Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   This just in: The more you personally rely on the US government to take care of everything in your life, the more likely you are to be a raging libertarian   (washingtonpost.com ) divider line 339
    More: Obvious, GOP, Kentucky Republican, Justin Amash, pork barrel spending, expediencies, libertarians, Rand Paul  
•       •       •

7960 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Aug 2013 at 9:10 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-08-01 08:55:14 AM  
I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.  I get no money for my autistic son.  No money for my disabling medical condition  including no medical help at all.  I make half the median income for the state.  The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity.  We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens  people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves.  They expect someone else to pay for it.  Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.
 
2013-08-01 09:04:47 AM  
I like to speak in sweeping generalizations and imply that willful ignorance of ways by which I might benefit my family makes me a stronger person.
 
2013-08-01 09:12:57 AM  
I don't receive .gov money, but as I get older I'm beginning to think there's no honor in that any more.
I needs to get PAID.
 
2013-08-01 09:13:08 AM  

Pocket Ninja: I like to speak in sweeping generalizations and imply that willful ignorance of ways by which I might benefit my family makes me a stronger person.


/thread
 
2013-08-01 09:13:10 AM  
Well, I do get my money from the Army, but that's for services provided.
 
2013-08-01 09:14:23 AM  
Prison is mostly made up of libertarians, is it?
 
2013-08-01 09:14:35 AM  
Libertarians are the Tim Tebow of politics.
 
2013-08-01 09:14:41 AM  

Revek: I get no money for my autistic son.


Did you try putting him on Craigslist?
 
2013-08-01 09:15:02 AM  

Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.  I get no money for my autistic son.  No money for my disabling medical condition  including no medical help at all.  I make half the median income for the state.  The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity.  We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens  people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves.  They expect someone else to pay for it.  Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.


And what does that get you...?

Pocket Ninja: I like to speak in sweeping generalizations and imply that willful ignorance of ways by which I might benefit my family makes me a stronger person.


That.
 
2013-08-01 09:15:33 AM  
A Libertarian takes many forms: a lover in times of peace, a fighter in times of strife, a scholar in times of great change. This is the Era of Big Government, subby, washing over us all and revealing the highest pinnacle of humanity: that which remains when certain deductions are made: the modern Ur-Man who says, Whereas There is Government to Stand Upon, I am Above It!
 
2013-08-01 09:15:36 AM  
My individual experiences are sufficient to formulate policies that should be in place to dictate to a country of 320,000,000 other people what they should expect from their government.
 
2013-08-01 09:18:24 AM  
I thought there was a lot more interesting information in the article than just the picture, subby.
 
2013-08-01 09:19:14 AM  
Example 1:

chronicle.com
 
2013-08-01 09:19:23 AM  

EyeballKid: Revek: I get no money for my autistic son.

Did you try putting him on Craigslist?


He'll get a better price on backpage

Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.


Except the roads you drive on, the ability to power the computer you spout your stupidity from, the clean water you drink, the cleaner air you breathe, the safe food you eat and the safety in knowing your country is secure from the rest of the world.

....yep government does nothing for us.
 
2013-08-01 09:20:20 AM  

Pocket Ninja: I like to speak in sweeping generalizations and imply that willful ignorance of ways by which I might benefit my family makes me a stronger person.


Indeed, there is no more noble a goal in life than to find a teat at which to suckle.
 
2013-08-01 09:20:37 AM  
If everyone on welfare was a Libertarian, then the Democrat party would cease to exist.
 
2013-08-01 09:21:03 AM  

Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.  I get no money for my autistic son.  No money for my disabling medical condition  including no medical help at all.  I make half the median income for the state.  The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity.  We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens  people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves.  They expect someone else to pay for it.  Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.


So you are determined to live a shiatty life, if it means your conscience is clean?
 
2013-08-01 09:21:05 AM  
ftfa: Libertarians flex their muscle

/they sound ghay
 
2013-08-01 09:21:07 AM  

Pocket Ninja: I like to speak in sweeping generalizations and imply that willful ignorance of ways by which I might benefit my family makes me a stronger person.


and /scene
 
2013-08-01 09:22:25 AM  
I'm curious about the headline, since it neither reflected anything in the article, nor in my personal experience. The libertarians I know tend to be very self-sufficient, and see that as a manifestation of their values. But I don't know many libertarians, so is there something going on in the broader scope that I don't know?
 
2013-08-01 09:22:32 AM  
This is not that unusual.

Think of the family member that you're always having to bail out of a jam and how much they reset you for it, even if they don't show it overtly.
 
2013-08-01 09:22:33 AM  

Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.


That's impressive.  You don't drive cars on roads, bridges, or overpasses?  You don't eat food grow in the U.S., or shipped in from outside the country?  You don't ever travel across publicly maintained land?  Bought a car that is subject to safety regulations?  Use a public utility such as power, water, telephone, or internet?  You defend your own land with your own army?  You don't watch television regulated by the FCC or look at a clock that has time set by NIST created standards?  You don't use federally issued currency, or send or receive anything by the postal service?  You've never called the police for anything?  Needed to have friends or family helped by the fire department?

Truly, you receive nothing from the government.  I salute you, citizen.  You're a beacon to all of us.
 
2013-08-01 09:23:04 AM  

Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.  I get no money for my autistic son.  No money for my disabling medical condition  including no medical help at all.  I make half the median income for the state.  The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity.  We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens  people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves.  They expect someone else to pay for it.  Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.


Yeah! That'll show... wait...

I pay for health insurance. But if I get sick, I'm not relying on that communist, Ponzi scheme. I'll pay my hospital bill with the money earned from my bootstrap business.
 
2013-08-01 09:24:02 AM  
So what happened here is Auto Correct just changed Libtard to Libertarian
 
2013-08-01 09:24:05 AM  

Kome: My individual experiences are sufficient to formulate policies that should be in place to dictate to a country of 320,000,000 other people what they should expect from their government.


my individual experience is that libertarians are people who A: don't understand how a modern economy works and B: are greedy, selfish farkers who are looking for a way to justify not paying taxes

"Fark you, I've got mine" sums it up nicely
 
2013-08-01 09:24:28 AM  

Neighborhood Watch: If everyone on welfare was a Libertarian, then the Democrat party would cease to exist.


Pretty deep thought right there.  This man has the trenchant insight of a CS Lewis or a Ted Nugent.
 
2013-08-01 09:24:34 AM  

star_topology: Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.  I get no money for my autistic son.  No money for my disabling medical condition  including no medical help at all.  I make half the median income for the state.  The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity.  We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens  people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves.  They expect someone else to pay for it.  Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.

>And what does that get you...?


For starters, he self-imposes a perspective from where it will be impossible to understand either conservatives or liberals, neither of which want someone else to pay for their lives. Not true conservatives. Not true liberals. Some time after that, it gets him smacked down by the mighty PN.

Pocket Ninja: I like to speak in sweeping generalizations and imply that willful ignorance of ways by which I might benefit my family makes me a stronger person.

>That.
 
2013-08-01 09:24:39 AM  
Modern libratarians and GOPers are a cancer to society.
 
2013-08-01 09:24:44 AM  

GoldSpider: Pocket Ninja: I like to speak in sweeping generalizations and imply that willful ignorance of ways by which I might benefit my family makes me a stronger person.

Indeed, there is no more noble a goal in life than to find a teat at which to suckle.


It's better when it's harder, because of... morals?
 
2013-08-01 09:25:33 AM  

GoldSpider: Pocket Ninja: I like to speak in sweeping generalizations and imply that willful ignorance of ways by which I might benefit my family makes me a stronger person.

Indeed, there is no more noble a goal in life than to find a teat at which to suckle.


It's even better to find one, then criticize anyone else that does while making absurd declarations about how you're just getting out what you put in.
 
2013-08-01 09:25:47 AM  

Aristocles: Well, I do get my money from the Army, but that's for services provided.


Let me guess, you work for Halliburton providing MREs?
 
2013-08-01 09:25:49 AM  
I rely on fark to tell me what to think. What does that make me?

/I'm not even
 
2013-08-01 09:26:07 AM  

Mad Morf: This is not that unusual.

Think of the family member that you're always having to bail out of a jam and how much they reset resent you for it, even if they don't show it overtly.


There, FTFM.
 
2013-08-01 09:26:32 AM  

Pocket Ninja: I like to speak in sweeping generalizations and imply that willful ignorance of ways by which I might benefit my family makes me a stronger person.


Your sense of entitlement is admirable.

Your sense of pride needs work.
 
2013-08-01 09:27:06 AM  
i.qkme.me
 
2013-08-01 09:27:16 AM  
This just in: most libertarians/conservatives/teabaggers/selfish pricks don't know the difference between entitlement and self-entitlement.
 
2013-08-01 09:27:20 AM  

The Gordie Howe Hat Trick: Your sense of entitlement is admirable.


wut
 
2013-08-01 09:27:31 AM  

Revek: but receive nothing from the government.


And yet, here you are, typing on the internet. The ultimate irony.
 
2013-08-01 09:28:12 AM  

GoldSpider: Pocket Ninja: I like to speak in sweeping generalizations and imply that willful ignorance of ways by which I might benefit my family makes me a stronger person.

Indeed, there is no more noble a goal in life than to find a teat at which to suckle.


Well its always best to stick with your fist thought
 
2013-08-01 09:28:36 AM  

Neighborhood Watch: If everyone on welfare was a Libertarian, then the Democrat party would cease to exist.


i.stack.imgur.com
 
2013-08-01 09:29:01 AM  

tentaculistic: I'm curious about the headline, since it neither reflected anything in the article, nor in my personal experience. The libertarians I know tend to be very self-sufficient, and see that as a manifestation of their values. But I don't know many libertarians, so is there something going on in the broader scope that I don't know?


Subby looked at the picture and clicked "Submit".

LasersHurt: It's better when it's harder, because of... morals?


If you're content with living as a pet, than who am I to judge?

HotWingConspiracy: It's even better to find one, then criticize anyone else that does while making absurd declarations about how you're just getting out what you put in.


I'm not a fan of those types either.
 
2013-08-01 09:29:17 AM  

Brick-House: So what happened here is Auto Correct just changed Libtard to Libertarian



Yawn.

Hardly your best material. Stick to posting bad hope and change comics, it's what your good at.
 
2013-08-01 09:30:05 AM  

GoldSpider: LasersHurt: It's better when it's harder, because of... morals?

If you're content with living as a pet, than who am I to judge?


If you were as clever as you think you are, you'd be fun to have around.
 
2013-08-01 09:30:13 AM  
Most libertarians I know are just kids who think the world is just the way it is, it requires to oversight or effort the roads just exist the oil in your furnace and gas in your car just appears the environment and food safety just kinda works itself out.
 
2013-08-01 09:30:19 AM  
Subby doesn't know what a Libertarian is. *facepalm* did he even read the artical.
 
2013-08-01 09:30:25 AM  
Paul explained the reason Kentucky was such a leech was that it had military bases.   Last time I checked, New Jersey had some bases as well.  More bases that Kentucky IIRC.

But the explanation was only there to make the people who already agreed with him feel comfortable, its not like they'll actually check the information out.
 
2013-08-01 09:30:47 AM  

Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.  I get no money for my autistic son.  No money for my disabling medical condition  including no medical help at all.  I make half the median income for the state.  The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity.  We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens  people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves.  They expect someone else to pay for it.  Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.


Yeah, um. You're not starving to death.

and you have a computer or phone and internet.

You're WAY better off than most people. And most of that isn't because of your singular heroic, Herculan effort, but because of the massive collaborative way that people who believe in this country work together. The Eastern states - which are more reliably blue - create most of the wealth in this nation, and you Looting red-staters can just STFU and GBTW.
 
2013-08-01 09:31:00 AM  

The Gordie Howe Hat Trick: Pocket Ninja: I like to speak in sweeping generalizations and imply that willful ignorance of ways by which I might benefit my family makes me a stronger person.

Your sense of entitlement is admirable.

Your sense of pride needs work.


Let us know when you find a landlord that you can pay with your pride.
 
2013-08-01 09:31:08 AM  

heavymetal: [i.qkme.me image 360x360]


Hurr so go live in Somalia derr.
 
2013-08-01 09:32:15 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: EyeballKid: Revek: I get no money for my autistic son.

Did you try putting him on Craigslist?

He'll get a better price on backpage

Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.

Except the roads you drive on, the ability to power the computer you spout your stupidity from, the clean water you drink, the cleaner air you breathe, the safe food you eat and the safety in knowing your country is secure from the rest of the world.

....yep government does nothing for us.


All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
 
2013-08-01 09:32:18 AM  

Khellendros: Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.

That's impressive.  You don't drive cars on roads, bridges, or overpasses?  You don't eat food grow in the U.S., or shipped in from outside the country?  You don't ever travel across publicly maintained land?  Bought a car that is subject to safety regulations?  Use a public utility such as power, water, telephone, or internet?  You defend your own land with your own army?  You don't watch television regulated by the FCC or look at a clock that has time set by NIST created standards?  You don't use federally issued currency, or send or receive anything by the postal service?  You've never called the police for anything?  Needed to have friends or family helped by the fire department?

Truly, you receive nothing from the government.  I salute you, citizen.  You're a beacon to all of us.


No, actually, he is a self-deluded asshole who would survive about ten seconds without an organized society and government to provide for and protect him - like every other stupid, self-deluded "libertarian".
Objectivism is autism expressed as an existential philosophy.
Libertarianism is autism expressed as a political philosophy.
 
2013-08-01 09:32:30 AM  
Liberal thinking:
Liberals agree with me 100% of the time and that makes them more highly evolved.
Conservatives disagree with me on pretty much 100% of issues, that makes them evil!
Libertarians agree/disagree with me on maybe 50% of issues, that makes them the worst!
 
2013-08-01 09:33:11 AM  

bopis: Liberal thinking:
Liberals agree with me 100% of the time and that makes them more highly evolved.
Conservatives disagree with me on pretty much 100% of issues, that makes them evil!
Libertarians agree/disagree with me on maybe 50% of issues, that makes them the worst!


What the fark was this?
 
2013-08-01 09:33:26 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: What the fark was this?


Baby's First Thought
 
2013-08-01 09:34:03 AM  

bopis: Liberal thinking:
Liberals agree with me 100% of the time and that makes them more highly evolved.
Conservatives disagree with me on pretty much 100% of issues, that makes them evil!
Libertarians agree/disagree with me on maybe 50% of issues, that makes them the worst!


This guy cuts through the clutter like a laser.  Just try and resist getting into a debate with this guy!  I bet the libs won't even have the stomach for such a challenge.
 
2013-08-01 09:35:36 AM  

bopis: Liberal thinking:
Liberals agree with me 100% of the time and that makes them more highly evolved.
Conservatives disagree with me on pretty much 100% of issues, that makes them evil!
Libertarians agree/disagree with me on maybe 50% of issues, that makes them the worst!

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2013-08-01 09:36:58 AM  

bopis: Liberal thinking:
Liberals agree with me 100% of the time and that makes them more highly evolved.
Conservatives disagree with me on pretty much 100% of issues, that makes them evil!
Libertarians agree/disagree with me on maybe 50% of issues, that makes them the worst!


I'll bet you thought that was clever when you were typing it. Unfortunately, it just comes off as simple minded.
 
2013-08-01 09:37:06 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: The Gordie Howe Hat Trick: Pocket Ninja: I like to speak in sweeping generalizations and imply that willful ignorance of ways by which I might benefit my family makes me a stronger person.

Your sense of entitlement is admirable.

Your sense of pride needs work.

Let us know when you find a landlord that you can pay with your pride.


The trick is to not let it get to that point.
 
2013-08-01 09:37:08 AM  

GoldSpider: Pocket Ninja: I like to speak in sweeping generalizations and imply that willful ignorance of ways by which I might benefit my family makes me a stronger person.

Indeed, there is no more noble a goal in life than to find a teat at which to suckle.


As a raging liberal, i have bankrupted myself (racked up huge CC debt with multi-year payoffs)three times by not collecting unemployment.

I know my inaction makes no sense.
I know it is a sensible safety net.
I can't explain my aversion.
I don't believe it makes me morally superior.
I don't recommend it as a philosophy.

Do i defy your expectations? Do you understand why so many libertarians sound like children to me? I'm waving it in your face now, because you are a known jerk, but i don't think it represents anything but my foolish pride.
 
2013-08-01 09:37:40 AM  

astinkywind: Subby doesn't know what a Libertarian is. *facepalm* did he even read the artical.


Protip: political rhetoric does not equal actual reality.
 
2013-08-01 09:37:56 AM  
The libertarian answer to every argument: "That's fine in practice, but in theory it just won't work."
 
2013-08-01 09:38:13 AM  

Fjornir: All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?


Well we are one step closer to Gladiator games

www.bodybuilding.com
 
2013-08-01 09:38:14 AM  

bopis: Liberal thinking:
Liberals agree with me 100% of the time and that makes them more highly evolved.
Conservatives disagree with me on pretty much 100% of issues, that makes them evil!
Libertarians agree/disagree with me on maybe 50% of issues, that makes them the worst!


While I too have scare a clue what you're blathering about, I will agree that self-described Liberals have more in common with libertarians than they are comfortable admitting.
 
2013-08-01 09:40:52 AM  
Decent article,

but this headline is just full of brick stupid. Whatever Rove-like troll that invented this false equivalency is 'rotfltao' as they say.

Because wanting actual regulation and smart government policies can in no way shape or form be any different than wanting the government to control every aspect of my life. Right?

Fark this nation is farking stupid.

Remember that the actual baseline 100 IQ is relative to the population as a whole at a given point of time. What is 100 today could have been say... 80 or 120 at a different point of time. If we could have a barometer of the sway of that baseline, we could track it's movement.

Politics is as good of a barometer as any,
and I think a storm is blowing in, because that motherfarker has been dropping hard and fast.

/another barometer might be the use of things like 'rotflmao' :P
 
2013-08-01 09:41:00 AM  

brukmann: Do i defy your expectations?


Not really, but you're exactly like everyone else here who thinks they know my personal philosophy on spending priorities and safety net programs, etc.
 
2013-08-01 09:41:45 AM  
Ok, Google has answered my questions - NY Times Article from 2012 "Even Critics of Safety Net Increasingly Depend on It", and Paul Krugman article "Moochers Hate Welfare" (I know, not the most unbiased source).
 
2013-08-01 09:41:48 AM  

Khellendros: Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.

That's impressive.  You don't drive cars on roads, bridges, or overpasses?  You don't eat food grow in the U.S., or shipped in from outside the country?  You don't ever travel across publicly maintained land?  Bought a car that is subject to safety regulations?  Use a public utility such as power, water, telephone, or internet?  You defend your own land with your own army?  You don't watch television regulated by the FCC or look at a clock that has time set by NIST created standards?  You don't use federally issued currency, or send or receive anything by the postal service?  You've never called the police for anything?  Needed to have friends or family helped by the fire department?

Truly, you receive nothing from the government.  I salute you, citizen.  You're a beacon to all of us.


TRANSLATION:  We have already socialized society and are winning the war.  Surrender, Libertarians!

sayanythingblog.com
 
2013-08-01 09:42:37 AM  
Why did that headline contradict the article and reality?
 
2013-08-01 09:44:22 AM  

GoldSpider: I will agree that self-described Liberals have more in common with libertarians than they are comfortable admitting.


To make this sentence true, you'd have to pin down some common core beliefs of libertarians.

It has been my experience that I agree with some and disagree with some because there is no consistent core of beliefs from one libertarian to the next.
 
2013-08-01 09:44:35 AM  

The Gordie Howe Hat Trick: HotWingConspiracy: The Gordie Howe Hat Trick: Pocket Ninja: I like to speak in sweeping generalizations and imply that willful ignorance of ways by which I might benefit my family makes me a stronger person.

Your sense of entitlement is admirable.

Your sense of pride needs work.

Let us know when you find a landlord that you can pay with your pride.

The trick is to not let it get to that point.


Right, poor people should just get more money.

I don't know why nobody has ever thought of that.
 
2013-08-01 09:44:49 AM  

brukmann: Do you understand why so many libertarians sound like children to me?


Because it's easier to compartmentalize people who disagree with you than it is to acknowledge that there is room for overlap between what you consider necessarily competing, mutually-exclusive ideologies?

If you care to engage me with more than name-calling, I'd be happy to explain my own beliefs in greater detail.
 
2013-08-01 09:45:43 AM  
WTF are you talking about submittitard?

TFA was talking about the rise of libertarianism inside the GOP.  Right now the party is heading for a split.  The social conservatard theocrats that have run the party for nearly 20 years and want to make the GOP MORE socially conservative vs. the social liberals/fiscal conservatives that want to bring the GOP into the 21st century.

No matter what happens, it will be amusing to watch the GOP implode.  I'll get the popcorn.
 
2013-08-01 09:45:52 AM  
I always thought that Libertarians were just Republicans who wanted to keep hating brown poor people but still be able to smoke weed.
 
2013-08-01 09:46:23 AM  

rvesco: TRANSLATION: We have already socialized society and are winning the war. Surrender, Libertarians!


No, I was making the point that anyone who lives here and makes the claim that they "receive nothing from the governement"  is lying to themselves.
 
