of millions, I thought that was a bit silly. And things like that lower the level of discourse, so I wanted to call him out on it.

Now the problem is when a vocal politician decides to cover his own personal careerism in someone else's ideology, to the point of confusing voters as to what that ideology actually means. But this isn't unique to Libertarianism. Bush was pretty far from conservative, and Obama is proving himself pretty far from liberal. But people are too wrapped up in identity politics to notice that nobody's ideology is being implemented as policy... except for the personal careerism of lobbyists, large corporations, and politicians. Libertarianism just gets a lot of hate from the media, because the last thing our ruling class wants is for all of us "politically divided" disposable workers to figure out we're not that different from each other.
 
2013-06-14 08:14:05 PM

m00: It's not like the venn diagram of Liberalism, Conservatism, and Libertarianism has 0 intersection. Of course there is intersection. In fact, with Liberalism and Libertarianism the most obvious intersection is called "Classical Liberalism." The Libertarian spectrum is actually quite broad. You have everything from Green Libertarianism to Libertarian Socialists and it connects to both ends of the anarchy spectrum including Anarcho-Syndicalism and Free-market Anarchism.


I could ask 100 libertarians (I feel like I have) what libertarians stand for and I will get 100 answers. Of course almost all ideologies overlap in some way, so I use your own description of libertarianism, not mine, and ask questions like why do you list liberal items and few if any conservative items yet vote conservative?  All I can deal with logically is the fact that most libertarians in the last few years identify with far right Conservatives more than they do with Moderates or Liberals.

It is the same as when I ask a libertarian to identify a more economically libertarian (for a reasonable amount of time) modern country that is somewhere they wouldn't mind living.  If they answer at all they answer with a country that has universal or public healthcare.  The same person will say that Obamacare (that hasn't even been mostly implemented yet) was making us a socialist country!
 
2013-06-14 08:15:21 PM

Mercutio74: One thing I love about this thread is how people will add 1 to the total amount of comments to express their disgust that the comment count is so high.  Also, anyone who thinks this thread is more about libertarianism vs reality than it is about spontaneous group caveman language is probably not looking carefully enough at the Fark demographic.


i.imgur.com
 
2013-06-14 08:16:10 PM
Another argument against nepotism.
 
2013-06-14 08:17:44 PM

m00: bglove25: You do realize you can open up a business tomorrow without filing any paperwork on the Federal or State level, right? How much easier does it need to be?

You realize I'm in the process of opening a business, and yes there is a LOT of paperwork and legalities. What's your business called?


Just because you chose to open under a legal structure different than a general partnership doesn't mean it can't be done.
 
2013-06-14 08:23:00 PM

m00: bglove25: You do realize you can open up a business tomorrow without filing any paperwork on the Federal or State level, right? How much easier does it need to be?

You realize I'm in the process of opening a business, and yes there is a LOT of paperwork and legalities. What's your business called?


And my business s being an independent contractor. All of my requirements to practice my profession were imposed by the profession itself, although it's technically controlled by the State Supreme Court.

/why yes I am a lawyer, so while I understand your desire to limit your liability that requires an investment of time and paperwork to make sure you comply with the law.  Price you pay for the security of not having ALL of your assets taken if your business fails or injures someone.
//social contract, how the fark does it work
 
2013-06-14 08:27:19 PM
MUNG-MUNG GET LAST ETCHING ON CAVE WALL NOW.

*tink* *tink* *tink* *tink*

...

WELL...MUNG-MUNG GET LAST ETCHING SOON.
 
2013-06-14 08:35:50 PM

Badgers: [www.leftycartoons.com image 650x976]


Personally, I find that there are only two kinds of Libertarians:

1 - An Anarchist who graduated from college
2 - A Young Republican who knew a pot dealer
 
m00
2013-06-14 08:37:16 PM

Aldon: I could ask 100 libertarians (I feel like I have) what libertarians stand for and I will get 100 answers. Of course almost all ideologies overlap in some way, so I use your own description of libertarianism, not mine, and ask questions like why do you list liberal items and few if any conservative items yet vote conservative? All I can deal with logically is the fact that most libertarians in the last few years identify with far right Conservatives more than they do with Moderates or Liberals.

It is the same as when I ask a libertarian to identify a more economically libertarian (for a reasonable amount of time) modern country that is somewhere they wouldn't mind living. If they answer at all they answer with a country that has universal or public healthcare. The same person will say that Obamacare (that hasn't even been mostly implemented yet) was making us a socialist country!