2013-08-01 09:46:24 AM  
I am a socialist - I believe the necessities of life should be provided for free to the general public (though comfort is not a requirement, just health; stack the shelter beds like Japanese tube hotels and give out energy bars made out of cardboard for all I care).

I'm also in the top 20% of earners nationally, have never received social safety net aid, and refuse to rely on others for anything I can do for myself.

/I challenge anyone to find a person more bootstrappy than I am.
 
2013-08-01 09:46:43 AM  

Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.  I get no money for my autistic son.  No money for my disabling medical condition  including no medical help at all.  I make half the median income for the state.  The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity.  We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens  people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves.  They expect someone else to pay for it.  Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.


I know how you feel. All we get us roads, electricity, water, clean air, safe places to work, the police to protect us, firefighters, the military to stop invasions, civic infrastructure, a monetary system, a reasonably fair legal system to handle disputes guaranteed healthcare and several thousand other things, but I don't take all the money available for an autistic child either.
 
2013-08-01 09:46:51 AM  

unlikely: It has been my experience that I agree with some and disagree with some because there is no consistent core of beliefs from one libertarian to the next.


Largely because hypocrites like Sen. Paul hijack the brand.
 
2013-08-01 09:48:02 AM  

GoldSpider: brukmann: Do i defy your expectations?

Not really, but you're exactly like everyone else here who thinks they know my personal philosophy on spending priorities and safety net programs, etc.


The retreat of the intellectual coward. If you disagree, you just, like, don't understand me, dude! My first lesson from Fark was I cannot expect anyone to have an idea what i'm talking about if i'm not expressing myself clearly. Practice that discipline and self-reliance and dazzle us with your brilliant personal philosophy long-form. Right now. Go for it. Nobody is stopping you.
 
2013-08-01 09:48:06 AM  

someonelse: bopis: Liberal thinking:
Liberals agree with me 100% of the time and that makes them more highly evolved.
Conservatives disagree with me on pretty much 100% of issues, that makes them evil!
Libertarians agree/disagree with me on maybe 50% of issues, that makes them the worst!

I'll bet you thought that was clever when you were typing it. Unfortunately, it just comes off as simple minded.


I'm an idiot for oversimplifying things in a FARK THREAD?
That is pretty much my point. Seems like Liberals have a deeper, more special hate for libertarians even though there is probably a lot more common ground. I think that speaks to the closemindedness of the average liberal.
Let's decriminalize homosexuality and end the war on drugs, then we can go back to the retard flame war?
 
2013-08-01 09:48:06 AM  

tentaculistic: Ok, Google has answered my questions - NY Times Article from 2012 "Even Critics of Safety Net Increasingly Depend on It", and Paul Krugman article "Moochers Hate Welfare" (I know, not the most unbiased source).


If your question was "What the hell is the connection between the FARK headline and the actual article?", I'm not sure your Google search answered it.
 
2013-08-01 09:49:28 AM  

GoldSpider: bopis: Liberal thinking:
Liberals agree with me 100% of the time and that makes them more highly evolved.
Conservatives disagree with me on pretty much 100% of issues, that makes them evil!
Libertarians agree/disagree with me on maybe 50% of issues, that makes them the worst!

While I too have scare a clue what you're blathering about, I will agree that self-described Liberals have more in common with libertarians than they are comfortable admitting.


Oh yeah, sure, believing in a socially responsible government is so libertarian.

//I also agree with the subset of republicans that think that grand theft auto should still be illegal.
///<b>everyone</b> has common ground.
 
2013-08-01 09:49:58 AM  

Neighborhood Watch: If everyone on welfare was a Libertarian, then the Democrat party would cease to exist.


If everyone on welfare understood they are actually on welfare, the GOP would lose 3/4 of its voting base.
 
2013-08-01 09:49:58 AM  

brukmann: The retreat of the intellectual coward. If you disagree, you just, like, don't understand me, dude!


I don't recall you ever asking me what I believed, so that means everything you "know" about me is a product of your own assumptions and biases.
 
2013-08-01 09:52:14 AM  

GoldSpider: brukmann: The retreat of the intellectual coward. If you disagree, you just, like, don't understand me, dude!

I don't recall you ever asking me what I believed, so that means everything you "know" about me is a product of your own assumptions and biases.


From 500 threads. I probably know you better than your mom. You know people can read this shiat anonymously, right?
 
2013-08-01 09:54:23 AM  

star_topology: And what does that get you...?


Another day older and deeper in debt. Saint Peter don't you call him, 'cause he can't go. He owes his soul to Goldline.
 
2013-08-01 09:54:56 AM  

Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings and get many benefits from the govt but receive nothingno no direct checks from the government.


FTFY
 
2013-08-01 09:55:15 AM  

brukmann: From 500 threads. I probably know you better than your mom. You know people can read this shiat anonymously, right?


Then it wouldn't surprise you in the least if I were to say that I'm an advocate of single-payer, am I right?
 
2013-08-01 09:55:49 AM  

GoldSpider: brukmann: From 500 threads. I probably know you better than your mom. You know people can read this shiat anonymously, right?

Then it wouldn't surprise you in the least if I were to say that I'm an advocate of single-payer, am I right?


I didn't say you were an idiot.
 
2013-08-01 09:56:03 AM  
TOX KEEP FRUIT OF OWN LABOR. TOX NO WANT G MAN TELL TOX HOW TO MAKE SHARP SPEAR ROCKS.
 
2013-08-01 09:56:16 AM  

Khellendros: Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.

That's impressive.  You don't drive cars on roads, bridges, or overpasses?  You don't eat food grow in the U.S., or shipped in from outside the country?  You don't ever travel across publicly maintained land?  Bought a car that is subject to safety regulations?  Use a public utility such as power, water, telephone, or internet?  You defend your own land with your own army?  You don't watch television regulated by the FCC or look at a clock that has time set by NIST created standards?  You don't use federally issued currency, or send or receive anything by the postal service?  You've never called the police for anything?  Needed to have friends or family helped by the fire department?

Truly, you receive nothing from the government.  I salute you, citizen.  You're a beacon to all of us.


That seems to be the main problem I find in their reasoning.  It's all about "I do not receive any money from the government for.............", totally oblivious to the benefits they indirectly recieve through infrastructure and services.  It's not about finding a teat to suckle on so we don't have to fend for ourselves, it's about common sense.  The government of the U.S. isn't some despotic entity, it is a system set up by our founding fathers and supposed to be "of the people, by the people, and for the people"; if it is screwed up we did it to ourselves.

One function of the government in my opinion is to be sort of the national "warehouse bulk shopping club" of the American people.  There are certain essential services that are needed which cannot be provided on an induvidual basis comercially in a cost effective manner.  The intent behind these services are not to create a dependence on the government or enslave the masses, but provide a necessary service at a "bulk discount" rate.  Rather than enslaving the citizen, it is freeing them to pursue greater things than just the basics in life.  Services like education, healhcare, etc.

Seems to me the freedom right leaning Libertarians wasnt to offer is freedom to be dumb, go hungry, get sick & die, and go broke working like a slave in a futile effort trying to not to be dumb, hungry, and get sick & die.
 
2013-08-01 09:57:25 AM  

bulldg4life: And yet, here you are, typing on the internet. The ultimate irony.


In his defense, he uses HTTP (Histrionic Text Transport Pigeon).
 
2013-08-01 09:57:53 AM  

brukmann: I didn't say you were an idiot.


Fair enough; I can live with "jerk".  :)
 
2013-08-01 09:58:12 AM  
I have always wondered why all the Libertarian threads on Fark  go so long and get so many reactions.
 
2013-08-01 09:58:17 AM  
F*ck libertarians. While it is refreshing to see more people come out against war, prohibition, and government-enforced discrimination against gays, their anti-tax, anti-social program, anti-regulation, "I got mine" BS just shows how disconnected they are from the realities of the majority of the people in this country, the working poor. We aren't "fat and happy, sucking on the government teat" like so many seem to think. That "teat" puts out some pretty thin milk, let me tell you. In the richest country in the world, working 2 jobs, my children wouldn't be able to see a doctor without government assistance for their health insurance. My wife's pregnancy costs, especially when she had complications, would have put us in debt for 20+ years without government assistance for her health care. When I lost my job when the economy crashed, and my wife and I received cash aide and food stamps, were we eating steak and laying about watching satellite tv? No, we were scrambling to find jobs because the cash aide and food stamps barely enabled us to survive, and that was on top of paying no rent because we moved in with her folks. And we live in the generous socialist paradise of California. Who knows how it would have been in some teatard hell-hole state in the Midwest or South.

I come from an upper middle-class family. I was a conservative Republican in high school. Although social issues had already changed my politics by the time the I had the experiences recounted above, experiencing the reality of poverty first hand, trying to live, to survive, "on the dole" solidified me as a Socialist. The 1% in this country, who have so much wealth they couldn't hope to ever spend it all... f*ck them. They have no right to wealth so obscene when children down the street go hungry or can't see a doctor, when parents have to work multiple jobs and still rely on government assistance to scrape by. By tax or by sword, there will be some equalization of wealth in this country, and the sooner the better.
 
2013-08-01 10:00:19 AM  

SovietCanuckistan: I have always wondered why all the Libertarian threads on Fark  go so long and get so many reactions.


Because for Years now Libertarians have tried to "educate" everyone on what Libertarians really are, since we keep insisting on judging them by the actions and words of the people who call themselves Libertarians.
 
2013-08-01 10:00:32 AM  
I'm not 100% LP.org "Libertarian" because I do recognize that there are some government safety nets, consumer protections, and public goods/infrastructure that are valuable, but on average I do agree with their general philosophy that a smaller, more efficient government is better than what we have.  True tax & spend liberals have always pissed me off, but as I've grown up into the semi-responsible adult that I am I've been driven away from the Republicans by the extreme hypocrisy of social conservatives who want government out of our wallets but in our bedrooms.

What pisses me off even more than a tax & spender or a social conservative, though, is the tea party types suddenly claiming a "libertarian" viewpoint when 90% of the tea party would shoot a queer or colored boy on sight.  You folks can't cherry-pick small government platitudes without accepting that your wanting to live free from interference means that mixed race gay couple in town also gets to live free from interference.  If Obama wasn't elected you would still be worshiping at the altar of Karl Rove and not yelling about a rapidly expanding debt, even though W added the second-highest amount to it.
 
2013-08-01 10:00:42 AM  

GoldSpider: brukmann: I didn't say you were an idiot.

Fair enough; I can live with "jerk".  :)


You earn a star. What should the tag be, though?
 
2013-08-01 10:01:44 AM  
Were the headline even remotely true, the Democrats wouldn't stand a chance.
 
2013-08-01 10:01:58 AM  
probably because if you were to truly live off the grid you'd be too busy to waste your time complaining on the internet?
 
2013-08-01 10:02:34 AM  

HAMMERTOE: Were the headline even remotely true, the Democrats wouldn't stand a chance.


You're late, someone already made that stupid joke.
 
2013-08-01 10:03:02 AM  

Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.


Surprisingly few people have bitten on the substance of your first-to-be-posted troll, which is a shame.

It's too late for a really meaningful bite, but I'll do what I can. You mean, you receive no  cash money from the government, and by that you mean you don't regard being excused from having to pay most or all of your taxes as "receiving" it.

As for not getting free health care, if you're as poorly as you say and your son exists and is autistic, you might look into sucking just a bit harder on that government teat--for his sake if not yours. Perhaps you qualify for disability, or perhaps he qualifies for Medicare. But you're right, the government won't be doing anything at the moment to make sure that you're personally healthy--for the time being your ability to get well will still be a private financial arrangement between you and your insurance company. Although what you pay will be greatly reduced by new government rules, and your son will have a chance in hell of getting his own insurance one day. (Not very libertarian, I admit, interfering with contracts like that.)

Anyway, there's your bite. No charge, citizen!
 
2013-08-01 10:03:37 AM  

JerkyMeat: Modern libratarians and GOPers are a cancer to society.


While modern Libtards are leaches
 
2013-08-01 10:03:38 AM  

dentalhilljack: I'm not 100% LP.org "Libertarian" because I do recognize that there are some government safety nets, consumer protections, and public goods/infrastructure that are valuable, but on average I do agree with their general philosophy that a smaller, more efficient government is better than what we have.  True tax & spend liberals have always pissed me off, but as I've grown up into the semi-responsible adult that I am I've been driven away from the Republicans by the extreme hypocrisy of social conservatives who want government out of our wallets but in our bedrooms.

What pisses me off even more than a tax & spender or a social conservative, though, is the tea party types suddenly claiming a "libertarian" viewpoint when 90% of the tea party would shoot a queer or colored boy on sight.  You folks can't cherry-pick small government platitudes without accepting that your wanting to live free from interference means that mixed race gay couple in town also gets to live free from interference.  If Obama wasn't elected you would still be worshiping at the altar of Karl Rove and not yelling about a rapidly expanding debt, even though W added the second-highest amount to it.


Ah..um...what?
 
2013-08-01 10:03:53 AM  

clkeagle: If everyone on welfare understood they are actually on welfare, the GOP would lose 3/4 of its voting base.


Heh, a lot of truth there.

amyldoanitrite: their anti-tax, anti-social program, anti-regulation, "I got mine" BS just shows how disconnected they are from the realities of the majority of the people in this country


And that's where I diverge from the big-L party.  I think a lot of Libertarians really don't understand the practical outcome of their purist libertarian fiscal ideology; as much as any "idealist" belief falls far short in practice.
 
2013-08-01 10:03:54 AM  
Libertarians and other slack-jawed "big government" types keep forgetting we live in a big-ass country with a shiatload of people. You can't govern that with a skeleton crew.
 
2013-08-01 10:04:29 AM  

brukmann: You earn a star. What should the tag be, though?


"Jerk" with perhaps a friendly color?  :)
 
2013-08-01 10:04:33 AM  

GoldSpider: Pocket Ninja: I like to speak in sweeping generalizations and imply that willful ignorance of ways by which I might benefit my family makes me a stronger person.

Indeed, there is no more noble a goal in life than to find a teat at which to suckle.


or to labor for a neo-slave owner for a pittance?
 
2013-08-01 10:04:55 AM  

dentalhilljack: I'm not 100% LP.org "Libertarian" because I do recognize that there are some government safety nets, consumer protections, and public goods/infrastructure that are valuable, but on average I do agree with their general philosophy that a smaller, more efficient government is better than what we have.  True tax & spend liberals have always pissed me off, but as I've grown up into the semi-responsible adult that I am I've been driven away from the Republicans by the extreme hypocrisy of social conservatives who want government out of our wallets but in our bedrooms.


As a matter of historical fact, America was most economically prosperous and equal when the "tax & spend liberals" were in charge. Now that's a correlation, not necessarily a causation, but I'm just saying. Whenever conservatives have had a lot of influence (see late 19th c., the 1920s, the last few decades) things have consistently gotten worse for the average American. Once again, that's a correlation, not necessarily a causation, but it is an interesting one.
 
2013-08-01 10:05:52 AM  

dentalhilljack: You folks can't cherry-pick small government platitudes


Oh yes they can!
 
2013-08-01 10:09:03 AM  

GoldSpider: brukmann: You earn a star. What should the tag be, though?

"Jerk" with perhaps a friendly color?  :)


Friendly in that you're the only one who is purple, tag "Libertus and the amazing technicolor dreamjerk " I thought i was on to something there, it'll have to do for now. :) I need to get back to bootstrapping. Cheers
 
2013-08-01 10:09:12 AM  

GoldSpider: bopis: Liberal thinking:
Liberals agree with me 100% of the time and that makes them more highly evolved.
Conservatives disagree with me on pretty much 100% of issues, that makes them evil!
Libertarians agree/disagree with me on maybe 50% of issues, that makes them the worst!

While I too have scare a clue what you're blathering about, I will agree that self-described Liberals have more in common with libertarians than they are comfortable admitting.


With genuine libertarians, perhaps. The self-confessed American right-wing 'libertarians' are really Republicans who long for a return to feudalism, in the laughably false assumption that they will be inside the castle walls.
 
2013-08-01 10:10:23 AM  

eiger: As a matter of historical fact, America was most economically prosperous and equal when the "tax & spend liberals" were in charge. Now that's a correlation, not necessarily a causation, but I'm just saying. Whenever conservatives have had a lot of influence (see late 19th c., the 1920s, the last few decades) things have consistently gotten worse for the average American. Once again, that's a correlation, not necessarily a causation, but it is an interesting one.


Ya but is that like the current trend, where Obama is having to "fix" everything his predecessor did?
 
2013-08-01 10:14:06 AM  

bopis: eiger: As a matter of historical fact, America was most economically prosperous and equal when the "tax & spend liberals" were in charge. Now that's a correlation, not necessarily a causation, but I'm just saying. Whenever conservatives have had a lot of influence (see late 19th c., the 1920s, the last few decades) things have consistently gotten worse for the average American. Once again, that's a correlation, not necessarily a causation, but it is an interesting one.

Ya but is that like the current trend, where Obama is having to "fix" everything his predecessor did?


WTF are you talking about?
 
2013-08-01 10:17:39 AM  

unlikely: GoldSpider: I will agree that self-described Liberals have more in common with libertarians than they are comfortable admitting.

To make this sentence true, you'd have to pin down some common core beliefs of libertarians.

It has been my experience that I agree with some and disagree with some because there is no consistent core of beliefs from one libertarian to the next.


This is the main reason there will never be a true libertarian movement.  There are too many issues that libertarians differ on.  It's like when someone believes that all athiests share common opinions; there are many shades of libertarianism, as the article states.  Anyone who supports extreme libertarianism (read: anarchy) is just plain stupid.  I have no desire to go back to the stone ages, farming my own vegetables and protecting my possessions from ravoing gangs.  However, rampant wasteful goverment spending, war-mongering, the expansion of the welfare state, the legislation of social issues, etc. tend to push people toward a more libertarian view.  Come on people, it's about taking responsibility for yourself and your situation, and holding your public officials accountable!

/at least that's how I define my libertarianism...
 
2013-08-01 10:17:41 AM  
cubic_spleen:

With genuine libertarians, perhaps. The self-confessed American right-wing 'libertarians' are really Republicans who long for a return to feudalism, in the laughably false assumption that they will be inside the castle walls.

I've recently discovered The Tudors on prime.  (yes, I know, but I'm usually 2-4 years behind on these things since I don't buy showtime, hbo, etc.  anyways....) of course it's the very romanticized story of Henry VIII, but yet I see parallels between what he strove to do (and in some ways succeeded, at least for a while) and what libertarians say they want.  Isolating "his kingdom", putting himself in charge of basically everything...religion, taxes, "public" services (such as they were), trade, law, etc.  This is what libertarians say they want.  (they don't really, but that's what they say).  Complete control over everything, no outside governance, their word is all they need to live by.  But they won't admit that it WOULD involve the enslavement of others, because by and large I can't see libertarians out there digging their own latrines, disposing of their household waste, growing/raising all their own food, even in co-ops.  They have a laughingly romantic version of a pure shining self reliant world in their head, completely disassociated with reality.  And we all know how it ended for Henry.

Just an observation, but there it is.
 
2013-08-01 10:18:01 AM  

verbaltoxin: TOX KEEP FRUIT OF OWN LABOR. TOX NO WANT G MAN TELL TOX HOW TO MAKE SHARP SPEAR ROCKS.


THIS NEED BE LIBERTERRAN CAVE MAN THREAD NOW.

WHEN THAG ON DISABILITY AND WELFARE THAG NO ASK ANYONE FOR HELP! THAG PULL HIMSELF OUT OF GUTTER WITHOUT HANDOUT!
 
2013-08-01 10:19:47 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-01 10:21:38 AM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: cubic_spleen:

With genuine libertarians, perhaps. The self-confessed American right-wing 'libertarians' are really Republicans who long for a return to feudalism, in the laughably false assumption that they will be inside the castle walls.

I've recently discovered The Tudors on prime.  (yes, I know, but I'm usually 2-4 years behind on these things since I don't buy showtime, hbo, etc.  anyways....) of course it's the very romanticized story of Henry VIII, but yet I see parallels between what he strove to do (and in some ways succeeded, at least for a while) and what libertarians say they want.  Isolating "his kingdom", putting himself in charge of basically everything...religion, taxes, "public" services (such as they were), trade, law, etc.  This is what libertarians say they want.  (they don't really, but that's what they say).  Complete control over everything, no outside governance, their word is all they need to live by.  But they won't admit that it WOULD involve the enslavement of others, because by and large I can't see libertarians out there digging their own latrines, disposing of their household waste, growing/raising all their own food, even in co-ops.  They have a laughingly romantic version of a pure shining self reliant world in their head, completely disassociated with reality.  And we all know how it ended for Henry.

Just an observation, but there it is.


Reminds me of that Atlas Shrugged 2: 2 hours later comic. "What? You mean we have to till our own soil or we'll starve?!!?!"
 
2013-08-01 10:21:38 AM  

Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.  I get no money for my autistic son.  No money for my disabling medical condition  including no medical help at all.  I make half the median income for the state.  The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity.  We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens  people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves.  They expect someone else to pay for it.  Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.