I didn't offer a description of Libertarianism in this thread. I picked elements that had intersection with some mainstream Liberal positions to prove the point that you can't say "a partway implementation of Libertarianism would kill millions." Because the poster was liberal, one could just pick the parts that overlapped to show that was an incorrect statement. If I thought the poster was conservative, I would pick different parts.

I answered the second paragraph elsewhere. I think it's a bad question, and here is why. Lets say hypothetically I hold one single ideology -- corruption in government is bad. I don't about anything else, this is my ideology. You could ask me to identity a modern country somewhere that isn't corrupt to "prove" that it's a bad ideology... because if corruption is so bad, why are all governments corrupt?! See, that doesn't work.

On Obamacare: it's not a socialist policy, this is a misconception. Even from a libertarian standpoint, Obamacare is far worse than state healthcare... because state healthcare is government providing a service. Governments already do this, we're just arguing which services they should and shouldn't provide. Obamacare is a handout to insurance companies, and a handout to the pharmaceutical companies. Corporate handouts are worse than unnecessary government services. In fact I've argued that what Obama should have done is just implemented state healthcare, because that would be preferable I think to everyone (other than lobbyists). But Obama isn't really a liberal, he lets the highest bidder write policy... same as Bush.

Also want to point out that Libertarianism covers a wide range of viewpoints, and even within a single viewpoint some issues can be more important than others. It's possible to have a country that has more economic liberty than the US in every way, except it has state-run healthcare. The policy of every government is complex, and you're never going to agree 100%. So it's fine to say "we should be more like X country" even if X country also does things you disagree with.
 
m00
2013-06-14 08:38:41 PM
ugh sorry about the spelling/grammar errors above, was distracted.
 
2013-06-14 08:44:13 PM
Proposed definition of true core liberatarianism: the belief that the Inherent and Unalienable Rights of Natural Personhood are the highest priority in determining any aspect of government and society.

Anyone who puts any principle above that cannot rightly claim the title of "libertarian." This would include, but is not limited to:

• Ayn Randian Objectivists and other CorporatistsNatural Persons are living sapient entities. Corporations, as well as unions, trusts, and incorporated communities, are Aggregate Persons, which is a legal fiction created only to allow such entities to participate on an equal footing with Natural Persons in matters of contractual and civil tort law. Benito Mussolini rightly defined "fascism" as a synonym for "corporatism," and since he invented fascism, he, and he alone, gets to define it. Placing the "rights":of corporations on even an equal, let alone higher, level than the Rights of Natural Persons, is not libertarianism of any stripe.

• Ron Paul and other Neo-Confederates (let alone the many Paleo-Confederates that sadly still exist) ― Not only does it violate the core principle of libertarianism to place "States' Rights" above the Rights of Natural Persons as Ron Paul's proposed legislations (e.g. the ironically named "We the People Act") and his oft-stated principles would do, the whole concept of "States' Rights" is a false concept right from the get-go. States don't have Rights. Any Rights. Neither does the Federal Government. Only Natural Persons (individually or collectively as "the People") have, or can have, Rights! And before you cry "B-b-but, Tenth Amendment!", read it again: as Inigo Montoya might say, it does not say nor mean what you think it means. Governments have no Rights at all ― not the Rights to enact legislation, levy taxes, etc., nor even the Right to exist!Governments of any kind at any level have Powers to do all of those things, granted to them by the consent of the governed. Powers ≠ Rights! Those terms are not synonyms! The Founders and Framers were very careful how and where they used each of those words. The Tenth Amendment is immediately preceded by the Ninth (not to mention the other eight) written by the same hand on the same piece of parchment, less than 1″ above the Tenth. Yet look what word it uses, and more importantly, to what entity it applies! See also the wording of the Declaration of Independence.

• Dominion Theologists / Christian Reconstructionists / Third Wavers / Christofascists / NARasites / etc. ― imposing a religion on others is a key violation of their Rights. Any who seek to do this under the banner of "libertarianism" is no libertarian (I'm looking at you, Ron Paul, Mr. self-proclaimed "Champion of the Constitution" who wrote that the Constitution was "... replete with references to God"! Were you perhaps thinking of the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, which does directly invoke "Almighty God"? And people wonder why we call you a Neo-Confederate!).
 