Ok, I'll bite.  So, out of principal you deny your child services designed specifically to maximize his potential to become a functioning member of society, with the likely result that down the road when you are no longer around to care for him, he then becomes more dependent on the government for assistance than he may have been had he received therapy? Am I reading that right? Or at this point has he maximized improvement and will remain at his present functional level? I am not snarking, I have a niece and a nephew who are autistic and who, through therapy paid for by taxes, are improving by leaps and bounds. I am close enough to see their progress on an almost daily basis and I know for a fact that had they not had the intensive therapy, they would be far behind where they are now, and would be far more likely to need assistance throughout their adult lives. Statistics bear that out as well. It's madness to take a libertarian stand on the issue of services to the disabled early on when those services can minimize taxpayer support down the road. I know the mileage varies greatly, and some kids will never significantly improve no matter what, but even including that subset, there's no denying the cost effectiveness of early therapy.
 
2013-08-01 10:22:17 AM  
 
2013-08-01 10:22:55 AM  

verbaltoxin: dentalhilljack: I'm not 100% LP.org "Libertarian" because I do recognize that there are some government safety nets, consumer protections, and public goods/infrastructure that are valuable, but on average I do agree with their general philosophy that a smaller, more efficient government is better than what we have.  True tax & spend liberals have always pissed me off, but as I've grown up into the semi-responsible adult that I am I've been driven away from the Republicans by the extreme hypocrisy of social conservatives who want government out of our wallets but in our bedrooms.

What pisses me off even more than a tax & spender or a social conservative, though, is the tea party types suddenly claiming a "libertarian" viewpoint when 90% of the tea party would shoot a queer or colored boy on sight.  You folks can't cherry-pick small government platitudes without accepting that your wanting to live free from interference means that mixed race gay couple in town also gets to live free from interference.  If Obama wasn't elected you would still be worshiping at the altar of Karl Rove and not yelling about a rapidly expanding debt, even though W added the second-highest amount to it.

Ah..um...what?


That sounded different in my head.  I was typing using the voice of a tea party regular speaking it with a twang.  Obviously it didn't translate too well to the typed word.
 
2013-08-01 10:23:24 AM  

eiger: bopis: eiger: As a matter of historical fact, America was most economically prosperous and equal when the "tax & spend liberals" were in charge. Now that's a correlation, not necessarily a causation, but I'm just saying. Whenever conservatives have had a lot of influence (see late 19th c., the 1920s, the last few decades) things have consistently gotten worse for the average American. Once again, that's a correlation, not necessarily a causation, but it is an interesting one.

Ya but is that like the current trend, where Obama is having to "fix" everything his predecessor did?

WTF are you talking about?


I'm talking about whether economic policies take effect overnight or not or how much an administration is responsible for them. Everything in the first few years of the Regan administration was blamed on Carter, everything in the last few years has been blamed on Bush.
 
2013-08-01 10:25:53 AM  

bopis: someonelse: bopis: Liberal thinking:
Liberals agree with me 100% of the time and that makes them more highly evolved.
Conservatives disagree with me on pretty much 100% of issues, that makes them evil!
Libertarians agree/disagree with me on maybe 50% of issues, that makes them the worst!

I'll bet you thought that was clever when you were typing it. Unfortunately, it just comes off as simple minded.

I'm an idiot for oversimplifying things in a FARK THREAD?
That is pretty much my point. Seems like Liberals have a deeper, more special hate for libertarians even though there is probably a lot more common ground. I think that speaks to the closemindedness of the average liberal.
Let's decriminalize homosexuality and end the war on drugs, then we can go back to the retard flame war?


It's not the Right's stance on gay marriage that's threatening to bring down the government if Obamacare isn't defunded this year, it's the Right's Libertarian "small government" leanings.

There are very few real Libertarians in the House, and RAND PAUL is suckling on the Tea Party teat. The Tea Party takes everything the Left hates about Republicans (social conservatardism) and everything the Left hates about Libertarians ("SMALL GOVERNMENT EXCEPT THE STUFF I LIKE") and wraps them up in one coifed, white, southern-accent-having package.

But really, no one wants to see an abolition of regulations on business except Big Business and people who've been brainwashed into thinking that they'll somehow be better off without the government looking after their roads, infrastructure, safety codes, etc.
 
drp
2013-08-01 10:26:11 AM  
Fark's libertarian hate is easy to understand, but disappointing nonetheless.

The Republicans hate us because we don't hate gay people and the 1st & 4th Amendments like they do.  They want big government and police-state powers when it's convenient for them, and a drug war to pander to their small-minded constituents who want toughness on crime.

The Democrats hate us because we don't hate corporations and the 2nd Amendment like they do.  They want big government and police-state powers when it's convenient for them, and a drug war to pander to their small-minded constituents who want toughness on crime.

Taxes?  It's the Tea Party that's rabidly and irrationally anti-tax.  I'm quite content paying taxes to keep all the gears of civilization turning.


In a libertarian US, a couple of gay men could get married in Omaha while smoking joints, and then buy matching pink select-fire AR-15s while honeymooning in San Francisco.  And then they'd check the 'married filing jointly' box on their 1040 and pay their taxes to keep the roads paved and the 4th-Amendment-obeying cops' salaries paid.  But that kind of freedom would just upset too many of you R/D slaves, I guess.
 
2013-08-01 10:27:30 AM  
So where does the more personal freedom/less corporate largess/more boobies voter go?
 
2013-08-01 10:27:35 AM  

GoldSpider: I thought there was a lot more interesting information in the article than just the picture, subby.


I wouldn't blame subby. The modmins clearly changed the link to another article entirely.
 
2013-08-01 10:28:53 AM  

tentaculistic: Even Critics of Safety Net Increasingly Depend on It


Is it hypocritical for a russian peasant to complain about the length of a soviet bread line?
 
2013-08-01 10:28:56 AM  

Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.  I get no money for my autistic son.  No money for my disabling medical condition  including no medical help at all.  I make half the median income for the state.  The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity.  We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens  people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves.  They expect someone else to pay for it.  Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.


Revek, I don't want this to come across as insulting as it inevitably will, so, my apologies in advance.
In your profile, you have a link to your business...a computer repair/maintenance business. Am I correct in that?
And you live in Arkansas, where the median income, from the US census, is around $22K.
If your business is only bringing in around $11K a year, you're doing something very, very wrong.
 
2013-08-01 10:33:03 AM  

Revek: We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves


In YOUR MIND, that's the world today. That's called confirmation bias. You sound bitter.

Did you catch that you are blaming others for "today's world"?
 
2013-08-01 10:33:59 AM  

drp: In a libertarian US, a couple of gay men could get married in Omaha while smoking joints, and then buy matching pink select-fire AR-15s while honeymooning in San Francisco. And then they'd check the 'married filing jointly' box on their 1040 and pay their taxes to keep the roads paved and the 4th-Amendment-obeying cops' salaries paid. But that kind of freedom would just upset too many of you R/D slaves, I guess.


No, in a libertarian state, there would be no 1040, because there would be no income tax.  The services given to the average citizen wouldn't include social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment, or any type of public assistance.  There also wouldn't be much in the way of food or automobile regulation, an no one would have to have thing like auto insurance.

It sounds like you lean slightly libertarian, but embrace none of the ideas they espouse beyond basic social policy.
 
2013-08-01 10:34:11 AM  
I realize it's a very, very selective sampling, as I know only two self-proclaimed Libertarians, but in both of their cases, they're the most hypocritical pieces of crap I've ever run across. It's not even the "who paid for those roads you drive on, then?", it's the fact that they espouse their Libertarianism while one is on unemployment ("this isn't welfare, this is my right") and the other defrauds food stamps, disability, unemployment, and the 3 fathers of her 4 children.
(interestingly enough, both of them are very, VERY racist people, so they might just be pieces of shiat, regardless)
 
2013-08-01 10:34:48 AM  

drp: Fark's libertarian hate is easy to understand, but disappointing nonetheless.

The Republicans hate us because we don't hate gay people and the 1st & 4th Amendments like they do.  They want big government and police-state powers when it's convenient for them, and a drug war to pander to their small-minded constituents who want toughness on crime.

The Democrats hate us because we don't hate corporations and the 2nd Amendment like they do.  They want big government and police-state powers when it's convenient for them, and a drug war to pander to their small-minded constituents who want toughness on crime.

Taxes?  It's the Tea Party that's rabidly and irrationally anti-tax.  I'm quite content paying taxes to keep all the gears of civilization turning.


In a libertarian US, a couple of gay men could get married in Omaha while smoking joints, and then buy matching pink select-fire AR-15s while honeymooning in San Francisco.  And then they'd check the 'married filing jointly' box on their 1040 and pay their taxes to keep the roads paved and the 4th-Amendment-obeying cops' salaries paid.  But that kind of freedom would just upset too many of you R/D slaves, I guess.


Ah, the Libertarian 101, super simplistic view of the world. "All Republicans think this way, and all Democrats think that way!" bullshiat.

THAT'S why liberals "hate" you. You can't deal with the real world and its complexities.
 
2013-08-01 10:35:48 AM  

Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.  I get no money for my autistic son.  No money for my disabling medical condition  including no medical help at all.  I make half the median income for the state.  The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity.  We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens  people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves.  They expect someone else to pay for it.  Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.


I like how YOU decided to harm your son in the long term by not getting offered treatment early in his life when it could have made a difference.  I too have an autistic son.  You know what I would do to get him even slightly closer to mainstream so he can have a happy and healthy (and ultimately more productive) life?  ANYTHING.  I'll take from the government, borrow against my house, take money from my aged parents, strangers.  Want to see me streak?  Pay for my son's therapy and I'll even let you spank my bare ass.

So I'm going to say it.  Your libertarian principles broke libertarian principles.  You, by your neglect, harmed another.  You HARMED your own SON!  That makes you a highly principled monster and if your son later is not able to function, we the people have to care for his well being after you are gone.

There is a role of the state.  One of those roles is to keep me from punching you in your evil face and taking your son away from you because you are a neglectful mouthbreather.  Hope your piety keeps you well in your old age, because your son will be too busy struggling to help you.
 
2013-08-01 10:37:04 AM  

eiger: As a matter of historical fact, America was most economically prosperous and equal when the "tax & spend liberals" were in charge.


The US peak was somewhere between the Johnson and Nixon administrations, with fairly little difference either way between them.

It occurred almost coincidentally there, mainly because Europe finally recovered from WWII somewhere around 1970.
 
2013-08-01 10:38:57 AM  

plewis: Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.  I get no money for my autistic son.  No money for my disabling medical condition  including no medical help at all.  I make half the median income for the state.  The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity.  We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens  people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves.  They expect someone else to pay for it.  Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.

I like how YOU decided to harm your son in the long term by not getting offered treatment early in his life when it could have made a difference.  I too have an autistic son.  You know what I would do to get him even slightly closer to mainstream so he can have a happy and healthy (and ultimately more productive) life?  ANYTHING.  I'll take from the government, borrow against my house, take money from my aged parents, strangers.  Want to see me streak?  Pay for my son's therapy and I'll even let you spank my bare ass.

So I'm going to say it.  Your libertarian principles broke libertarian principles.  You, by your neglect, harmed another.  You HARMED your own SON!  That makes you a highly principled monster and if your son later is not able to function, we the people have to care for his well being after you are gone.

There is a role of the state.  One of those roles is to keep me from punching you in your evil face and taking your son away from you because you are a neglectful mouthbreather.  Hope your piety keeps you well in your old age, because your son will be too busy struggling to help you.


<ohsnap.jpg>
 
2013-08-01 10:40:29 AM  

Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.  I get no money for my autistic son.  No money for my disabling medical condition  including no medical help at all.  I make half the median income for the state.  The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity.  We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens  people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves.  They expect someone else to pay for it.  Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.


Math time. Just over ten years ago, in a county in PA, it cost  $303,000/mile to replace the underlayment in macadamized roads (put in better base rock and repave). Costs go up, and in 2008 in Pittsburgh it cost an average of $338,000 per mile to repave city streets (usually 24 feet wide). So that's around a million dollars every three miles... and much more for the interstate system.

Ever use a weather forecast to determine whether to take a coat or an umbrella, or what day of the week to get the lawnmower out?

Test all your own food for toxins and pathogens? Ever used a library in your life? Taught yourself t read, or went to a private school totally paid for by your family?

Tell us again how you've received nothing from the government. You sound like a teenager complaining that they never get to do anything when there's a whole system of support around you you just take for granted. And, quite frankly, those of us that recognize society are sick of the bullshiat.
 
2013-08-01 10:41:08 AM  

mediablitz: drp: Fark's libertarian hate is easy to understand, but disappointing nonetheless.

The Republicans hate us because we don't hate gay people and the 1st & 4th Amendments like they do.  They want big government and police-state powers when it's convenient for them, and a drug war to pander to their small-minded constituents who want toughness on crime.

The Democrats hate us because we don't hate corporations and the 2nd Amendment like they do.  They want big government and police-state powers when it's convenient for them, and a drug war to pander to their small-minded constituents who want toughness on crime.

Taxes?  It's the Tea Party that's rabidly and irrationally anti-tax.  I'm quite content paying taxes to keep all the gears of civilization turning.


In a libertarian US, a couple of gay men could get married in Omaha while smoking joints, and then buy matching pink select-fire AR-15s while honeymooning in San Francisco.  And then they'd check the 'married filing jointly' box on their 1040 and pay their taxes to keep the roads paved and the 4th-Amendment-obeying cops' salaries paid.  But that kind of freedom would just upset too many of you R/D slaves, I guess.

Ah, the Libertarian 101, super simplistic view of the world. "All Republicans think this way, and all Democrats think that way!" bullshiat.

THAT'S why liberals "hate" you. You can't deal with the real world and its complexities.


so EVERYone hates ALL of those people becase they ALL generalize?
 
2013-08-01 10:43:13 AM  
 
2013-08-01 10:45:31 AM  

Khellendros: No, in a libertarian state, there would be no 1040, because there would be no income tax. The services given to the average citizen wouldn't include social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment, or any type of public assistance. There also wouldn't be much in the way of food or automobile regulation, an no one would have to have thing like auto insurance.


There's nothing in libertarianism that prevents unemployment or auto insurance. Hell, there are plenty of non-state or non-mandatory insurance mutuals.

The income tax thing is interesting, and while arguably true, it also ignores that direct taxes have mostly disappeared in its stead.

I don't quite follow you on food/automobile regulation. Even independent of NHTSA and the FDA, states already regulate these things, and even the States-Rights interpretation of the Constitution pretty clearly lets the Fed handle the interstate aspects.
 
2013-08-01 10:47:24 AM  

Jackpot777: Ever used a library in your life?


I have. Andrew Carnegie bought it.
 
2013-08-01 10:49:03 AM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: plewis:

[images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 480x360]


cdn.uproxx.com
 
2013-08-01 10:50:11 AM  

Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.  I get no money for my autistic son.  No money for my disabling medical condition  including no medical help at all.  I make half the median income for the state.  The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity.  We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens  people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves.  They expect someone else to pay for it.  Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.


A few government-subsidized apostrophes wouldn't hurt.
 
2013-08-01 10:50:44 AM  
Tea Party Protesters Protest D.C. Metro Service


Protesters who attended Saturday's Tea Party rally in Washington found a new reason to be upset: Apparently they are unhappy with the level of service provided by the subway system.

Rep. Kevin Brady asked for an explanation of why the government-run subway system didn't, in his view, adequately prepare for this past weekend's rally to protest government spending and government services.  The Texas Republican on Wednesday released a letter he sent to Washington's Metro system complaining that the taxpayer-funded subway system was unable to properly transport protesters to the rally to protest government spending and expansion.

"These individuals came all the way from Southeast Texas to protest the excessive spending and growing government intrusion by the 111th Congress and the new Obama administration," Brady wrote.

-----

Not surprising, really.
 
2013-08-01 10:51:55 AM  

plewis: I like how YOU decided to harm your son in the long term by not getting offered treatment early in his life when it could have made a difference.  I too have an autistic son.  You know what I would do to get him even slightly closer to mainstream so he can have a happy and healthy (and ultimately more productive) life?  ANYTHING.  I'll take from the government, borrow against my house, take money from my aged parents, strangers.  Want to see me streak?  Pay for my son's therapy and I'll even let you spank my bare ass.


this is not sarcastic

i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-01 10:52:43 AM  
Did I miss something in TFA, or did Subby just pick out some random article to go along with his headline?

Small l libertarianism is the most accurate descriptor of my political philosophy. I work for the government. I don't think twice about taking whatever handouts are available even while actively opposing them. It's the only rational thing to do.

Thanks for picking up the bulk of the cost of the solar panels that got turned on yesterday on the house you paid me $8000 to buy with the mortgage you subsidize on multiple levels, fellow taxpayers!
 
2013-08-01 10:53:00 AM  

CrazyCracka420: Satan's Bunny Slippers: plewis:

[images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 480x360]

[cdn.uproxx.com image 480x360]


Your jib.  I like it's cut.
 
2013-08-01 10:54:18 AM  

This text is now purple: Jackpot777: Ever used a library in your life?

I have. Andrew Carnegie bought it.


Does he still pay for the upkeep and running of the building, or is it impervious to weather and run by perpetual motion machine? Seeing as he died almost a century ago, and what with buildings having parts exposed to the elements and how electrical systems work.
 
2013-08-01 10:59:46 AM  

This text is now purple: There's nothing in libertarianism that prevents unemployment or auto insurance. Hell, there are plenty of non-state or non-mandatory insurance mutuals.


There's a lot in libertarianism that prevents REQUIRED auto insurance - which then poorer families won't get.  They'll be criminally held responsible for damages, sure, but that does nothing to make victims whole.  State and federal unemployment insurance would go quickly behind.

This text is now purple: I don't quite follow you on food/automobile regulation. Even independent of NHTSA and the FDA, states already regulate these things, and even the States-Rights interpretation of the Constitution pretty clearly lets the Fed handle the interstate aspects


Libertarian politicians have consistently pushed for the abolition of most regulatory and/or funding agencies at the federal level, including the USDA, the NHTSA, the DOT, NIST, the FDA, and even the NSF.  Some also adopt the wonderful right-wing ideas of dropping the EPA, DOI, the DOE, and a dozen others.  Any department of regulation or standards is top of the list in elimination under libertarian policies.  They target tax structures next.
 
2013-08-01 10:59:49 AM  
So you are determined to live a shiatty life, if it means your conscience is clean?

You damn right.  My conscience being clean is more important to me than the comfort I live in.
 
2013-08-01 11:00:33 AM  

LasersHurt: SovietCanuckistan: I have always wondered why all the Libertarian threads on Fark  go so long and get so many reactions.

Because for Years now Libertarians have tried to "educate" everyone on what Libertarians really are, since we keep insisting on judging them by the actions and words of the people who call themselves Libertarians.



This.

Every time someone calling themselves a libertarian does something dumb in the news, I ask my libertarian friends, "What do you think of this?"

And, consistantly and unanimously they say, "Oh, [that person] isn't a ~real~ libertarian."

They've even said this about Ron Paul.


It's almost like it's the libertarian version of Mission Impossible.

"And if you say something, anything at all, the libertarian movement will farking disavow that you ever farking existed."
 
2013-08-01 11:03:25 AM  

slayer199: WTF are you talking about submittitard?

TFA was talking about the rise of libertarianism inside the GOP.  Right now the party is heading for a split.  The social conservatard theocrats that have run the party for nearly 20 years and want to make the GOP MORE socially conservative vs. the social liberals/fiscal conservatives that want to bring the GOP into the 21st century.

No matter what happens, it will be amusing to watch the GOP implode.  I'll get the popcorn.


I can't say I would hail the implosion of either party. You need only to look as far as Virginia to see how sloppy the dems will get when the republicans aren't credible. The republicans put up Cuccinelli? That guy who has attacked the university and fought for transvaginal ultrasounds and against sodomy? That'll be easy, said the dems, who have we got that we owe a favor? Out pops Terry McAulliffe, in whom I have barely more confidence than Cuccinelli. No, it's better for all of us if neither's a joke. Alas, in many respects, they both are.

\Also see the 2004 D presidential ticket. Kerry was respectable enough, but John Edwards? Did he even incline a single state towards D? For instance, Dick Gephardt would have stood a meaningful chance to deliver Missouri or Iowa. Edwards didn't even take NC, and the D's won, and we got four more years of simple Bush. Each party is more than willing to stoop low. It's best not to hope that they do.
 
2013-08-01 11:05:08 AM  

astinkywind: Subby doesn't know what a Libertarian is. *facepalm* did he even read the artical.


and most of the people commenting in this thread do not know what Libertarians, Liberals, or Conservatives are.  They just think they do and then issue forth hyperbolic statements in some attempt to at once make someone or group of people with possibly opposing views from themselves look like idiots and themselves look like brilliant political philosophers with all the correct answers.
 
2013-08-01 11:07:33 AM  

mithras_angel: LasersHurt: SovietCanuckistan: I have always wondered why all the Libertarian threads on Fark  go so long and get so many reactions.

Because for Years now Libertarians have tried to "educate" everyone on what Libertarians really are, since we keep insisting on judging them by the actions and words of the people who call themselves Libertarians.


This.

Every time someone calling themselves a libertarian does something dumb in the news, I ask my libertarian friends, "What do you think of this?"

And, consistantly and unanimously they say, "Oh, [that person] isn't a ~real~ libertarian."