2013-06-14 08:47:50 PM

m00: A "partway" implementation of Libertarian ideas might be:

1) equalize wage tax and capital gains, remove all loopholes especially of the corporate variety. Make it easier to start a small business.
2) No domestic spying - enshrine privacy as a fundamental right, if the 4th wasn't clear enough. Maybe update the 4th amendment to include digital/online. We shouldn't have "warrantless" anything.
3) No foreign wars unless really, really, really necessary. No bullshiat "aid" or "CIA training operatives" or "arms sales" to random factions in random countries.
4) Transparent government, if not to us citizens at least to Congress and our representatives.
5) Break up bank monopolies (especially where a bank does both investment andpersonal banking). Bank monopolies are so anti-free market it's not even funny.
6) stop war on drugs. actually, stop war on any idea. only declare war on countries, organizations, or groups. and then set some exit criteria
7) balance the budget, work to reduce the debt. not just the deficit, but the debt.


1.  You might want to let Rand Paul know that he's got it all wrong then, since his goal seems to be complete elimination of taxes.  While you're at it, CC Sam Brownback on that too, since he's hell bent on making Kansas a tax-free utopia
2.  Great on paper, but impossible to implement.  Intelligence operations by their very nature have to be secret on at least some level.  Fully expose them, and they become useless.  Unless you have a good explanation for the next terrorist operation we let pass because the NSA was too busy getting warrants from Judge Wapner.
3.  Assad ramps up the chemical warfare, and becomes the next Milosevic.  African warlords start a new apartheid movement, wiping out thousands every day.  Order the largest armed force in the world to stand by idly and watch, and see how long it takes for the public to turn against you.
4.  Fine by me, as long as there is still some level of opacity (see #2)
5.  At least in recent years, that's a mostly left-leaning idea.  If it is indeed rooted in libertarianism, then again, Rand et al. have it all wrong, since they seem to think that forcing a bank breakup is "anti business"
6.  Groups and organizations are created by ideas, and are fueled by them.  So, declaring war on one is declaring war on the idea that is at their core.  Can't have it both ways.
7.  All depends on how it's done.  Do it the Paul Ryan/Rand Paul way, and the Great Depression will look like Sunday Brunch
 
2013-06-14 08:49:29 PM

DreamyAltarBoy: HNORG READ THRED , SPIT BEAN JUICE ON CAVE WALL. SOMEONE OWE HNORG NEW CHISEL!


HNORG ORDER IN NEXT 4 HOURS, GET FREE SUPER SHIPPING
 
2013-06-14 08:57:18 PM

xanadian: MUNG-MUNG GET LAST ETCHING ON CAVE WALL NOW.

*tink* *tink* *tink* *tink*

...

WELL...MUNG-MUNG GET LAST ETCHING SOON.


I think not.

\Evolve, son.  You'll like it.
 
2013-06-14 09:07:43 PM
You guys went full caveman. Never go full caveman.
 
m00
2013-06-14 09:16:37 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: 1. You might want to let Rand Paul know that he's got it all wrong then, since his goal seems to be complete elimination of taxes. While you're at it, CC Sam Brownback on that too, since he's hell bent on making Kansas a tax-free utopia
2. Great on paper, but impossible to implement. Intelligence operations by their very nature have to be secret on at least some level. Fully expose them, and they become useless. Unless you have a good explanation for the next terrorist operation we let pass because the NSA was too busy getting warrants from Judge Wapner.
3. Assad ramps up the chemical warfare, and becomes the next Milosevic. African warlords start a new apartheid movement, wiping out thousands every day. Order the largest armed force in the world to stand by idly and watch, and see how long it takes for the public to turn against you.
4. Fine by me, as long as there is still some level of opacity (see #2)
5. At least in recent years, that's a mostly left-leaning idea. If it is indeed rooted in libertarianism, then again, Rand et al. have it all wrong, since they seem to think that forcing a bank breakup is "anti business"
6. Groups and organizations are created by ideas, and are fueled by them. So, declaring war on one is declaring war on the idea that is at their core. Can't have it both ways.
7. All depends on how it's done. Do it the Paul Ryan/Rand Paul way, and the Great Depression will look like Sunday Brunch


1) 5) 7) Rand Paul is a Republican, not a Libertarian. I agree with ComaLite J's definition, and Rand Paul's policies contradict this.
2) We have representatives we elect to make decisions on our behalf. The ones that sit on intelligence committees do have security clearance. But the fact is, our spy agencies withhold information from them. Also, it would also be very convenient for cops if they could walk into any citizen's home on a hunch and search it -- there would be a lot less crime. But we don't allow this, because as a society we believe that privacy is more important than the convenience of security forces.
3) We already have a UN. Horrible humanitarian tragedies happen around the globe, it is fundamentally unsustainable for the US to protect every human on the planet, and it's grossly detrimental to our economy. And everytime we do get involved, it comes back to bite us 50 years later. Saddam was CIA trained in Cairo to fight communists in the 1950s. Taliban was funded in the 70s to fight communists.  We caused the Iranian revolution. When will we learn?
6) Again, if you declare war on an idea... you will never win it. I don't believe in fighting perpetual wars.
 
2013-06-14 09:22:52 PM

Rabbitgod: Mercutio74: Kittypie070: MAUG EAT RABBITGOD WHILE SLEEPING

RABBITGOD THINK CAVEMANKIND MERELY WORK-SLAVES. NO FUN IN LIFE PERMITTED.


IF MAUG EAT RABBITGOD, MAUG BECOMES GOD OF RABBITS?

No, Maug get gas, and explosive diarrhea every 15 minutes for a week, Maug will lose all his friends and then die.


BELLY RUMBLE THINK MAUG NOT KNOW TO EAT FUNNY TASTE LEAF AND HIDE FOR WEEK IN TREE?

BESIDES, BE SILENT.

I AM STILL DIGESTING YOU.
 
2013-06-14 09:24:45 PM

m00: Now the problem is when a vocal politician decides to cover his own personal careerism in someone else's ideology, to the point of confusing voters as to what that ideology actually means. But this isn't unique to Libertarianism. Bush was pretty far from conservative, and Obama is proving himself pretty far from liberal. But people are too wrapped up in identity politics to notice that nobody's ideology is being implemented as policy... except for the personal careerism of lobbyists, large corporations, and politicians. Libertarianism just gets a lot of hate from the media, because the last thing our ruling class wants is for all of us "politically divided" disposable workers to figure out we're not that different from each other.


Seconded
 
2013-06-14 09:33:16 PM

m00: I didn't offer a description of Libertarianism in this thread. I picked elements that had intersection with some mainstream Liberal positions to prove the point that you can't say "a partway implementation of Libertarianism would kill millions." Because the poster was liberal, one could just pick the parts that overlapped to show that was an incorrect statement. If I thought the poster was conservative, I would pick different parts.


fair enough.

I answered the second paragraph elsewhere. I think it's a bad question, and here is why. Lets say hypothetically I hold one single ideology -- corruption in government is bad. I don't about anything else, this is my ideology. You could ask me to identity a modern country somewhere that isn't corrupt to "prove" that it's a bad ideology... because if corruption is so bad, why are all governments corrupt?! See, that doesn't work.

What you described wasn't a ideology, that is at most one tenant of a philosophy, so I don't understand the analogy. This would make more sense: Person A:"Democracy has less corruption, so we should adopt Democracy."   Person B: "Fine, then show me a country more Democratic than us that is less corrupt than our current government."    If person A couldn't come up with an answer, that would sure say a lot about the superiority of Democracy to the current system, as it concerns corruption.


I think past and current performance it's the greatest way we have to rate almost any system, including economic systems.  There have been many countries at different times in our modern era that have tried more economic libertarianism than we currently have in the US.  If you think that is not true then I understand why you are a libertarian.  Otherwise it is simple to use those models to judge future performance if more libertarianism is introduced into an economic system.  Imagine if every country that tried to be more Socialist became hell-holes, would you say it said nothing about the concept of Socialism?  This is the same conversation I had with communists in the 80's,  they also said there are no "true" communist states, it was a copout then just like it is now with libertarianism.


Frankly, what I think all I have proved is that most libertarians have no idea what their ideology stands for.

case in point:
On Obamacare: it's not a socialist policy, this is a misconception. Even from a libertarian standpoint, Obamacare isfarworse than state healthcare... because state healthcare is government providing a service. Governments already do this, we're just arguing which services they should and shouldn't provide.