Well, isn't this true with almost any group? "Lieberman isn't a real Democrat", "Spector's a RINO"...Christians and Moslems do it all the time, saying that somebody's not a true believer due to their actions. Hell, even Alcoholics Anonymous does it, claiming a near 100% success rate because if you have a drink of alcohol, you're no longer a member of AA.
 
2013-08-01 11:07:55 AM  

Exception Collection: I am a socialist - I believe the necessities of life should be provided for free to the general public (though comfort is not a requirement, just health; stack the shelter beds like Japanese tube hotels and give out energy bars made out of cardboard for all I care).

I'm also in the top 20% of earners nationally, have never received social safety net aid, and refuse to rely on others for anything I can do for myself.

/I challenge anyone to find a person more bootstrappy than I am.


You are in the low percentile of what most socialists believe. For most, a safely net that gives you a minimal standard of living is not "fair". We are paying a lot more than what would constitute your "necessities of life". Too many on the left want taxes to be punitive instead of what they should be, simply a way for government to raise revenues. Pass the fair tax and make the amount of tax rebate that each person gets a level that will allow them to live off of it at a minimal standard of living, and it would take away the incentive to do nothing and sit around collecting welfare. You'd be guaranteed the minimum amount of money, and it wouldn't be at risk of being taken away if you decided to better your life and work a little. There'd be no hidden taxes, and no penalties for making "too much" money, and no reason to squirrel your money away in useless tax shelters.
 
2013-08-01 11:10:45 AM  

Exception Collection: I am a socialist - I believe the necessities of life should be provided for free to the general public (though comfort is not a requirement, just health; stack the shelter beds like Japanese tube hotels and give out energy bars made out of cardboard for all I care).

I'm also in the top 20% of earners nationally, have never received social safety net aid, and refuse to rely on others for anything I can do for myself.

/I challenge anyone to find a person more bootstrappy than I am.


Everyone is somewhere on the continuum from ultimate libertarian (anarchist) to ultimate socialist (communist/Marxist).

Whether you call yourself (or are called by others) depends on how your place on the continuum compares to where the country is on the continuum. The US is already somewhat socialist (very progressive tax structure, social safety net, etc). That's not bad, "socialist" shouldn't be considered a bad word.

Unless you oppose any aspects of the social safety net, public libraries, public schools, publicly funded ire departments, etc etc, you are at least partly socialist.
 
2013-08-01 11:12:37 AM  

Qellaqan: I can't say I would hail the implosion of either party. You need only to look as far as Virginia to see how sloppy the dems will get when the republicans aren't credible. The republicans put up Cuccinelli? That guy who has attacked the university and fought for transvaginal ultrasounds and against sodomy? That'll be easy, said the dems, who have we got that we owe a favor? Out pops Terry McAulliffe, in whom I have barely more confidence than Cuccinelli. No, it's better for all of us if neither's a joke. Alas, in many respects, they both are.


The only reason I'd look forward to the split is so I could enjoy the marginalization of the social conservatives that have run the party for the last 20 years.  They think the reason the GOP has been losing is because they aren't conservative enough.  Despite what liberal farkers may think, there are legitimate criticisms of Obama and the Democratic party...unfortunately, the GOP can't find them with a road map.
 
2013-08-01 11:13:29 AM  

plewis: Want to see me streak? Pay for my son's therapy and I'll even let you spank my bare ass.


I see a kickstarter campaign here soon
 
2013-08-01 11:19:38 AM  

Usurper4: mithras_angel: LasersHurt: SovietCanuckistan: I have always wondered why all the Libertarian threads on Fark  go so long and get so many reactions.

Because for Years now Libertarians have tried to "educate" everyone on what Libertarians really are, since we keep insisting on judging them by the actions and words of the people who call themselves Libertarians.


This.

Every time someone calling themselves a libertarian does something dumb in the news, I ask my libertarian friends, "What do you think of this?"

And, consistantly and unanimously they say, "Oh, [that person] isn't a ~real~ libertarian."

Well, isn't this true with almost any group? "Lieberman isn't a real Democrat", "Spector's a RINO"...Christians and Moslems do it all the time, saying that somebody's not a true believer due to their actions. Hell, even Alcoholics Anonymous does it, claiming a near 100% success rate because if you have a drink of alcohol, you're no longer a member of AA.


Yes and no.

I'm not a fan of Barbara Boxer, by any means.  I disagree with her on a number of policy issues.  But I don't say she's not a Democrat.  I say "she's not my kind of Democrat/liberal", and if someone challenged her who had a platform that was any good*, I'd back him...  but I don't say "she's not one of us", though others may.

With libertarians, because each one has their own variation on what it means to be a libertarian, regularly takes the position that if they're not in 99% agreement with them, then that other person isn't a "real libertarian".

It comes down to a national platform.  Both the Republican and Democratic party have platforms - sets of policy positions that they can point to and can say, "we believe in this".  Sure, the Log Cabin Republicans vary off the main, as do the Blue Dog Democrats, but they've both got a baseline that they start from.

Libertarians don't have a baseline that that they, ~as a party~, can really point to and say, "this is what a majority of us believe, and this is how it should be implemented".

People bring up that "types of libertarians" comic regularly, and it is, at least in this case, much more accurate than they would care to admit.  With that many divisions, they can't make an effective platform.


/*I'd run against her, but I'd have no chance, and would lose my job in the process if I did run.
 
2013-08-01 11:23:02 AM  
Wait, is this about the hippies-in-the-woods libertarians, or the I'm-so-rich-that-I-don't-need-a-government libertarians?  So confusing!
 
2013-08-01 11:25:22 AM  

MarkEC: Exception Collection: I am a socialist - I believe the necessities of life should be provided for free to the general public (though comfort is not a requirement, just health; stack the shelter beds like Japanese tube hotels and give out energy bars made out of cardboard for all I care).

I'm also in the top 20% of earners nationally, have never received social safety net aid, and refuse to rely on others for anything I can do for myself.

/I challenge anyone to find a person more bootstrappy than I am.

You are in the low percentile of what most socialists believe. For most, a safely net that gives you a minimal standard of living is not "fair". We are paying a lot more than what would constitute your "necessities of life". Too many on the left want taxes to be punitive instead of what they should be, simply a way for government to raise revenues. Pass the fair tax and make the amount of tax rebate that each person gets a level that will allow them to live off of it at a minimal standard of living, and it would take away the incentive to do nothing and sit around collecting welfare. You'd be guaranteed the minimum amount of money, and it wouldn't be at risk of being taken away if you decided to better your life and work a little. There'd be no hidden taxes, and no penalties for making "too much" money, and no reason to squirrel your money away in useless tax shelters.


That's one option I agree with - flat tax on everything over some percentage of the median income for a region (minimum amount to survive in Seattle being higher than the minimum to survive in Phoenix).

I also suggest a legal restraint on relative incomes; restrict CEOs to 100x the full time equivalent of their lowest paid employee.
 
2013-08-01 11:27:23 AM  

dentalhilljack: I'm not 100% LP.org "Libertarian" because I do recognize that there are some government safety nets, consumer protections, and public goods/infrastructure that are valuable, but on average I do agree with their general philosophy that a smaller, more efficient government is better than what we have.  True tax & spend liberals have always pissed me off, but as I've grown up into the semi-responsible adult that I am I've been driven away from the Republicans by the extreme hypocrisy of social conservatives who want government out of our wallets but in our bedrooms.

What pisses me off even more than a tax & spender or a social conservative, though, is the tea party types suddenly claiming a "libertarian" viewpoint when 90% of the tea party would shoot a queer or colored boy on sight.  You folks can't cherry-pick small government platitudes without accepting that your wanting to live free from interference means that mixed race gay couple in town also gets to live free from interference.  If Obama wasn't elected you would still be worshiping at the altar of Karl Rove and not yelling about a rapidly expanding debt, even though W added the second-highest amount to it.


I agree with your post, you stated things much better than I could have since I'm a rambly little farker.  I, like you am not 100%, dyed in the wool, radical libertarian, but I am a registered Libertarian.  Could never get down with either the Dems or Repubs, never been registered with either party.  I chose to register Libertarian because I tend to really like the folks that they support running for office, at least in Colorado.  If the Libertarians have a caucus for the mid-terms in my state, I would like to be able to participate.  That's something I wouldn't be able to do if I was registered Unaffiliated.  Oh, and the Tea Partiers may go fly a kite-they have very little business comparing themselves to the majority of Libertarians I know, and I do know a few, seems like the party is growing by leaps and bounds and you know what they say, the bigger the village, the more idiots there are.  Every party has it's share of morons contained within it.
 
2013-08-01 11:30:52 AM  

slayer199: Despite what liberal farkers may think, there are legitimate criticisms of Obama and the Democratic party...unfortunately, the GOP can't find them with a road map.


...let alone give Democrats a reasonable alternative to vote for.
 
2013-08-01 11:32:14 AM  

Exception Collection: I also suggest a legal restraint on relative incomes; restrict CEOs to 100x the full time equivalent of their lowest paid employee.


More people would support that if they could do the basic math and understand what that means.  Unfortunately the people who would be negatively affected by that also happen to be the ones making the rules, so there's that too...
 
2013-08-01 11:34:26 AM  

Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.  I get no money for my autistic son.  No money for my disabling medical condition  including no medical help at all.  I make half the median income for the state.  The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity.  We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens  people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves.  They expect someone else to pay for it.  Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.


.... in the minds of idiots who don't understand liberals OR conservatives.

But that's ok.  After all, libertarianism makes you stupid.  It happens.
 
2013-08-01 11:37:46 AM  
I saw nothing in that article vaguely related to this headline.
 
2013-08-01 11:43:01 AM  

GoldSpider: Exception Collection: I also suggest a legal restraint on relative incomes; restrict CEOs to 100x the full time equivalent of their lowest paid employee.

More people would support that if they could do the basic math and understand what that means.  Unfortunately the people who would be negatively affected by that also happen to be the ones making the rules, so there's that too...


Tying to lowest paid employee makes no sense - legislatively or business-wise.  Tying to average, sure.  But if you have a specific oulier in your large company that is a minimum wage employee for a good reason (as exists in any sufficiently large business), tying anyone's salary to an outlier among 100,000 employees is silly.  It makes far more sense to lock to averages among a diverse population.  It promotes more equitable treatment of your employees as well - they're worried about more than just the number of the guy at the bottom. They have to deal with everyone.
 
2013-08-01 11:54:00 AM  

Khellendros: But if you have a specific oulier in your large company that is a minimum wage employee for a good reason


If your business relies on minimum wage labor to be profitable, perhaps you should pay your executives less.  The guy earning $20k isn't stealing food from the table of the executive who's making $2 million.
 
2013-08-01 11:57:35 AM  

Exception Collection: I also suggest a legal restraint on relative incomes; restrict CEOs to 100x the full time equivalent of their lowest paid employee


I don't agree with those types of limits.

However It hink any typs of discounted stock purchase -lan or payment in stock should have a x year wait before you can sell it off.

I got no problem if a CEO get an ass ton of money.  I have a problem if they chop up a compnay or take shortcuts that hamstring it long term and they can just leave with a golden parachute.
 
2013-08-01 11:59:26 AM  

liam76: Exception Collection: I also suggest a legal restraint on relative incomes; restrict CEOs to 100x the full time equivalent of their lowest paid employee

I don't agree with those types of limits.

However It hink any typs of discounted stock purchase -lan or payment in stock should have a x year wait before you can sell it off.

I got no problem if a CEO get an ass ton of money.  I have a problem if they chop up a compnay or take shortcuts that hamstring it long term and they can just leave with a golden parachute.


But I will take no steps to prevent the rewarding of this risky behavior?
 
2013-08-01 12:07:35 PM  

LasersHurt: liam76: Exception Collection: I also suggest a legal restraint on relative incomes; restrict CEOs to 100x the full time equivalent of their lowest paid employee

I don't agree with those types of limits.

However It hink any typs of discounted stock purchase -lan or payment in stock should have a x year wait before you can sell it off.

I got no problem if a CEO get an ass ton of money.  I have a problem if they chop up a compnay or take shortcuts that hamstring it long term and they can just leave with a golden parachute.

But I will take no steps to prevent the rewarding of this risky behavior?


I am pretty sure not letting them sell off stocks (how most get the big bucks) is a step to prevent this risky behavior.  I am also open to more steps.

So I am not sure wher eyou are going with that.
 
2013-08-01 12:09:46 PM  

GoldSpider: Khellendros: But if you have a specific oulier in your large company that is a minimum wage employee for a good reason

If your business relies on minimum wage labor to be profitable, perhaps you should pay your executives less.  The guy earning $20k isn't stealing food from the table of the executive who's making $2 million.


I didn't say "relies on minimum wage labor to be profitable".  Read what I wrote - it's very likely in a large company that you have a small group of employees that work jobs that are rightfully paid at minimum wage.  The number is likely very small.  If a company's execs only have to be concerned with making sure the bottom wage earner (note, singular) in the company are at a high enough level to keep exec salaries high, they have no incentive to help their entire workforce.  Tying it to average helps to keep everyone in a good position, particularly the bulk of employees in the lower wage levels (but well above minimum).

Tying to average helps everyone.  Tying to minimum helps two people - the CEO and the one guy at the bottom.  That's it.
 
2013-08-01 12:09:50 PM  

Magnus: do not know what Libertarians, Liberals, or Conservatives are


A group that reveres power and insists on easy access to it,

A group that is okay with granting others power so long as those that hold it act on their behalf.

A group that reveres power and want to directly obtain that power,

//Cheers,
 
2013-08-01 12:10:05 PM  

liam76: I am pretty sure not letting them sell off stocks (how most get the big bucks) is a step to prevent this risky behavior.  I am also open to more steps.

So I am not sure wher eyou are going with that.


Capping CEO pay helps prevent short term measures that tend to push these high-salaried execs who run a company poorly. It focuses them to build the company at all levels, and in so doing create a much stronger organization.

I just think it's a good tool for preventing the very sort of thing you want to prevent.
 
2013-08-01 12:11:46 PM  
The fundamental lie of modern libertarianism is that you can cleanly divide all issues between "social" and "economic". But economic injustice is and has always been the largest social issue in existence.


/money is power

//the purpose of government is to prevent the powerful from abusing the powerless
 
2013-08-01 12:15:15 PM  

unlikely: It has been my experience that I agree with some and disagree with some because there is no consistent core of beliefs from one libertarian to the next.


Libertarian discussions often turn into "more libertarian than thou".  If you put 5 libertarians in a room, the once closest to Anarcho-capitalist will complain that he is in a room with 4 statist drones, the one closest to Republican/Democrat will complain that he is in a room with Minarchists, and the other three will shake their heads at how everyone else in the room is naive about how the world works.
 
2013-08-01 12:18:38 PM  

ciberido: Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.  I get no money for my autistic son.  No money for my disabling medical condition  including no medical help at all.  I make half the median income for the state.  The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity.  We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens  people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves.  They expect someone else to pay for it.  Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.

.... in the minds of idiots who don't understand liberals OR conservatives.

But that's ok.  After all, libertarianism makes you stupid.  It happens.


Libertarianism turns you into a demonrat Farklib?
 
2013-08-01 12:18:39 PM  
What I learned from this thread: "Libertarian" means letting your autistic child suffer so you can chest-thump on the internet about your bootstraps.
 
2013-08-01 12:19:28 PM  

Aristocles: Well, I do get my money from the Army, but that's for services provided.


You are a government employee, and will continue to benefit from an extensive government provided health care system after you are discharged.

Libertarians allegedly oppose coercion by governments--which is the military's sole purpose.
 
2013-08-01 12:20:09 PM  

rvesco: Khellendros: Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.

That's impressive.  You don't drive cars on roads, bridges, or overpasses?  You don't eat food grow in the U.S., or shipped in from outside the country?  You don't ever travel across publicly maintained land?  Bought a car that is subject to safety regulations?  Use a public utility such as power, water, telephone, or internet?  You defend your own land with your own army?  You don't watch television regulated by the FCC or look at a clock that has time set by NIST created standards?  You don't use federally issued currency, or send or receive anything by the postal service?  You've never called the police for anything?  Needed to have friends or family helped by the fire department?

Truly, you receive nothing from the government.  I salute you, citizen.  You're a beacon to all of us.

TRANSLATION:  We have already socialized society and are winning the war.  Surrender, Libertarians!


If by "surrender" you mean "stop being deluded, selfish idiots," then sure.
 
2013-08-01 12:22:13 PM  

flondrix: Aristocles: Well, I do get my money from the Army, but that's for services provided.

You are a government employee, and will continue to benefit from an extensive government provided health care system after you are discharged.

Libertarians allegedly oppose coercion by governments--which is the military's sole purpose.


The government has hired the company I work for, so the money comes from the Army, but I'm not a Soldier.
 
2013-08-01 12:23:17 PM  

Usurper4: mithras_angel: LasersHurt: SovietCanuckistan: I have always wondered why all the Libertarian threads on Fark  go so long and get so many reactions.

Because for Years now Libertarians have tried to "educate" everyone on what Libertarians really are, since we keep insisting on judging them by the actions and words of the people who call themselves Libertarians.


This.

Every time someone calling themselves a libertarian does something dumb in the news, I ask my libertarian friends, "What do you think of this?"

And, consistantly and unanimously they say, "Oh, [that person] isn't a ~real~ libertarian."

Well, isn't this true with almost any group? "Lieberman isn't a real Democrat", "Spector's a RINO"...Christians and Moslems do it all the time, saying that somebody's not a true believer due to their actions. Hell, even Alcoholics Anonymous does it, claiming a near 100% success rate because if you have a drink of alcohol, you're no longer a member of AA.


Not to the same extreme, at least with Democrats and Republicans.  (I really can't speak to most of the rest of your examples.)

With regards to Lieberman, he was consistantly told, "You know that's not part of our platform, right?" and continued to ignore that, was eventually disavowed, and then switched to Independant (largely because he lost a primary, but wanted to continue to be in the Senate).  He was to the right of even many Republicans on several issues.  The Democratic Party, honestly, was never the best fit for him, but it's what got him elected for many years.

With RINOs, it's important to note that this particular pejorative came from extreme, ideologically "pure" members of the Republican party.  It was a way to drive out the moderates in the party, not because they weren't Republican, but because they were insufficiently Republican.  The Club for Growth pushed it as a way to get more of their candidates through primaries; a policy which often backfired, as the candidate could win the primary, but was unable to take the positions necessary to win the general election.

In both those cases, though, the targets of those didn't (and don't) turn around and say, "well, you're not a [blank], either".  Which is not the case with Libertarians.

The Libertarian factions have so many differences that most (or even all) proclaim themselves to be the "true" Libertarians, and the others to be "not real Libertarians".
 
2013-08-01 12:25:09 PM  

ExcedrinHeadache: I always thought that Libertarians were just Republicans who wanted to keep hating brown poor people but still be able to smoke weed.


No, Libertarians are Conservatives who don't want to go to church.
 
2013-08-01 12:27:08 PM  
You know who else are big hypocrites? the Native Americans

Now hear me out. They made all this hoopla over this being "their land", and they even killed US citizens over it. They pretended they didn't need the US government.

Look at them today: they live on government reservations, get healthcare, free education, roads, government military defense, the whole deal. A clear case of hypocrisy. If they weren't hypocrites, they would take back their lands and not live under our rule, and do their own thing.

So obviously the American Indians were full of shiat all along. My ad hominem argument demonstrates they were clearly, logically, wrong.

/part Native American
//radical libertarian
///"If you're not taking flak, you're not over the target."
 
2013-08-01 12:27:36 PM  

Khellendros: Tying to average helps everyone. Tying to minimum helps two people - the CEO and the one guy at the bottom. That's it.


In any case it would be a step in the right direction.
 
2013-08-01 12:29:07 PM  

Neighborhood Watch: If everyone on welfare was a Libertarian, then the Democrat party would cease to exist.


Instead, Libertarians get their government handouts in the form of farm subsidies, salaries paid by government organizations, defense contracts for weapons systems that the military doesn't even want, veterans benefits, medicare ("Keep your government hands off my medicare!"), etc.
 
2013-08-01 12:29:47 PM  

GoldSpider: Khellendros: But if you have a specific oulier in your large company that is a minimum wage employee for a good reason

If your business relies on minimum wage labor to be profitable, perhaps you should pay your executives less.  The guy earning $20k isn't stealing food from the table of the executive who's making $2 million.


Perhaps. But that's something that the shareholders should determine, not some arbitrary ratio.
 
2013-08-01 12:30:46 PM  

LasersHurt: liam76: I am pretty sure not letting them sell off stocks (how most get the big bucks) is a step to prevent this risky behavior.  I am also open to more steps.

So I am not sure wher eyou are going with that.

Capping CEO pay helps prevent short term measures that tend to push these high-salaried execs who run a company poorly. It focuses them to build the company at all levels, and in so doing create a much stronger organization.

I just think it's a good tool for preventing the very sort of thing you want to prevent.


You would have a hard time getting that to pass cosntitutional muster.
 
2013-08-01 12:32:47 PM  
Khellendros: Tying to average helps everyone.  Tying to minimum helps two people - the CEO and the one guy at the bottom.  That's it.

Agreed .