Again, you are taking a liberal point of view.  Any liberal would have wrote the same about Obamacare, yet currently the majority of libertarians vote with and agree with conservatives.  Frankly on most every subject (especially Healthcare) you listed today, you agree with the liberal point of view, and every "conservative" would opposed to your views.  So what do you find yourself voting for more, people who call themselves conservative, or people that call themselves moderate or liberal?
 
2013-06-14 09:39:28 PM

COMALite J: Proposed definition of true core liberatarianism: the belief that the Inherent and Unalienable Rights of Natural Personhood are the highest priority in determining any aspect of government and society.

Anyone who puts any principle above that cannot rightly claim the title of "libertarian." This would include, but is not limited to:

• Ayn Randian Objectivists and other Corporatists ― Natural Persons are living sapient entities. Corporations, as well as unions, trusts, and incorporated communities, are Aggregate Persons, which is a legal fiction created only to allow such entities to participate on an equal footing with Natural Persons in matters of contractual and civil tort law. Benito Mussolini rightly defined "fascism" as a synonym for "corporatism," and since he invented fascism, he, and he alone, gets to define it. Placing the "rights":of corporations on even an equal, let alone higher, level than the Rights of Natural Persons, is not libertarianism of any stripe.

• Ron Paul and other Neo-Confederates (let alone the many Paleo-Confederates that sadly still exist) ― Not only does it violate the core principle of libertarianism to place "States' Rights" above the Rights of Natural Persons as Ron Paul's proposed legislations (e.g. the ironically named "We the People Act") and his oft-stated principles would do, the whole concept of "States' Rights" is a false concept right from the get-go. States don't have Rights. Any Rights. Neither does the Federal Government. Only Natural Persons (individually or collectively as "the People") have, or can have, Rights! And before you cry "B-b-but, Tenth Amendment!", read it again: as Inigo Montoya might say, it does not say nor mean what you think it means. Governments have no Rights at all ― not the Rights to enact legislation, levy taxes, etc., nor even the Right to exist!Governments of any kind at any level have Powers to do all of those things, granted to them by the consent of the governed. Powers ≠ Rights! Those terms are not synonyms! The Founders and Framers were very careful how and where they used each of those words. The Tenth Amendment is immediately preceded by the Ninth (not to mention the other eight) written by the same hand on the same piece of parchment, less than 1″ above the Tenth. Yet look what word it uses, and more importantly, to what entity it applies! See also the wording of the Declaration of Independence.

• Dominion Theologists / Christian Reconstructionists / Third Wavers / Christofascists / NARasites / etc. ― imposing a religion on others is a key violation of their Rights. Any who seek to do this under the banner of "libertarianism" is no libertarian (I'm looking at you, Ron Paul, Mr. self-proclaimed "Champion of the Constitution" who wrote that the Constitution was "... replete with references to God"! Were you perhaps thinking of the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, which does directly invoke "Almighty God"? And people wonder why we call you a Neo-Confederate!).


I agree with you, except I do not think that objectivism is a pro corporatism philosophy. It has been hijacked tho by those type of people - Greenspan included.

http://youtu.be/CeTfUot51io?t=4m6s

This is a video of Rand clearly dismissing corporatism and cronyism.

I got attacked in this thread for saying that I agree with certain aspects of objectivism, even though I said that I am not an objectivist now, so I am sure I will be attacked for this as well.

Look, I am for universal health care and a strong social safety net. I don't think the strong have the right to trample the rights of the weak.

Most libertarians hate those things- but that is because they do not believe in equality. I believe in limited government still. So do most progressives. Government is not a tool for the strong to use to oppress the weak. It is a tool to make the weak equal to the strong. Equality does not exist without limiting the power of the majority or the powerful.
 
2013-06-14 09:39:37 PM

Almost Everybody Poops: This will be a good read when I'm taking the Browns to the super bowl.


HAHA JOKE ON YOU. BROWNS NO GO SUPER BOWL. NEED GOOD ROCK THROWER AND ROCK RUNNER NOT MADE OF FIRE-SAND.
 
2013-06-14 09:41:00 PM
*ahem*

Wow, that NSFW archive page is the reason a lot of people think, right, wrong, or meh, that libertarians are actually deranged GOP belligerents.

I was a card carrying member complete with Oath of Non Initiation Of Violence of the Libertarian Party for a while during Clinton's administration, and damn was I ashamed to read that butthurt mess.
 
Displayed 50 of 1480 comments

First | « | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report