Interns are also employees. Typing top wages to the bottom wages effectively closes the door those inexperienced trainees are trying to get their foot in.
 
2013-08-01 12:34:51 PM  

drp: In a libertarian US, a couple of gay men could get married in Omaha while smoking joints, and then buy matching pink select-fire AR-15s while honeymooning in San Francisco. And then they'd check the 'married filing jointly' box on their 1040 and pay their taxes to keep the roads paved and the 4th-Amendment-obeying cops' salaries paid. But that kind of freedom would just upset too many of you R/D slaves, I guess.


That's part of a (certain type of) libertarian US, sure .  But the downside would be that in a (certain type of) libertarian US, if that couple was a gay black couple, every Hotel in Omaha might be legally be able to say "no coloreds" (because right-thinking people will just totes boycott bigoted entrepreneurs), and while on their honeymoon in San Francisco they would end up eating an e coli and prion infested steak (but that's OK.  Once word gets around, that restaurant and supplier will both go out of business and more responsible ones will take their place.

Most versions of libertarian style governance require far more symmetrical information than is available currently, and typically assumes a standard of living, and the amount of free time that  around 80% of the country simply does not have.

That's not to say that libertarian thought doesn't have it's place.  Especially when it comes to protectionist nonsense regarding corporate licensing, government bloat, privacy rights and civil liberties.  But far too much of the ideal libertarian city/state/country seems to be populated by people who assume that everyone there will behave like and have access to the same resources as your average upper-middle class white male.
 
2013-08-01 12:36:11 PM  

Usurper4: Every time someone calling themselves a libertarian does something dumb in the news, I ask my libertarian friends, "What do you think of this?"

And, consistantly and unanimously they say, "Oh, [that person] isn't a ~real~ libertarian."

Well, isn't this true with almost any group? "Lieberman isn't a real Democrat", "Spector's a RINO"...Christians and Moslems do it all the time, saying that somebody's not a true believer due to their actions. Hell, even Alcoholics Anonymous does it, claiming a near 100% success rate because if you have a drink of alcohol, you're no longer a member of AA.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

My corollary to the No True Scotsman Fallacy is that it inevitably turns out that there are no "True Scotsmen".  (For example: "Real communism has never been tried.")
 
2013-08-01 12:37:53 PM  

liam76: LasersHurt: liam76: I am pretty sure not letting them sell off stocks (how most get the big bucks) is a step to prevent this risky behavior.  I am also open to more steps.

So I am not sure wher eyou are going with that.

Capping CEO pay helps prevent short term measures that tend to push these high-salaried execs who run a company poorly. It focuses them to build the company at all levels, and in so doing create a much stronger organization.

I just think it's a good tool for preventing the very sort of thing you want to prevent.

You would have a hard time getting that to pass cosntitutional muster.


Err, what?
 
2013-08-01 12:39:27 PM  

mithras_angel: Usurper4: mithras_angel: LasersHurt: SovietCanuckistan: I have always wondered why all the Libertarian threads on Fark  go so long and get so many reactions.

Because for Years now Libertarians have tried to "educate" everyone on what Libertarians really are, since we keep insisting on judging them by the actions and words of the people who call themselves Libertarians.


This.

Every time someone calling themselves a libertarian does something dumb in the news, I ask my libertarian friends, "What do you think of this?"

And, consistantly and unanimously they say, "Oh, [that person] isn't a ~real~ libertarian."

Well, isn't this true with almost any group? "Lieberman isn't a real Democrat", "Spector's a RINO"...Christians and Moslems do it all the time, saying that somebody's not a true believer due to their actions. Hell, even Alcoholics Anonymous does it, claiming a near 100% success rate because if you have a drink of alcohol, you're no longer a member of AA.

Not to the same extreme, at least with Democrats and Republicans.  (I really can't speak to most of the rest of your examples.)

With regards to Lieberman, he was consistantly told, "You know that's not part of our platform, right?" and continued to ignore that, was eventually disavowed, and then switched to Independant (largely because he lost a primary, but wanted to continue to be in the Senate).  He was to the right of even many Republicans on several issues.  The Democratic Party, honestly, was never the best fit for him, but it's what got him elected for many years.

With RINOs, it's important to note that this particular pejorative came from extreme, ideologically "pure" members of the Republican party.  It was a way to drive out the moderates in the party, not because they weren't Republican, but because they were insufficiently Republican.  The Club for Growth pushed it as a way to get more of their candidates through primaries; a policy which often backfired, as the candidate could win the primary ...


It's also easier to cast out the alleged impurities when you are in a party that holds power in your state/city, whatever.  Libertarians are content to cast out allies even before they have any real power (and yet too-often oddly reluctant to cast out the racists who use libertarianism as a cover).
 
2013-08-01 12:43:56 PM  

ciberido: No, Libertarians are Conservatives who don't want to go to church.


The Libertarian M.O. is the removal of intermediaries.

If only the church would get out of the way.

:)
 
2013-08-01 12:48:09 PM  

Garble: The fundamental lie of modern libertarianism is that you can cleanly divide all issues between "social" and "economic". But economic injustice is and has always been the largest social issue in existence.


/money is power

//the purpose of government is to prevent the powerful from abusing the powerless


Translation: we want to protect people with no money, from people with lots of money. So lets create another group of people, and give them lots of money so they can protect us. Because the danger is people with lots of money...wait, what?

/not sure if you're serious
 
2013-08-01 12:51:09 PM  
The "libertarians" I know are usually washed up losers in their 30s who tell me that they'd quit waiting tables and "get a real job" except for the fact that government ruins everything. There's no point in trying.
 
2013-08-01 12:55:45 PM  

Phil McKraken: The "libertarians" I know are usually washed up losers in their 30s who tell me that they'd quit waiting tables and "get a real job" except for the fact that government ruins everything. There's no point in trying.


Right. Also people who would hire for their small business, but instead they'll turn down hundreds of thousands in guaranteed revenue because they can't afford to hire two guys making $18/hour. Thanks Obama!
 
2013-08-01 12:55:48 PM  

EyeballKid: Example 1:

[chronicle.com image 640x357]


Rand hated libertarians...
 
2013-08-01 12:57:01 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Kome: My individual experiences are sufficient to formulate policies that should be in place to dictate to a country of 320,000,000 other people what they should expect from their government.

my individual experience is that libertarians are people who A: don't understand how a modern economy works and B: are greedy, selfish farkers who are looking for a way to justify not paying taxes

"Fark you, I've got mine" sums it up nicely


My individual experience is that statists are people who A: don't understand how a modern economy works and B: are greedy, selfish farkers who are looking for a way to justify violently forcing others to fund their pet projects in social control.

"Fark you, I don't have to play nice, I just take what I want" sums it up nicely.
 
2013-08-01 12:57:05 PM  

Lawyers With Nukes: Garble: The fundamental lie of modern libertarianism is that you can cleanly divide all issues between "social" and "economic". But economic injustice is and has always been the largest social issue in existence.
/money is power
//the purpose of government is to prevent the powerful from abusing the powerless

Translation: we want to protect people with no money, from people with lots of money.


So far so good.

So lets create another group of people, and give them lots of money so they can protect us. Because the danger is people with lots of money...wait, what?
/not sure if you're serious


More like, let's balance the power of people through democracy. The fact that there is so much money in government is a failing of that principle.
 
2013-08-01 12:57:29 PM  

Garble: //the purpose of government is to prevent the powerful from abusing the powerless


When did that start happening? Seems to me government is bought, owned and controlled by the wealthy, and generally tends to promote what they want.
 
2013-08-01 12:58:46 PM  

Phil McKraken: The "libertarians" I know are usually washed up losers in their 30s who tell me that they'd quit waiting tables and "get a real job" except for the fact that government ruins everything. There's no point in trying.


Well that's not very nice. I'm sure a lot of Farkers are in the food services or hospitality industry. Though not a high status occupation, being a server is an honorable and honest way to put food on the table.

I don't really recommend you figure out your political views by looking at a person's status, and then using that as proof that their arguments are valid. Logic doesn't work that way.
 
2013-08-01 12:58:48 PM  
The game gives out a bunch of benefits. It'd be stupid not to take them, even if you think the rules of the game should be different.
 
2013-08-01 01:00:35 PM  

Garble: Lawyers With Nukes: Garble: The fundamental lie of modern libertarianism is that you can cleanly divide all issues between "social" and "economic". But economic injustice is and has always been the largest social issue in existence.
/money is power
//the purpose of government is to prevent the powerful from abusing the powerless

Translation: we want to protect people with no money, from people with lots of money.

So far so good.

So lets create another group of people, and give them lots of money so they can protect us. Because the danger is people with lots of money...wait, what?
/not sure if you're serious

More like, let's balance the power of people through democracy. The fact that there is so much money in government is a failing of that principle.


More like, let's protect the rights of the minorities by giving the majority the right to elect the leaders. The fact that there is so much money in government is the logical result of having a government - and the explicit goal of the drafters of the Constitution.
 
2013-08-01 01:02:03 PM  
Libertarian used to mean "Live and let live" and "Do unto others as you would do unto yourself".
Now it means "MOOSLIM IN THE WHITEHOUSE!!! DURRRP"
 
2013-08-01 01:02:09 PM  

BSABSVR: unlikely: It has been my experience that I agree with some and disagree with some because there is no consistent core of beliefs from one libertarian to the next.

Libertarian discussions often turn into "more libertarian than thou".  If you put 5 libertarians in a room, the once closest to Anarcho-capitalist will complain that he is in a room with 4 statist drones, the one closest to Republican/Democrat will complain that he is in a room with Minarchists, and the other three will shake their heads at how everyone else in the room is naive about how the world works.


Very true. You showed see what happens when you throw in some left libertarians into the mix like Libertarian Socialists or Anarcho-Communists.
 
2013-08-01 01:03:48 PM  

Lawyers With Nukes: Phil McKraken: The "libertarians" I know are usually washed up losers in their 30s who tell me that they'd quit waiting tables and "get a real job" except for the fact that government ruins everything. There's no point in trying.

Well that's not very nice. I'm sure a lot of Farkers are in the food services or hospitality industry. Though not a high status occupation, being a server is an honorable and honest way to put food on the table.

I don't really recommend you figure out your political views by looking at a person's status, and then using that as proof that their arguments are valid. Logic doesn't work that way.


I have about 15 years in the food service business, mainly waiting tables. Both of the guys I'm talking about I met over 15 years ago. The "philosophy" isn't about governance for them. It's about excusing their laziness. Both of them are smart and talk about going back to school, getting jobs engineering software, etc. But then neither wants to engage in the student loan process, go to state schools or getting a job that doesn't pay mainly in cash. Both of them refuse to agree with me, but both also understand how things appear to me.
 
2013-08-01 01:04:09 PM  

Lawyers With Nukes: Phil McKraken: The "libertarians" I know are usually washed up losers in their 30s who tell me that they'd quit waiting tables and "get a real job" except for the fact that government ruins everything. There's no point in trying.

Well that's not very nice. I'm sure a lot of Farkers are in the food services or hospitality industry. Though not a high status occupation, being a server is an honorable and honest way to put food on the table.

I don't really recommend you figure out your political views by looking at a person's status, and then using that as proof that their arguments are valid. Logic doesn't work that way.


Marxism works that way (polylogism), and Fark is filled with Marxists pretending to be hip-independents.
 
2013-08-01 01:05:08 PM  

Revek: We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves.


Provide compelling evidence for a period in history in which when unpleasant things happened, people did not feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves.

Please note your use of the conjunctive adverb "rather," followed by use of the coordinating conjunction "and." Logically, your sentence reads ~b & (a & d), where "b" = blaming others, "a" = accepting it, and "d" = dealing with it oneself.

Hence, your claim is not supported if you provide evidence only that at some period in history, people dealt with unpleasant things themselves. You must provide evidence that at some point in history people in dealing with unpleasant happenings:

a) did not blame others, and
b) accepted it, and
c) dealt with it themselves.

Note that even providing evidence for all three propositions at the same period in history does not settle the policy conversation. This is just to see if you can satisfy even the barest threshold for rationally discussing the issue.
 
2013-08-01 01:08:32 PM  

Phil McKraken: Lawyers With Nukes: Phil McKraken: The "libertarians" I know are usually washed up losers in their 30s who tell me that they'd quit waiting tables and "get a real job" except for the fact that government ruins everything. There's no point in trying.

Well that's not very nice. I'm sure a lot of Farkers are in the food services or hospitality industry. Though not a high status occupation, being a server is an honorable and honest way to put food on the table.

I don't really recommend you figure out your political views by looking at a person's status, and then using that as proof that their arguments are valid. Logic doesn't work that way.

I have about 15 years in the food service business, mainly waiting tables. Both of the guys I'm talking about I met over 15 years ago. The "philosophy" isn't about governance for them. It's about excusing their laziness. Both of them are smart and talk about going back to school, getting jobs engineering software, etc. But then neither wants to engage in the student loan process, go to state schools or getting a job that doesn't pay mainly in cash. Both of them refuse to agree with me, but both also understand how things appear to me.


How does saying that "govt shouldn't reward the lazy" or any other teaching of libertarianism excuse their laziness? If anything, it burdens them with knowing that they are getting what they deserve for being lazy.
 
2013-08-01 01:10:11 PM  

Begoggle: Libertarian used to mean "Live and let live" and "Do unto others as you would do unto yourself".
Now it means "MOOSLIM IN THE WHITEHOUSE!!! DURRRP"


Which is one of the reasons that I'm a voluntarist.
 
2013-08-01 01:10:39 PM  

Garble: Lawyers With Nukes: Garble: The fundamental lie of modern libertarianism is that you can cleanly divide all issues between "social" and "economic". But economic injustice is and has always been the largest social issue in existence.
/money is power
//the purpose of government is to prevent the powerful from abusing the powerless

Translation: we want to protect people with no money, from people with lots of money.

So far so good.

So lets create another group of people, and give them lots of money so they can protect us. Because the danger is people with lots of money...wait, what?
/not sure if you're serious

More like, let's balance the power of people through democracy. The fact that there is so much money in government is a failing of that principle.


Lets protect ourselves from other people with guns, by creating a group of people with guns. Because people with guns are dangerous.
Lets protect ourselves from other people with money, by creating a group of people with money. Because people with money are dangerous.

Sprinkling the magic pixie dust of "democracy" over the above statements doesn't make them any less absurd or dangerous. Indeed, democracy is easily scammed and rigged when used to try to control the situation, ie fighting against a small group of coordinated, determined, and powerful actors. Reason and evidence clearly demonstrate this.

Or don't pay any attention to history, and just keep piling on more derp.
 
2013-08-01 01:10:54 PM  

EWreckedSean: BSABSVR: unlikely: It has been my experience that I agree with some and disagree with some because there is no consistent core of beliefs from one libertarian to the next.

Libertarian discussions often turn into "more libertarian than thou".  If you put 5 libertarians in a room, the once closest to Anarcho-capitalist will complain that he is in a room with 4 statist drones, the one closest to Republican/Democrat will complain that he is in a room with Minarchists, and the other three will shake their heads at how everyone else in the room is naive about how the world works.

Very true. You showed see what happens when you throw in some left libertarians into the mix like Libertarian Socialists or Anarcho-Communists.


Labels are for central planners!
 
2013-08-01 01:13:11 PM  

Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.  I get no money for my autistic son.  No money for my disabling medical condition  including no medical help at all.  I make half the median income for the state.  The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity.  We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens  people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves.  They expect someone else to pay for it.  Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.


I have an autistic child and I live in CA.  The state used to pay for a certain amount of hours of In-Home ABA therapy a month.  In an effort to balance the budget, our (democrat) governor deemed that insurance companies should handle that bill instead.  The state will still pay the copay I would have to pay per visit, because we make under a specific amount for a family of four.  If I happen to get a better job, I will then be on the hook for those copays.  It will sting a little to pay for something I haven't had to pay for in the past, but it will not keep me from trying for that better job.  I will also console myself in the fact that when I can afford to make those payments, I am freeing the state money up for someone else, who is currently where I used to be financially.  And that money can help a family improve their child's chance at success while still being able to feed and clothe themselves.  I'm cool with that.  I'm all for responsibility, I just wonder why it became irresponsible to either need help or be ok with helping those who need it.
 
2013-08-01 01:15:16 PM  

EWreckedSean: Garble: //the purpose of government is to prevent the powerful from abusing the powerless

When did that start happening? Seems to me government is bought, owned and controlled by the wealthy, and generally tends to promote what they want.


About three thousand five hundred years ago, when Hammurabi's code announced its purpose was:

"To bring about justice in the land, so that the strong shall not harm the weak."
 
2013-08-01 01:15:25 PM  
iawai:  How does saying that "govt shouldn't reward the lazy" or any other teaching of libertarianism excuse their laziness? If anything, it burdens them with knowing that they are getting what they deserve for being lazy.

No, I'm saying that both explicitly state to me that they won't try harder because the government will tax them, regulate their jobs, fix interest rates on loans, confiscate their marijuana, and whatever. You see, there's no reason to get a $50k/year job if the Income Tax takes any part of it. It's the government's fault for denying them the opportunity to work without interference.
 
2013-08-01 01:15:35 PM  

BMFPitt: Perhaps. But that's something that the shareholders should determine, not some arbitrary ratio.


The shareholders have a vested interest in exploiting workers.
 
2013-08-01 01:18:41 PM  

LasersHurt: liam76: LasersHurt: liam76: I am pretty sure not letting them sell off stocks (how most get the big bucks) is a step to prevent this risky behavior.  I am also open to more steps.

So I am not sure wher eyou are going with that.

Capping CEO pay helps prevent short term measures that tend to push these high-salaried execs who run a company poorly. It focuses them to build the company at all levels, and in so doing create a much stronger organization.

I just think it's a good tool for preventing the very sort of thing you want to prevent.

You would have a hard time getting that to pass cosntitutional muster.

Err, what?


I am assuming you are american and are looking at laws that could happen in America.

If you are talking about laws to limit CEO pay or tie it to any wage of the employee you would have a huge constitutional hurdle to overcome.

Now if you were to just change tax laws so any stock that CEO's got as payment had to be kept for X years or they were treated as salary there is no such hurdle, or if you were to put a tax penalty on it if they sold early so it lost a ton of value, once again there is no such hurdle.
 
2013-08-01 01:21:42 PM  

GoldSpider: BMFPitt: Perhaps. But that's something that the shareholders should determine, not some arbitrary ratio.

The shareholders have a vested interest in exploiting workers.


What does that have to do with whether or not a given CEO is overpaid?
 
2013-08-01 01:22:21 PM  

ExcedrinHeadache: I always thought that Libertarians were just Republicans who wanted to keep hating brown poor people but still be able to smoke weed.


That sums me up pretty nicely actually.


/Libertarian
//Married to a "Brown" person
 
2013-08-01 01:22:39 PM  

liam76: You would have a hard time getting that to pass cosntitutional muster.

Err, what?

I am assuming you are american and are looking at laws that could happen in America.

If you are talking about laws to limit CEO pay or tie it to any wage of the employee you would have a huge constitutional hurdle to overcome.


I guess what I am asking is what, specific constitutional hurdle would this be? I could just be blanking on something obvious, but I can't think of what you might mean.
 
2013-08-01 01:23:55 PM  

Phil McKraken: No, I'm saying that both explicitly state to me that they won't try harder because the government will tax them, regulate their jobs, fix interest rates on loans, confiscate their marijuana, and whatever. You see, there's no reason to get a $50k/year job if the Income Tax takes any part of it. It's the government's fault for denying them the opportunity to work without interference.


to that argument, they do somewhat have a point.  A better way to make that fair for the taxpayer and the recipiant would to make sure that increasing your working wage would always increase the money you brought home.   Currently that is not the case.

thepatriotperspective.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-08-01 01:25:05 PM  

youncasqua: EWreckedSean: Garble: //the purpose of government is to prevent the powerful from abusing the powerless

When did that start happening? Seems to me government is bought, owned and controlled by the wealthy, and generally tends to promote what they want.

About three thousand five hundred years ago, when Hammurabi's code announced its purpose was:

"To bring about justice in the land, so that the strong shall not harm the weak."



That's some good marketing, there. It's catchy, too. Hammurabi always was a good salesman.

The "wants safety & security" market segment. That's a big demographic group, real big, there's a lot of money to be made there.
 
2013-08-01 01:25:14 PM  

youncasqua: EWreckedSean: Garble: //the purpose of government is to prevent the powerful from abusing the powerless

When did that start happening? Seems to me government is bought, owned and controlled by the wealthy, and generally tends to promote what they want.

About three thousand five hundred years ago, when Hammurabi's code announced its purpose was:

"To bring about justice in the land, so that the strong shall not harm the weak."


I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about what government actually does, not some propaganda written 3500 years ago that was as untrue then as it is now...
 
2013-08-01 01:28:48 PM  

heavymetal: Khellendros: Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.

That's impressive.  You don't drive cars on roads, bridges, or overpasses?  You don't eat food grow in the U.S., or shipped in from outside the country?  You don't ever travel across publicly maintained land?  Bought a car that is subject to safety regulations?  Use a public utility such as power, water, telephone, or internet?  You defend your own land with your own army?  You don't watch television regulated by the FCC or look at a clock that has time set by NIST created standards?  You don't use federally issued currency, or send or receive anything by the postal service?  You've never called the police for anything?  Needed to have friends or family helped by the fire department?

Truly, you receive nothing from the government.  I salute you, citizen.  You're a beacon to all of us.

That seems to be the main problem I find in their reasoning.  It's all about "I do not receive any money from the government for.............", totally oblivious to the benefits they indirectly recieve through infrastructure and services.  It's not about finding a teat to suckle on so we don't have to fend for ourselves, it's about common sense.  The government of the U.S. isn't some despotic entity, it is a system set up by our founding fathers and supposed to be "of the people, by the people, and for the people"; if it is screwed up we did it to ourselves.

One function of the government in my opinion is to be sort of the national "warehouse bulk shopping club" of the American people.  There are certain essential services that are needed which cannot be provided on an induvidual basis comercially in a cost effective manner.  The intent behind these services are not to create a dependence on the government or enslave the masses, but provide a necessary service at a "bulk discount" rate.  Rather than enslaving the citizen, it is freeing them to pursue greater things than just the basics i ...



Holy crap, dude.  That kind of blatant logic has no place on Fark.  Please stick to bad jokes and terrible opinions based in insanity.  We simply will not tolerate your brand of critical thinking around here.

/I said good day, sir!
 
2013-08-01 01:30:57 PM  
Democrats think they know what's good for everybody.
Republicans only care about what's good for them.
Libertarians don't even know what's good for themselves.

/Is that about right?
 
2013-08-01 01:39:12 PM  

Neighborhood Watch: If everyone on welfare was a Libertarian, then the Democrat party would cease to exist.


And favorited!, into the box with you.

If you had just applied yourself, ya coulda been a contender!
 
2013-08-01 01:40:32 PM  

Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.  I get no money for my autistic son.  No money for my disabling medical condition  including no medical help at all.  I make half the median income for the state.  The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity.  We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens  people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves.  They expect someone else to pay for it.  Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.


I have none of your problems. I feel bad about them BTW.  You are not personally responsible for all your problems.  Sometime they are just shiat that happens.  I make a good living and my family is very healthy.  We all get free health care (Canada) and I would have no issue having my tax dollars going to people like you that need a helping hand.  If I fall flat on my face in life do to illness or other tragedy, I do infact expect some help/support from my countrymen.

Regardless of social benefits/tax, the quality of your life is directly related to being born in a rich and democratic society.  If you make enough to contribute to it, you should count yourself lucky.  If you are so unfortunate, that you need support, count yourself lucky as well.

Regardless of anyone's rugged individuality, your prosperity is on the backs of others before you.
 
2013-08-01 01:41:16 PM  

Khellendros: GoldSpider: Khellendros: But if you have a specific oulier in your large company that is a minimum wage employee for a good reason

If your business relies on minimum wage labor to be profitable, perhaps you should pay your executives less.  The guy earning $20k isn't stealing food from the table of the executive who's making $2 million.

I didn't say "relies on minimum wage labor to be profitable".  Read what I wrote - it's very likely in a large company that you have a small group of employees that work jobs that are rightfully paid at minimum wage.  The number is likely very small.  If a company's execs only have to be concerned with making sure the bottom wage earner (note, singular) in the company are at a high enough level to keep exec salaries high, they have no incentive to help their entire workforce.  Tying it to average helps to keep everyone in a good position, particularly the bulk of employees in the lower wage levels (but well above minimum).

Tying to average helps everyone.  Tying to minimum helps two people - the CEO and the one guy at the bottom.  That's it.


Tying to average encourages paying executives and managers more, to bring up the average pay.

Compromise @ 10th percentile, if a limit of 1.5m per year is too low (that's 100x$7.25x2080).
 
2013-08-01 01:47:17 PM  

LasersHurt: liam76: You would have a hard time getting that to pass cosntitutional muster.

Err, what?

I am assuming you are american and are looking at laws that could happen in America.

If you are talking about laws to limit CEO pay or tie it to any wage of the employee you would have a huge constitutional hurdle to overcome.

I guess what I am asking is what, specific constitutional hurdle would this be? I could just be blanking on something obvious, but I can't think of what you might mean.


The 10th would be a show stopper, imho.  Also if you are saying a group can't pay what they want to members of the group that would violate the 1st (freedom of association, I seem to remember this being used when some state said union leaders couldn;t be paid, but I may be dreaimg that one).
 
2013-08-01 01:51:57 PM  

GoldSpider: Not really, but you're exactly like everyone else here who thinks they know my personal philosophy on spending priorities and safety net programs, etc.


I see.  Another one whose firmly-held, obviously correct and simple to grasp opinions are misunderstood by all and sundry and its everyone else's fault, because, lord knows, you explained yourself clearly enough, over and over again.

I just wish that one of guys would consider, even for a moment, that the fault does not lie with your readers if your pearls of wisdom are not being successfully communicated.
 
2013-08-01 01:53:07 PM  

mrshowrules: Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.  I get no money for my autistic son.  No money for my disabling medical condition  including no medical help at all.  I make half the median income for the state.  The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity.  We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens  people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves.  They expect someone else to pay for it.  Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.

I have none of your problems. I feel bad about them BTW.  You are not personally responsible for all your problems.  Sometime they are just shiat that happens.  I make a good living and my family is very healthy.  We all get free health care (Canada) and I would have no issue having my tax dollars going to people like you that need a helping hand.  If I fall flat on my face in life do to illness or other tragedy, I do infact expect some help/support from my countrymen.

Regardless of social benefits/tax, the quality of your life is directly related to being born in a rich and democratic society.  If you make enough to contribute to it, you should count yourself lucky.  If you are so unfortunate, that you need support, count yourself lucky as well.

Regardless of anyone's rugged individuality, your prosperity is on the backs of others before you.


That's one of the most eloquently patriotic things I've heard in a while...you dirty Canadian.
 
2013-08-01 01:59:00 PM  

brukmann: You earn a star. What should the tag be, though?


Dude, he just told you.
 
2013-08-01 02:02:41 PM  

bopis: someonelse: bopis: Liberal thinking:
Liberals agree with me 100% of the time and that makes them more highly evolved.
Conservatives disagree with me on pretty much 100% of issues, that makes them evil!
Libertarians agree/disagree with me on maybe 50% of issues, that makes them the worst!

I'll bet you thought that was clever when you were typing it. Unfortunately, it just comes off as simple minded.

I'm an idiot for oversimplifying things in a FARK THREAD?
That is pretty much my point. Seems like Liberals have a deeper, more special hate for libertarians even though there is probably a lot more common ground. I think that speaks to the closemindedness of the average liberal.
Let's decriminalize homosexuality and end the war on drugs, then we can go back to the retard flame war?


Homosexuality was decriminalized by the big, bad, Federal government (Lawrence v. Texas).  Unfortunately, some fairly prominent libertarians want to allow the states to recriminalize it.

As for ending the war on drugs, that's great, I mean it worked in Portugal, so I guess it would work here, as long as we had the same kind of healthcare system that Portugal has in order to provide treatment.  I'm sure libertarians are on board with that.

/I'd say libertarians disagree with liberals way more than 50%, and haven't been too enthusiastic about the issues that both groups agree on.
 
2013-08-01 02:05:34 PM  

Deucednuisance: I see. Another one whose firmly-held, obviously correct and simple to grasp opinions are misunderstood by all and sundry and its everyone else's fault, because, lord knows, you explained yourself clearly enough, over and over again.


No, it's that people THINK they know what I believe without bothering to ask me.  It's practically the engine that runs the Politics tab, an engine that runs on straw.
 
2013-08-01 02:07:46 PM  

HighOnCraic: Unfortunately, some fairly prominent libertarians want to allow the states to recriminalize it.


Care to name names?

HighOnCraic: As for ending the war on drugs, that's great, I mean it worked in Portugal, so I guess it would work here, as long as we had the same kind of healthcare system that Portugal has in order to provide treatment.


Ending the war on drugs does not necessitate taxpayer-funded treatment programs.  That's not to say it isn't a good idea though.
 
2013-08-01 02:08:22 PM  

Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.  I get no money for my autistic son.  No money for my disabling medical condition  including no medical help at all.  I make half the median income for the state.  The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity.  We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens  people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves.  They expect someone else to pay for it.  Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.


As a whole, right now, I contribute to the government... I see it the same way as... paying insurance (except that insurance company has guns)... I pay now, while times are good, and if I lose my job, I collect on that insurance, in the form of government programs, for a little bit until I get a new job. I don't see this as "blaming" anyone... and I find it really weird that libertarians are against the government providing decent bang for the buck. We fund programs to keep the rich even richer (take the latest Ag bill for q.e.d.), but if a person falls on bad circumstance and wants to collect on the benefits they've already paid for, then they must be lazy or irresponsible.
 
2013-08-01 02:10:31 PM  

drp: The Democrats hate us because we don't hate corporations and the 2nd Amendment like they do.  They want big government and police-state powers when it's convenient for them, and a drug war to pander to their small-minded constituents who want toughness on crime.


Whut da actualfuq?

I live in the Democratic Paradise of Maryland, and have for 45 years.  I'm a Democrat, raised by Democrats, and am surrounded by Democrats.

I have never, not once, met a single Democratic constituent who demands that their representatives continue to prosecute the "drug war".  We all know that it is futile and worse, counter-productive.

I dare you to show us one.  Just one.
 
2013-08-01 02:13:27 PM  

Deucednuisance: brukmann: You earn a star. What should the tag be, though?

Dude, he just told you.



GoldSpider
(favorite: Libertus and the amazing technicolor dreamjerk)

Worked it out--we already tacitly agreed to taunt each other in the future. But yeah, dumb question, coffee jitters.
 
2013-08-01 02:19:04 PM  

Deucednuisance: drp: The Democrats hate us because we don't hate corporations and the 2nd Amendment like they do.  They want big government and police-state powers when it's convenient for them, and a drug war to pander to their small-minded constituents who want toughness on crime.

Whut da actualfuq?

I live in the Democratic Paradise of Maryland, and have for 45 years.  I'm a Democrat, raised by Democrats, and am surrounded by Democrats.

I have never, not once, met a single Democratic constituent who demands that their representatives continue to prosecute the "drug war".  We all know that it is futile and worse, counter-productive.

I dare you to show us one.  Just one.


images.politico.com
 
2013-08-01 02:21:26 PM  

bopis: Seems like Liberals have a deeper, more special hate for libertarians even though there is probably a lot more common ground. I think that speaks to the closemindedness of the average liberal.


I'm going to go with the notion that you are sincerely trying to comprehend something you don't understand, and explain it to you as best I can.

First off, I obviously can't speak for all liberals.  Nobody made me Queen of the Liberals nor elected me president of the Liberals for Life Committee.  I will simply explain things as I think they are, and it may be than many Liberals agree with me, or perhaps not, but it's at least a starting point.  Second, I don't think most liberals "hate" Libertarians or Conservatives.  If you want to be taken seriously --- if you really are earnest about having a meaningful dialog --- then you need to drop such provocative terms as "hate."  We generally disagree with Libertarians and Conservatives, we probably disapprove of them, I'm sure some of us dislike them, and yes, a few of us might "hate" Libertarian or Conservatives if not both, but to claim all Liberals "hate" Libertarians just undermines your credibility.

Third, even if you were essentially correct about the phenomenon (that Liberals "hate" libertarians more than we "hate" Conservatives), and even if you were right that it was caused by Liberals seeing more in common with Libertarians than with Conservatives, that wouldn't be close-mindedness.  Frankly, it sounds to me like you don't even know what the word "close-mindedness" even means.  If it WERE as you say, and Liberals DID dislike Libertarians more precisely because of how much they have in common, that would be something entirely different than close-mindedness.

Fourth, yes, it is true that in some respects Libertarians have more in common with Liberals than Conservatives do; the common observation is that Libertarians are fiscally conservative but socially liberal.  That's probably be an oversimplification, but it's enough for our purposes right now.  And it's great that we can agree on some things.  But I might say that that is offset by how extreme Libertarians seem to be about the fiscal issues.  To give just one example: Liberals and Conservatives disagree about the education system because Conservatives (among other things) don't want to spend enough money on public schools.  But Libertarians want to spend NO MONEY AT ALL on the public school system, which is far worse.

Fifth (and as this is highly subjective I REALLY can't claim to speak for all Liberals) one of the things about Libertarianism that I personally find most disquieting is my perception that, at it's core, it's really nothing more that pure,unadulterated selfishness and shortsightedness systematized.  Conservatism, for all that I think it's wrong, at least seems to be trying to make the nation a better place for everyone, or at least for everyone willing to follow their rules.  Libertarianism, by contrast, seems like it would shut out in the cold anyone who wasn't born rich, regardless of how ardently the disenfranchised tried to follow it themselves.

You'll probably say I've mischaracterized Libertarianism, and maybe I have, but if so, you'll then have to explain to me what provisions Libertarianism makes for people who aren't born wealthy.  How, exactly, is a person who doesn't start off with enough money supposed to get an education, health care, meaningful work, a home (at least a shared apartment), and so on, all the while paying for the private police, mail, roads, fire, health insurance, etc. that are (thanks to Libertarianism) no longer provided by the government?

bopisLet's decriminalize homosexuality and end the war on drugs, then we can go back to the retard flame war?

Ok, sure.  You focus on homosexuality and the war on drugs exclusively, do nothing whatever to advance any other Libertarian policy, and I'll refrain from criticizing your politics.  Is that the deal you're proposing?
 
2013-08-01 02:34:34 PM  

BMFPitt: Deucednuisance: drp: The Democrats hate us because we don't hate corporations and the 2nd Amendment like they do.  They want big government and police-state powers when it's convenient for them, and a drug war to pander to their small-minded constituents who want toughness on crime.

Whut da actualfuq?

I live in the Democratic Paradise of Maryland, and have for 45 years.  I'm a Democrat, raised by Democrats, and am surrounded by Democrats.

I have never, not once, met a single Democratic constituent who demands that their representatives continue to prosecute the "drug war".  We all know that it is futile and worse, counter-productive.

I dare you to show us one.  Just one.

[images.politico.com image 300x162]


except he's not pandering to democrats, he's pandering to "Tough On Crime Fark Independents"TM
 
2013-08-01 02:38:17 PM  

ciberido: If you want to be taken seriously --- if you really are earnest about having a meaningful dialog --- then you need to drop such provocative terms as "hate."


Because the incessant ad homeninums* of right-wing neocon, women-hating, teabagging, greedy, corrupt, gay-bashing, wingnuts just screams of love and honest dialog.

/Ultimatly though - I agree with you
//Sadly, the Politis tab is not the place for anything resembling honest dialog or understanding
 
2013-08-01 02:42:08 PM  
This quote from TFA made me facepalm:

"Many of the members in our group [Young Americans for Liberty] were not even 10 years old when 9/11 happened," Frazee said. "They've grown up with war, and they are war-weary."

I'd like someone to explain how the fark someone who was 10 years in 2001 is "war weary"?

Is it the draft? Can't be that since there's no draft.

Is it the rationing? Nope, no rationing either. We have vast amounts staples and cheap consumer goods. We exist in a time with levels of consumerism that are unprecedented in human history. There's barely even any price inflation. The war has not interfered in any way with young people's ability to get the latest iPhone.

Is it the constant news focus that every day brings a brutal view of war and the toll it takes on soldiers and civilians into all of our living rooms? Nope, the wars we engage in are barely ever mentioned. We don't even have to hear about them.

In what possible way do the wars we fight effect college age kids who are not in the military? What sacrifices have they been forced to make for the war?

The only way someone who was 10 on 9/11 could possibly be "war weary" is; a) if they are actually a soldier or b) if they are the biggest farking pussy in the world who doesn't have even the slightest clue what war weary really means. Let me guess which of those categories most of these young libertarians fall into. My mother in law, who as a child lived through the Siege of Leningrad, has a right to use the term "war weary". An American twenty something who's never been in the military does not.
 
2013-08-01 02:42:42 PM  

Exception Collection: I am a socialist - I believe the necessities of life should be provided for free to the general public (though comfort is not a requirement, just health; stack the shelter beds like Japanese tube hotels and give out energy bars made out of cardboard for all I care).

I'm also in the top 20% of earners nationally, have never received social safety net aid, and refuse to rely on others for anything I can do for myself.

/I challenge anyone to find a person more bootstrappy than I am.


I like your style...it baffles me that teahadis think that if we get socialized medicine or have strong social safety nets that we are one step closer to concentration camps....yet they will gladly over fund pork barrel military contracts/projects.
Last I checked, no country has ever been conquered by social workers...that usually takes a well equipped military.
 
2013-08-01 02:43:31 PM  

GoldSpider: No, it's that people THINK they know what I believe without bothering to ask me.


You've been asked, directly, in this very thread.  Five hours ago, in fact.

Cat got your tongue?
 
2013-08-01 02:44:45 PM  

ciberido: Fifth (and as this is highly subjective I REALLY can't claim to speak for all Liberals) one of the things about Libertarianism that I personally find most disquieting is my perception that, at it's core, it's really nothing more that pure,unadulterated selfishness and shortsightedness systematized.  Conservatism, for all that I think it's wrong, at least seems to be trying to make the nation a better place for everyone, or at least for everyone willing to follow their rules.  Libertarianism, by contrast, seems like it would shut out in the cold anyone who wasn't born rich, regardless of how ardently the disenfranchised tried to follow it themselves.

You'll probably say I've mischaracterized Libertarianism, and maybe I have, but if so, you'll then have to explain to me what provisions Libertarianism makes for people who aren't born wealthy.  How, exactly, is a person who doesn't start off with enough money supposed to get an education, health care, meaningful work, a home (at least a shared apartment), and so on, all the while paying for the private police, mail, roads, fire, health insurance, etc. that are (thanks to Libertarianism) no longer provided by the government?


These are real concerns about libertarianism.

Short answers:

Yes, it's based on selfishness. But not Shortsightedness. EVERYONE, everywhere, acts selfishly. It's long been a philosophical quest to find the truly altruistic action.
Since everyone is acting selfishly, do we want a system whereby people can personally benefit by taking wealth from others without any real accountability? Or do we want a system where you can only benefit by helping your fellow man in his own selfishness? The first situation is a situation under govt, especially those highly-regulatory, highly-taxing govts of the West today. The second situation is the situation of a free market: you can only benefit by benefiting others.

To your second concern there's five related answers: (1) the wealthy are typically the most philanthropic. (2) You only get wealthy by increasing the wealth of a large number of people in meaningful ways (in a free market). (3) A free market has been responsible for providing all of those things in the past, and in some areas today, usually with much better accountability to the users than a govt system. (4) The enormous gains that could be realized by freeing the market would make all of those things cheap as dirt. (5) Those things all are being paid for already today, just not by the end-user. And if you follow the trail of waste, corruption, and greed you'll find that 70% of the money goes to upper-middle-class bureaucrats while only 30% actually goes to the provision of these necessary services.

There's already evidence that shows that private police, fire, medical providers, etc. will give the poor reduced rates or free service. The fact that these things are your hold-ups shows your willing blindness.

A: "I hate the French because they abuse unicorns!"

B: "Have you seen the French abuse unicorns?"

A: "No, but I'm worried that they do."

B: "Have you taken any steps to investigate your concerns?"

A: "No, my friend who hates the French told me so."

B: "Here's three articles about how the French treat their horses. Here's two offering proof that unicorns don't exist. How do you feel about the French now?"

A: "I don't believe your evidence, and it doesn't prove anything, and I still hate them for some new reason!"
 
2013-08-01 02:45:26 PM  

ciberido: To give just one example: Liberals and Conservatives disagree about the education system because Conservatives (among other things) don't want to spend enough money on public schools. But Libertarians want to spend NO MONEY AT ALL on the public school system, which is far worse.


So it appears that you are focusing on the most extreme minority of libertarians.

one of the things about Libertarianism that I personally find most disquieting is my perception that, at it's core, it's really nothing more that pure,unadulterated selfishness and shortsightedness systematized.

That's what we think of you, too.

Libertarianism, by contrast, seems like it would shut out in the cold anyone who wasn't born rich, regardless of how ardently the disenfranchised tried to follow it themselves.

It's unfortunate that you choose to believe this.

You'll probably say I've mischaracterized Libertarianism, and maybe I have, but if so, you'll then have to explain to me what provisions Libertarianism makes for people who aren't born wealthy.

A much better chance to have a much higher quality of life than they would have under your system for 99% of people.

How, exactly, is a person who doesn't start off with enough money supposed to get an education, health care, meaningful work, a home (at least a shared apartment), and so on, all the while paying for the private police, mail, roads, fire, health insurance, etc. that are (thanks to Libertarianism) no longer provided by the government?

I won't bother speaking on behalf on anarchos. I think they're morons. But if you have some questions about mainstream libertarianism, I'd be happy to respond.
 
2013-08-01 02:45:44 PM  

blindio: except he's not pandering to democrats, he's pandering to "Tough On Crime Fark Independents"TM


That, and he's not exactly what one can fairly call a "constituent", is he?
 
2013-08-01 02:56:52 PM  

HeadLever: ciberido: If you want to be taken seriously --- if you really are earnest about having a meaningful dialog --- then you need to drop such provocative terms as "hate."

Because the incessant ad homeninums* of right-wing neocon, women-hating, teabagging, greedy, corrupt, gay-bashing, wingnuts just screams of love and honest dialog.

/Ultimatly though - I agree with you
//Sadly, the Politis tab is not the place for anything resembling honest dialog or understanding


So basing an opinion on a self-identified group, based on their words and actions, now counts as an ad-hom?
 
2013-08-01 03:06:11 PM  

BMFPitt: I won't bother speaking on behalf on anarchos. I think they're morons. But if you have some questions about mainstream libertarianism, I'd be happy to respond.


What is libertarianism, to you? Is there an underlying philosophy, or is it just a set of policy prescriptions that can waver in the winds of current sentiment?
 
2013-08-01 03:06:21 PM  

ghettodwarf: mrshowrules: Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.  I get no money for my autistic son.  No money for my disabling medical condition  including no medical help at all.  I make half the median income for the state.  The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity.  We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens  people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves.  They expect someone else to pay for it.  Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.

I have none of your problems. I feel bad about them BTW.  You are not personally responsible for all your problems.  Sometime they are just shiat that happens.  I make a good living and my family is very healthy.  We all get free health care (Canada) and I would have no issue having my tax dollars going to people like you that need a helping hand.  If I fall flat on my face in life do to illness or other tragedy, I do infact expect some help/support from my countrymen.

Regardless of social benefits/tax, the quality of your life is directly related to being born in a rich and democratic society.  If you make enough to contribute to it, you should count yourself lucky.  If you are so unfortunate, that you need support, count yourself lucky as well.

Regardless of anyone's rugged individuality, your prosperity is on the backs of others before you.

That's one of the most eloquently patriotic things I've heard in a while...you dirty Canadian.


My idiot father in law tells me all the time about how absolutely horrible your healthcare system is....apparently you poor people wait for months upon months for any specialized tests (MRI, ultrasound, etc)
And apparently if you are not a connected govt official you make almost no money and have no prospects for upward social mobility.
He thinks he knows this because he lives close to Canada and has taken a few ski vacations there.
 
2013-08-01 03:23:33 PM  

rustypouch: So basing an opinion on a self-identified group, based on their words and actions, now counts as an ad-hom?


If you want to belive that liberals are socialist, environazi, abortion-hungry, family-hating, sex-craved moonbats, I guess that is your prerogative.

I try to take each argument on it own merits and try not to pidgenhole the discussion from he politicial bent that it originates.  Though in all honesty, I sometimes fail that test.

Using the ad homs in this and the upthread post is a good way to shut down any honest discussion on any topic and reduce it to your standard Policits Tab thread.  But who am I to stand in the way of a good ol' flamewar.  We are not in the policits tab to compliment the other side on thier good ideas.
 
2013-08-01 03:29:46 PM  

GoldSpider: LasersHurt: It's better when it's harder, because of... morals?

If you're content with living as a pet, than who am I to judge?


Here in Nevada, we have a mandatory class on the Constitution as part of our freshman college year. It's very enlightening, especially the parts about social contracts. I think you'd rather enjoy learning that participation in social contracts does not make you a 'pet'.
 
2013-08-01 03:30:22 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: What I learned from this thread: "Libertarian" means letting your autistic child suffer so you can chest-thump on the internet about your bootstraps.


This.
 
2013-08-01 03:32:36 PM  

PsiChick: Here in Nevada, we have a mandatory class on the Constitution as part of our freshman college year. It's very enlightening, especially the parts about social contracts. I think you'd rather enjoy learning that participation in social contracts does not make you a 'pet'.


I never signed no "social contract"!
 
2013-08-01 03:33:32 PM  

drp: Fark's libertarian hate is easy to understand, but disappointing nonetheless.

The Republicans hate us because we don't hate gay people and the 1st & 4th Amendments like they do.  They want big government and police-state powers when it's convenient for them, and a drug war to pander to their small-minded constituents who want toughness on crime.

The Democrats hate us because we don't hate corporations and the 2nd Amendment like they do.  They want big government and police-state powers when it's convenient for them, and a drug war to pander to their small-minded constituents who want toughness on crime.


If I "hate" you it's because you're either too stupid to understand, or too dishonest to admit, the real reasons why people don't agree with Libertarianism.  But it's interesting that you express everything in terms of people you don't agree with "hating" everything.  I'd wager that says a lot more about you than about any political philosophy.
 
2013-08-01 03:40:00 PM  
Probably because most libertarians are about as bootstrappy as Craig T Nelson.
 
2013-08-01 03:41:16 PM  

HeadLever: rustypouch: So basing an opinion on a self-identified group, based on their words and actions, now counts as an ad-hom?

If you want to belive that liberals are socialist, environazi, abortion-hungry, family-hating, sex-craved moonbats, I guess that is your prerogative.

I try to take each argument on it own merits and try not to pidgenhole the discussion from he politicial bent that it originates.  Though in all honesty, I sometimes fail that test.

Using the ad homs in this and the upthread post is a good way to shut down any honest discussion on any topic and reduce it to your standard Policits Tab thread.  But who am I to stand in the way of a good ol' flamewar.  We are not in the policits tab to compliment the other side on thier good ideas.


My point is that it's not an ad-hom to say that right wingers and teabaggers are women-hating and gay bashing, because they actually do these things, and have passed laws to that effect.
 
2013-08-01 03:57:28 PM  

rustypouch: My point is that it's not an ad-hom to say that right wingers and teabaggers are women-hating and gay bashing, because they actually do these things, and have passed laws to that effect.


And you could use that same talking point an apply it to my rant on liberals. Using this talking point does nothing for honest arguments and is just another easy way out to dismiss or debase those that you generally oppose.
 
2013-08-01 03:58:19 PM  

PsiChick: GoldSpider: LasersHurt: It's better when it's harder, because of... morals?

If you're content with living as a pet, than who am I to judge?

Here in Nevada, we have a mandatory class on the Constitution as part of our freshman college year. It's very enlightening, especially the parts about social contracts. I think you'd rather enjoy learning that participation in social contracts does not make you a 'pet'.


Good teaching there.

Did they cover Lysander Spooner?

Did they actually tell you what a contract was?

Did they tell you that the SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that the govt has no duty to protect you?

Did they mention that not everyone alive in 1789 supported or signed the Constitution?

Did they discuss who gets to interpret, enforce, and alter this "social contract"?
 
2013-08-01 04:07:29 PM  

iawai: PsiChick: GoldSpider: LasersHurt: It's better when it's harder, because of... morals?

If you're content with living as a pet, than who am I to judge?

Here in Nevada, we have a mandatory class on the Constitution as part of our freshman college year. It's very enlightening, especially the parts about social contracts. I think you'd rather enjoy learning that participation in social contracts does not make you a 'pet'.

Good teaching there.

Did they cover Lysander Spooner?

Did they actually tell you what a contract was?

Did they tell you that the SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that the govt has no duty to protect you?

Did they mention that not everyone alive in 1789 supported or signed the Constitution?

Did they discuss who gets to interpret, enforce, and alter this "social contract"?


Are you actually complaining that you get roads, fire departments, education, and the benefits of civilization but  didn't sign a specific piece of paper or get voted on whether or not you wanted to be part of it?

Of  course no one ever asked if you wanted to be part of it.  Life's not fair. But you've got a fark-ton of a better deal here in the US than in, say, Saudi Arabia.
 
2013-08-01 04:11:53 PM  

Garble: The fundamental lie of modern libertarianism is that you can cleanly divide all issues between "social" and "economic". But economic injustice is and has always been the largest social issue in existence.


/money is power

//the purpose of government is to prevent the powerful from abusing the powerless


You've got it backwards.

"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."

-Karl Marx...no, wait, that was Adam farking Smith.
 
2013-08-01 04:12:58 PM  

EWreckedSean: youncasqua: EWreckedSean: Garble: //the purpose of government is to prevent the powerful from abusing the powerless

When did that start happening? Seems to me government is bought, owned and controlled by the wealthy, and generally tends to promote what they want.

About three thousand five hundred years ago, when Hammurabi's code announced its purpose was:

"To bring about justice in the land, so that the strong shall not harm the weak."

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about what government actually does, not some propaganda written 3500 years ago that was as untrue then as it is now...


1) Your particular rhetorical question in response to that particular remark demanded a citation to Hammurabi's code. Admit it. You would have done the same.

2) Government does primarily benefit the wealthy and powerful, but that isn't all it does. It also limits the wealthy and powerful, whether you care to admit it or not. For example:

a) Government forbids slavery; Hammurabi's code, in fact, even limited the rights of slave owners to harm their slaves.

b) Government mandates worker safety protections, and a minimum wage.

c) Government forbids sexual harassment in the workplace.

d) Government forbids racial discrimination in various spheres of life.

In addition to these various ways government limits the strong to protect the weak, government:

e) Provides food stamps to those unable to feed themselves.

f) Provides income security for retired and disabled persons.

g) Provides health insurance for retired and disabled persons, and lesser health insurance for the indigent.

f) Will soon if it hasn't already start subsidizing individuals to buy their own health insurance.

Overall, I'd say the aspiration of Hammurabi's code has succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams. We've still problems, and social and economic injustice. But you gotta give us some credit.
 
2013-08-01 04:16:46 PM  

Pocket Ninja: I like to speak in sweeping generalizations and imply that willful ignorance of ways by which I might benefit my family makes me a stronger person.


No I don't douchebag I tried to get help for my son and was rejected for making to much money.  I didn't qualify for limited medical assistance since I was to far from the state capitol.  I quit asking for help since none was forthcoming.  Anyone who has ever noticed knows you always get your panties in a twist when the word libertarian comes out.  Its one of those things that make you so predictable.
 
2013-08-01 04:26:12 PM  

JerkyMeat: Modern libratarians Liberals and GOPers are a cancer to society.


FIFY
 
2013-08-01 04:27:26 PM  

Thrag: This quote from TFA made me facepalm:

"Many of the members in our group [Young Americans for Liberty] were not even 10 years old when 9/11 happened," Frazee said. "They've grown up with war, and they are war-weary."

I'd like someone to explain how the fark someone who was 10 years in 2001 is "war weary"?

Is it the draft? Can't be that since there's no draft.

Is it the rationing? Nope, no rationing either. We have vast amounts staples and cheap consumer goods. We exist in a time with levels of consumerism that are unprecedented in human history. There's barely even any price inflation. The war has not interfered in any way with young people's ability to get the latest iPhone.

Is it the constant news focus that every day brings a brutal view of war and the toll it takes on soldiers and civilians into all of our living rooms? Nope, the wars we engage in are barely ever mentioned. We don't even have to hear about them.

In what possible way do the wars we fight effect college age kids who are not in the military? What sacrifices have they been forced to make for the war?

The only way someone who was 10 on 9/11 could possibly be "war weary" is; a) if they are actually a soldier or b) if they are the biggest farking pussy in the world who doesn't have even the slightest clue what war weary really means. Let me guess which of those categories most of these young libertarians fall into. My mother in law, who as a child lived through the Siege of Leningrad, has a right to use the term "war weary". An American twenty something who's never been in the military does not.


Can I be weary of having my tax money used for mass murder overseas, instead of having actual infrastructure?
/Young Americans for Liberty are jackasses, as are libertarians generally; I'm just sick of having to finance massive terrorist campaigns is all.
 
2013-08-01 04:27:32 PM  

dmaestaz: JerkyMeat: Modern libratarians Liberals and GOPers are a cancer to society.

FIFY


NO U - the pinnacle of argumentation.
 
2013-08-01 04:35:01 PM  
I have to pay for my utilities.  I have to pay for my food.  I have to pay taxes for my roads 10% sales tax here.  I pay all the time in spite of what some of you have spouted.  None of the public utilities around here are government owned.  The local municipal water systems are not regulated by the public service commission in this state.  So go on tell me how the government is supplying me with so much and how i'm not paying for it. I pay taxes to pay for single moms who get 600 bucks a kid from the state,  free healthcare, rental assistance, assistance on their utilities and so on.   I filled out forms time and time again to get some kind of assistance for my son.  The simple fact despite everyone's ignorance is that I wold have make less than 20,000 a year to qualify for anything other than some pathetic program called tefra which guess what costs $75 a month and doesn't cover shiat.   I get it that you all think its some weakness on my part but your wrong end of story.  I will make on allowance I do have police and fire protection.  Of course right now 1% of that 10% sales tax I'm paying is going to build a new fire station.
 
2013-08-01 04:37:12 PM  

Usurper4: mithras_angel: LasersHurt: SovietCanuckistan: I have always wondered why all the Libertarian threads on Fark  go so long and get so many reactions.

Because for Years now Libertarians have tried to "educate" everyone on what Libertarians really are, since we keep insisting on judging them by the actions and words of the people who call themselves Libertarians.


This.

Every time someone calling themselves a libertarian does something dumb in the news, I ask my libertarian friends, "What do you think of this?"

And, consistantly and unanimously they say, "Oh, [that person] isn't a ~real~ libertarian."

Well, isn't this true with almost any group? "Lieberman isn't a real Democrat", "Spector's a RINO"...Christians and Moslems do it all the time, saying that somebody's not a true believer due to their actions. Hell, even Alcoholics Anonymous does it, claiming a near 100% success rate because if you have a drink of alcohol, you're no longer a member of AA.


Ah, the "No True Libertarian" argument, then.
 
2013-08-01 04:41:14 PM  

Aristocles: ciberido: Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.  I get no money for my autistic son.  No money for my disabling medical condition  including no medical help at all.  I make half the median income for the state.  The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity.  We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens  people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves.  They expect someone else to pay for it.  Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.

.... in the minds of idiots who don't understand liberals OR conservatives.

But that's ok.  After all, libertarianism makes you stupid.  It happens.

Libertarianism turns you into a demonrat Farklib?


I understand that this is difficult, but there was a link you were supposed to click on.
 
2013-08-01 04:42:00 PM  
You know that kid in high school who'd ask for his dad's car keys, but never refilled the tank? That kid grew up to be a libertarian.
 
2013-08-01 04:49:50 PM  

GoldSpider: Deucednuisance: I see. Another one whose firmly-held, obviously correct and simple to grasp opinions are misunderstood by all and sundry and its everyone else's fault, because, lord knows, you explained yourself clearly enough, over and over again.

No, it's that people THINK they know what I believe without bothering to ask me.  It's practically the engine that runs the Politics tab, an engine that runs on straw.


How about you stop whining about how nobody understands you and put that effort into responding to criticism with specific arguments?
 
2013-08-01 04:50:27 PM  

PsiChick: GoldSpider: LasersHurt: It's better when it's harder, because of... morals?

If you're content with living as a pet, than who am I to judge?

Here in Nevada, we have a mandatory class on the Constitution as part of our freshman college year. It's very enlightening, especially the parts about social contracts. I think you'd rather enjoy learning that participation in social contracts does not make you a 'pet'.


- if force is involved, it's not "participation", it's survival
- contracts made under coercion are invalid
- you aren't bound by a contract made by your ancestors
- refusal to leave the land of your birth is not tacit agreement with all or part of such contracts

But since your class occurred in a college setting, I'm sure the above items were all thoroughly discussed, in the spirit of true intellectual honesty and curiosity.

Social cooperation and participation are important (there's an understatement), but beware the slippery nature of words. You've been intentionally misled, because the great thinkers that dared question divine right and the rule of kings were desperate to replace monarchy with *something* to justify the evolving social order.

Hence the tortured contract metaphor, and the fact that we're still ruled by the modern equivalent of armored knights on horseback, with the monarchy replaced by 51% of your neighbors at any given moment (in theory).

It's important to think this stuff through, because we haven't even begun to figure out how to justly interact and organize ourselves yet, it's all just a variant of "big man with club is leader". Anyone that dismisses this all as whackjobbery, isn't really thinking, they're just rearranging their existing prejudices.

"History is a set of lies agreed upon." -Napoleon Bonaparte-

/politically agnostic
//no I don't have an answer
///yes I know we're a farking republic
 
2013-08-01 04:51:02 PM  

plewis: Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.  I get no money for my autistic son.  No money for my disabling medical condition  including no medical help at all.  I make half the median income for the state.  The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity.  We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens  people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves.  They expect someone else to pay for it.  Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.

I like how YOU decided to harm your son in the long term by not getting offered treatment early in his life when it could have made a difference.  I too have an autistic son.  You know what I would do to get him even slightly closer to mainstream so he can have a happy and healthy (and ultimately more productive) life?  ANYTHING.  I'll take from the government, borrow against my house, take money from my aged parents, strangers.  Want to see me streak?  Pay for my son's therapy and I'll even let you spank my bare ass.

So I'm going to say it.  Your libertarian principles broke libertarian principles.  You, by your neglect, harmed another.  You HARMED your own SON!  That makes you a highly principled monster and if your son later is not able to function, we the people have to care for his well being after you are gone.

There is a role of the state.  One of those roles is to keep me from punching you in your evil face and taking your son away from you because you are a neglectful mouthbreather.  Hope your piety keeps you well in your old age, because your son will be too busy struggling to help you.


Wow, farklibs sure get mad when you point out that everyone else isn't a mooching deadbeat like they are.
 
2013-08-01 05:02:34 PM  

Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.  I get no money for my autistic son.  No money for my disabling medical condition  including no medical help at all.  I make half the median income for the state.  The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity.  We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens  people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves.  They expect someone else to pay for it.  Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.


You are posting on th Internet

QED you are wrong. And kind of silly to the point of absurd.
 
2013-08-01 05:08:42 PM  

UndeadPoetsSociety: Can I be weary of having my tax money used for mass murder overseas, instead of having actual infrastructure?


They say that taxes are the price of living in a civilized society.

But it is civil to force someone (under threat of violence) to pay for something they consider morally reprehensible?

If you should withhold that portion of your taxes that goes to our continual campaigns of mass murder, in what way will things start to become uncivil? Armed agents pointing their shotguns at you and your family, demanding payment...that's how.

Taken this way, taxes are "the price of civility" in more ways than one.
 
2013-08-01 05:11:29 PM  

Lawyers With Nukes: Hence the tortured contract metaphor, and the fact that we're still ruled by the modern equivalent of armored knights on horseback, with the monarchy replaced by 51% of your neighbors at any given moment (in theory).


Again: You get roads. You get education. You get wildfires put out for you. And in return, society asks you follow the speed limit and not punch people in the face.

Now, if your civil rights are being violated, you might have a valid complaint. Speaking as a bisexual, however, we also have a system that deals pretty well with it. No, it's not an idealized fairness that compensates for every special little snowflake's feelings, but you're never going to get it. Either move to Europe\Canada, where people seem to get better deals, or, in the words of my favorite gym coach, suck it up, Buttercup.
 
2013-08-01 05:15:46 PM  

HeadLever: rustypouch: My point is that it's not an ad-hom to say that right wingers and teabaggers are women-hating and gay bashing, because they actually do these things, and have passed laws to that effect.

And you could use that same talking point an apply it to my rant on liberals. Using this talking point does nothing for honest arguments and is just another easy way out to dismiss or debase those that you generally oppose.


Then it would be easy enough for you to point out some family hating, socialist, enviro nazis, right?

Elected officials, not random people on the net, please. Just because it's easy to find elected conservatives who hold the positions you consider ad homs.
 
2013-08-01 05:27:00 PM  

Revek: I have to pay for my utilities. I have to pay for my food. I have to pay taxes for my roads 10% sales tax here. I pay all the time in spite of what some of you have spouted. None of the public utilities around here are government owned. The local municipal water systems are not regulated by the public service commission in this state. So go on tell me how the government is supplying me with so much and how i'm not paying for it.


Nobody said that.  What they did say is that many of the things you take for granted were due to government infrastructure investment.

Revek: I pay taxes to pay for single moms who get 600 bucks a kid from the state, free healthcare, rental assistance, assistance on their utilities and so on.


Truly those people are living the life of luxury.  I'm sure you wish you were in there shoes amirite?

Revek: I filled out forms time and time again to get some kind of assistance for my son. The simple fact despite everyone's ignorance is that I wold have make less than 20,000 a year to qualify for anything other than some pathetic program called tefra which guess what costs $75 a month and doesn't cover shiat.


So you're blaming others for your failure to mention that you don't qualify for those programs, not that you were too bootstrappy to apply for them in the first place.
 
2013-08-01 05:29:09 PM  

HeadLever: Phil


Ok, I'll just quit working or do something that pays much less than I make now, because it's entirely unfair that I make enough money to pay taxes.

/wut?
 
2013-08-01 05:30:19 PM  
iawai: Yes, it's based on selfishness. But not Shortsightedness. EVERYONE, everywhere, acts selfishly. It's long been a philosophical quest to find the truly altruistic action.

No. Altruistic actions (such as giving money to charity) obviously DO happen.  I'm really not interested in philosophical mumbo-jumbo about whether or not giving to charity is "truly" optimistic.

And frankly, I don't care about your philosophical musings on the nature of humankind.  Stick to how Libertarianism will work IN PRACTICE, if you would please.

iawaiThere's already evidence that shows that private police, fire, medical providers, etc. will give the poor reduced rates or free service. The fact that these things are your hold-ups shows your willing blindness.

There is?  What evidence?  It what nation where only private police forces exist do these police give discounts to poor?  Where do private fire services offer free service to some people but charge their wealthy clients full price?  If I'm blind, it's not willing blindness (and fark you for that insult, by the way).  It's because I have honestly never heard of such things ever happening.  Drop the ad hominen attacks and give actual examples, rather than assert that it's only due to "willing blindness" that I don't already know of them.

It's not MY JOB to go looking for evidence to support YOUR CLAIMS.  Prove them or don't, but don't waste my time insulting me for not doing your work for you.  And if you do plan to reply again, I strongly urge you to drop the belligerent straw-men and actually cite actual facts.
 
2013-08-01 05:34:41 PM  

BMFPitt: ciberido: Libertarianism, by contrast, seems like it would shut out in the cold anyone who wasn't born rich, regardless of how ardently the disenfranchised tried to follow it themselves.

It's unfortunate that you choose to believe this.


Perhaps. but it's even more unfortunate that you choose to lament my opinion rather than try to  explain to me  how Libertarianism WOULDN'T shut out in the cold anyone who wasn't born rich, regardless of how ardently the disenfranchised tried to follow it themselves.

Explain to me how someone how wasn't born wealthy would benefit under Libertarianism, or concede the point.
 
2013-08-01 05:38:58 PM  

bopis: Liberal thinking:
Liberals agree with me 100% of the time and that makes them more highly evolved.
Conservatives disagree with me on pretty much 100% of issues, that makes them evil!
Libertarians agree/disagree with me on maybe 50% of issues, that makes them the worst!


You're half right
 
2013-08-01 05:42:24 PM  

Revek: I have to pay for my utilities.  I have to pay for my food.  I have to pay taxes for my roads 10% sales tax here.  I pay all the time in spite of what some of you have spouted.  None of the public utilities around here are government owned.  The local municipal water systems are not regulated by the public service commission in this state.  So go on tell me how the government is supplying me with so much and how i'm not paying for it. I pay taxes to pay for single moms who get 600 bucks a kid from the state,  free healthcare, rental assistance, assistance on their utilities and so on.   I filled out forms time and time again to get some kind of assistance for my son.  The simple fact despite everyone's ignorance is that I wold have make less than 20,000 a year to qualify for anything other than some pathetic program called tefra which guess what costs $75 a month and doesn't cover shiat.   I get it that you all think its some weakness on my part but your wrong end of story.  I will make on allowance I do have police and fire protection.  Of course right now 1% of that 10% sales tax I'm paying is going to build a new fire station.


So in a nutshell, your backasswards hellhole of a state, working along libertarian principles, hasn't provided you with the services you want and would be helpful to your son. And you've turned that despair into the illusion that it's because you're all bootstrappy. Shouldn't you be happy that the state you live in allows that public infrastructure is in private hands? Isn't that part of the whole libertarian ethos? Shouldn't you be happy that you couldn't get the assistance your son needs through a social safety net? I would have expected you to say something along the lines of "my son was denied services for his autism! Outstanding, it gives him a chance to pull himself up by his bootstraps!" If the libertarian paradise you live in is so great, why do you sound so bitter?
 
2013-08-01 05:42:54 PM  

Fart_Machine: there


their.

/shakes tiny fist
 
2013-08-01 05:53:40 PM  
Another thread demonstrating once again that the reason people avoid and often mock libertarians is entirely do to libertarians themselves. Surely a long line of angry rants amounting to "If I don't get government assistance then nobody should!" will finally convince people that libertarian is not just a nice sounding code word for selfish prick.
 
2013-08-01 06:02:08 PM  

Revek: I have to pay for my utilities.  I have to pay for my food.  I have to pay taxes for my roads 10% sales tax here.  I pay all the time in spite of what some of you have spouted.  None of the public utilities around here are government owned.  The local municipal water systems are not regulated by the public service commission in this state.  So go on tell me how the government is supplying me with so much and how i'm not paying for it. I pay taxes to pay for single moms who get 600 bucks a kid from the state,  free healthcare, rental assistance, assistance on their utilities and so on.   I filled out forms time and time again to get some kind of assistance for my son.  The simple fact despite everyone's ignorance is that I wold have make less than 20,000 a year to qualify for anything other than some pathetic program called tefra which guess what costs $75 a month and doesn't cover shiat.   I get it that you all think its some weakness on my part but your wrong end of story.  I will make on allowance I do have police and fire protection.  Of course right now 1% of that 10% sales tax I'm paying is going to build a new fire station.


Most Libertarians at this point would say that you bring this on yourself by continuing to live in such a shiathole of a state.
 
2013-08-01 06:15:46 PM  
Quit thinking you understand what it means to be libertarian from Wikipedia articles.  Go read about John Locke look at the state he lived under and then look at the one you live under now in terms of who gets the advantages.  All of you are talking out your ass about that which you really have no idea about.  Oh and before one of you half wits talks about his investing in the slave trade understand so did most of the guys who have their face on the money.
 
2013-08-01 06:19:36 PM  

Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.  I get no money for my autistic son.  No money for my disabling medical condition  including no medical help at all.  I make half the median income for the state.


The Median income in AR is ~$40,000, so that would put you at 20,000, which does make you eligible for some assistance.

You could get your kid medical insurance under the "ArKids B" plan. With only one child the income cutoff is $22,980.00. So at $20k you would be eligible.

While you make too much for SNAP, you are under the max income for the "national school lunch program", "summer food service program" and "child and adult care food program" which subsidize food for your child.

You would also likely qualify for the "Title V, Children with Special Health Care Needs" program.

The "Arkansas low income home energy assistance program" has a cutoff for a two person household at $22,695. So you are at the edge of eligibility for that one too.

You also qualify for (at least on the basis of income) your states weatherization assistance program that could help you save on energy bills.
 
2013-08-01 06:24:21 PM  

rustypouch: Then it would be easy enough for you to point out some family hating, socialist, enviro nazis, right?


Easy peasy.
 
2013-08-01 06:25:27 PM  

Thrag: Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.  I get no money for my autistic son.  No money for my disabling medical condition  including no medical help at all.  I make half the median income for the state.

The Median income in AR is ~$40,000, so that would put you at 20,000, which does make you eligible for some assistance.

You could get your kid medical insurance under the "ArKids B" plan. With only one child the income cutoff is $22,980.00. So at $20k you would be eligible.

While you make too much for SNAP, you are under the max income for the "national school lunch program", "summer food service program" and "child and adult care food program" which subsidize food for your child.

You would also likely qualify for the "Title V, Children with Special Health Care Needs" program.

The "Arkansas low income home energy assistance program" has a cutoff for a two person household at $22,695. So you are at the edge of eligibility for that one too.

You also qualify for (at least on the basis of income) your states weatherization assistance program that could help you save on energy bills.


Doesn't matter where you get your numbers it matters where Arkansas DHS get theirs. I don't even know why I bother responding to idiots like you.
 
2013-08-01 06:27:16 PM  

Phil McKraken: Ok, I'll just quit working or do something that pays much less than I make now, because it's entirely unfair that I make enough money to pay taxes.


Not much in that figure had anything to do with making enough money to pay taxes.  We all pay some sort of taxes. Methinks that you completly missed my point.
 
2013-08-01 06:32:50 PM  

Revek: Thrag: Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.  I get no money for my autistic son.  No money for my disabling medical condition  including no medical help at all.  I make half the median income for the state.

The Median income in AR is ~$40,000, so that would put you at 20,000, which does make you eligible for some assistance.

You could get your kid medical insurance under the "ArKids B" plan. With only one child the income cutoff is $22,980.00. So at $20k you would be eligible.

While you make too much for SNAP, you are under the max income for the "national school lunch program", "summer food service program" and "child and adult care food program" which subsidize food for your child.

You would also likely qualify for the "Title V, Children with Special Health Care Needs" program.

The "Arkansas low income home energy assistance program" has a cutoff for a two person household at $22,695. So you are at the edge of eligibility for that one too.

You also qualify for (at least on the basis of income) your states weatherization assistance program that could help you save on energy bills.

Doesn't matter where you get your numbers it matters where Arkansas DHS get theirs.


I am getting my numbers from the websites of the actual programs and/or Arkansas government websites.

For example, here's the ArKids First website

ARKids First Income Eligibility
Effective April 1, 2013 through March 31, 2014

Family SizeARKids AARKids BUnder Age 6Age 6 and Over
AnnuallyMonthlyAnnuallyMonthlyAnnuallyMonthly1

$15,281.76

$1,273.48

$11,490.00

$957.50

$22,980.00

$1,915.00

2

$20,628.36

$1,719.03

$15,510.00

$1,292.50

$31,020.00

$2,585.00


Though it does look like I read that wrong. It says family size and not number of children. So in your case if you are a single parent with one child the cutoff appears to be $31k.

I don't even know why I bother responding to idiots like you.

The feeling is mutual. Sorry for trying to give you useful information. I'm sure spending your time biatching on the internet will turn out to be a better way to improve your situation.

You are here slacking instead of working and complaining about not getting enough government assistance. The fact that you call yourself a libertarian is the funniest thing in this thread.
 
2013-08-01 06:38:47 PM  
So, does everyone else hate fark's latest editor? I pasted in a table and it retained all the nice formatting in the editor, only to be completely stripped of formatting when posted.
 
2013-08-01 06:48:37 PM  
GoldSpider:If you're content with living as a pet, than who am I to judge?

PsiChick:Here in Nevada, we have a mandatory class on the Constitution as part of our freshman college year. It's very enlightening, especially the parts about social contracts. I think you'd rather enjoy learning that participation in social contracts does not make you a 'pet'.


Lawyers With Nukes: - if force is involved, it's not "participation", it's survival


In theory I agree with you, but anyone reading your posts, or, for that matter, listening to any Libertarian, should be aware that "force" in Libertarian-ese is a term of art.  It does not mean what most people think of when they hear the word "force."  When used in Libertarian-ese, it pretty much means "anything Libertarians don't like."

Lawyers With Nukes- contracts made under coercion are invalid

In principle, yes, though again I suspect you have a rather quirky definition of "under coercion" in mind.  If you mean, "someone literally held a knife to my throat and swore he'd kill me if I didn't sign," sure.

Lawyers With Nukes- you aren't bound by a contract made by your ancestors

Not as such, no.  But see the next point.

Lawyers With Nukes- refusal to leave the land of your birth is not tacit agreement with all or part of such contracts

Here's where it all falls down.  By living in a country, you DO implicitly agree to play by the rules of that country.  Joining a society is not strictly a matter of opting in.  When you're born into a society, you're part of it, like it or not, until such time as you leave it.  Here are your only three options:

1. You can obey the rules of the society you're in, even the parts you don't like (such as paying taxes).
2. You can leave the society (but that will probably involve physically moving to a location outside the society).
3. You can break the rules and accept the consequences, be they fines, imprisonment, or whatever.

I'm sorry (well, no, honestly, I'm not), but there IS no fourth option.  You can say "well, I never SIGNED anything, so I'm not REALLY part of this society," but you're wrong.  Yes, like it or not, you "signed the contract" when you were born, and you signed it again every single day you remain in the society.  The GOOD news is, our society allows you to believe wrong headed things and say wrongheaded things, and you're free to THINK you're not part of society to your hearts' content, and you can CLAIM the laws don't apply to you if you like.  That's the joy of free speech.

But when push comes to shove, you WILL obey the rules or you WILL leave or you WILL get punished.  That is how it is, and how it should be.  And if you don't like it, tough.

You can also, I might add, try to CHANGE the society you live in, via the process the society has for change (such as voting, in the USA, or writing letters to your congressman, etc.)  Or you could try violent revolution, I suppose, if you're fully prepared to accept the likelihood that you'll die in the attempt.  But these are outside the scope of what I was talking about earlier.
 
2013-08-01 06:56:41 PM  

iawai: What is libertarianism, to you? Is there an underlying philosophy, or is it just a set of policy prescriptions that can waver in the winds of current sentiment?


Are you asking about my view of libertarianism in general, or my own personal views?  "Libertarianism" is just a term that I find reasonably descriptive of what I believe, not some kind of ideology that I base my beliefs on.

I feel that the one-sentence definition of libertarianism is that the government should only do what it has to to protect citizens from each other and outside threats.  There is a lot of diversity of opinion on where to draw these lines.

Personally, I'd say the same - as well as to provide basic services that only a government can provide in a practical and cost-effective manner.

ciberido: Perhaps. but it's even more unfortunate that you choose to lament my opinion rather than try to  explain to me  how Libertarianism WOULDN'T  shut out in the cold anyone who wasn't born rich, regardless of how ardently the disenfranchised tried to follow it themselves.


Could you please define what you believe the bolded terms mean so that I can more accurately answer your question.  Also, what difficulties do you believe that these people would have in this "Libertarian" world that are different from now?
 
2013-08-01 07:02:22 PM  

Revek: Doesn't matter where you get your numbers it matters where Arkansas DHS get theirs. I don't even know why I bother responding to idiots like you.


Neither do I.

You are getting called out as a liar, or too stupid to find out what you quialify for.  Something a random guy with no kid at stake could find out in a couple minutes.
 
2013-08-01 07:06:47 PM  

Lawyers With Nukes: UndeadPoetsSociety: Can I be weary of having my tax money used for mass murder overseas, instead of having actual infrastructure?

They say that taxes are the price of living in a civilized society.

But it is civil to force someone (under threat of violence) to pay for something they consider morally reprehensible?

If you should withhold that portion of your taxes that goes to our continual campaigns of mass murder, in what way will things start to become uncivil? Armed agents pointing their shotguns at you and your family, demanding payment...that's how.

Taken this way, taxes are "the price of civility" in more ways than one.



If you do not pay your taxes, you are a thief.  You have stolen from your fellow citizens.  It is entirely right and proper that police should use force to apprehend thieves and see that they are punished from their crimes.  Using force to apprehend and punish criminals is absolutely part of a civil society.

No matter how "morally reprehensible" you think taxes are, you broke the law, you are a criminal, and yes I DO hope that big, burly men with big-ass shotguns arrest your skeeving, criminal ass and haul you away in handcuffs.  Ideally it should be a quiet arrest without the need to draw guns, but if you or any member of your family resist arrest or otherwise try to interfere, then they get to do whatever is necessary to put down such resistance, up to burning your house down and driving over the flaming rubble in radioactive tanks.  Repeatedly.

And  I will applaud them and buy them doughnuts for doing their job.

Now, if you truly believe that you were standing up for your rights by committing an act of civil disobedience, then live up to it by accepting your arrest, pleading guilty in court and taking your prison sentence with dignity like a true activist.  Follow in the footsteps of Martin Luther King, jr, and others by writing letters from jail.

/You could also try a slightly more low-key approach by, say, voting for Libertarian candidates in every election, but hey, since you decided to up the drama by talking about shotguns being pointed and your kids, I thought I'd play your game with you.
 
2013-08-01 07:13:53 PM  

BMFPitt: iawai: What is libertarianism, to you? Is there an underlying philosophy, or is it just a set of policy prescriptions that can waver in the winds of current sentiment?

Are you asking about my view of libertarianism in general, or my own personal views?  "Libertarianism" is just a term that I find reasonably descriptive of what I believe, not some kind of ideology that I base my beliefs on.

I feel that the one-sentence definition of libertarianism is that the government should only do what it has to to protect citizens from each other and outside threats.  There is a lot of diversity of opinion on where to draw these lines.

Personally, I'd say the same - as well as to provide basic services that only a government can provide in a practical and cost-effective manner.

ciberido: Perhaps. but it's even more unfortunate that you choose to lament my opinion rather than try to  explain to me  how Libertarianism WOULDN'T  shut out in the cold anyone who wasn't born rich, regardless of how ardently the disenfranchised tried to follow it themselves.

Could you please define what you believe the bolded terms mean so that I can more accurately answer your question.  Also, what difficulties do you believe that these people would have in this "Libertarian" world that are different from now?


No.  And your troll-fu is weak.  You want to concern-troll, learn to do it better.

Take a stab at answering the question or not.  Don't waste my time.
 
2013-08-01 07:23:08 PM  
Voiceofreason01: B: are greedy, selfish farkers who are looking for a way to justify not paying taxes

Pretty much. I have libertarian leanings, but those are more accurately summed up as wishing to exercise individual liberty, i.e. liberal. The libertarians I know simply don't want to pay taxes. Hardly anybody wants to pay taxes but these guys go out of their way to denigrate everybody who they think are unworthy of their tax dollars, and then jump to how they shouldn't pay taxes.
 
2013-08-01 07:26:24 PM  

liam76: Revek: Doesn't matter where you get your numbers it matters where Arkansas DHS get theirs. I don't even know why I bother responding to idiots like you.

Neither do I.

You are getting called out as a liar, or too stupid to find out what you quialify for.  Something a random guy with no kid at stake could find out in a couple minutes.


I'm not a liar asshole I haven't filled out one of those forms in 4 years but at the time I didn't qualify for shiat.  Whether I do now doesn't matter my kid is doing great. I get help from other private citizens.  I know what I'm talking about while dipshiats like you armchair quarterback me and call me a bad parent for rejecting the minority driven social programs.  Spent 3 days in the hospital last year all the while a very nice lady tried to find some government program that would help me with my medical problems.  She didn't find anything and it was her job.  Call me a liar if it makes you feel better but I'm not a fart sucking asshole from san francisco or wherever your from.  Your opinion isn't going to matter for anything.  They won't change my status with Arkansas DHS they won't get me anything.  You make bad points and call them right.  You haven't lived my life and you haven't been told you don't qualify for this or that reason.  I paid for tefra for a year. All the time I used that card for my son I was getting bills from places where they said that tefra wasn't paying for this or that reason.  Unless you've lived it you don't know.  Some random guy made a shiatload of assumptions from 3000 miles away and got it wrong and you agreed with him.
 
2013-08-01 07:27:34 PM  

Revek: Quit thinking you understand what it means to be libertarian from Wikipedia articles.  Go read about John Locke look at the state he lived under and then look at the one you live under now in terms of who gets the advantages.  All of you are talking out your ass about that which you really have no idea about.  Oh and before one of you half wits talks about his investing in the slave trade understand so did most of the guys who have their face on the money.


img233.imageshack.us
 
2013-08-01 07:54:03 PM  

Revek: Quit thinking you understand what it means to be libertarian from Wikipedia articles.  Go read about John Locke look at the state he lived under and then look at the one you live under now in terms of who gets the advantages.


Seems to me, those with the biggest advantages are the wealthy.  The people who reaped the most benefits of one of the least restrictive markets in the history of this country.  The ones that set up a financial system that was bound to fail, simply so they could bet against it and profit greatly from the screwing of the middle and lower classes.  From my point of view, the elite rich are the only winners in a libertarian society, and the middle and lower class that buy into that same ethos are simply believing in a dream that doesn't exist.  The only thing I have seen the wealthy do with their financial gains, is invest it in politicians who will let them keep making windfalls to the detriment of the rest of the country.
 
2013-08-01 07:54:33 PM  

Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.


Considering you live in Southeast Arkansas, I'm pretty certain the government helped in getting you electricity and internet access and roads.

Because there is no way the private sector would've done that on its own.
 
2013-08-01 07:57:44 PM  

ciberido: No.  And your troll-fu is weak.  You want to concern-troll, learn to do it better.


So I'll add "concern troll" to the list of terms you don't seem to understand.

Take a stab at answering the question or not.  Don't waste my time.

OK, then.  I'll assume you are asking how non-rich people will be able to get ahead in an anarcho-capitalist world.  They'll use their bootstraps to become the local warlord 5 minutes after such a world magically came into existence, crushing those that oppose them regardless of prior income level.  Either that or they'll be killed or enslaved by that guy.

That's the difficulty in asking someone a vague question while implying that they believe in an extremist philosophy that they have already called stupid.
 
2013-08-01 08:02:07 PM  

Revek: Some random guy made a shiatload of assumptions from 3000 miles away and got it wrong and you agreed with him.


And by shiatload of assumptions you mean posted data directly from the appropriate government agencies.

So you come in here attempting to use your personal anecdote as a bludgeon, and you then throw a hissy fit when someone posts information that could conceivably help you out. You give the whole "you haven't lived my life" line in your tantrum, but you don't seem to realize that when you decry others for getting assistance that you haven't lived their lives either. You make blanket assumptions about people who receive aid, but demand that you are a special flower and we all have to walk a mile in your shoes before we are even allowed to comment on your story. While lecturing about personal responsibility, you are goofing off during work hours while simultaneously complaining about your low income.

And you actually wonder why people have such a low opinion of self described libertarians? You have provided a perfect example of why people who have listened to libertarians often conclude they are douchebags.
 
2013-08-01 08:02:49 PM  
I've picked two representative posts to demonstrate the ignorance of farkers in general when it comes to how a libertarian or voluntary society would function. The idea that there would be no standards, no safety, no roads, no security, etc and so forth is simply absurd.

Khellendros: Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.

That's impressive.  You don't drive cars on roads, bridges, or overpasses?  You don't eat food grow in the U.S., or shipped in from outside the country?  You don't ever travel across publicly maintained land?  Bought a car that is subject to safety regulations?  Use a public utility such as power, water, telephone, or internet?  You defend your own land with your own army?  You don't watch television regulated by the FCC or look at a clock that has time set by NIST created standards?  You don't use federally issued currency, or send or receive anything by the postal service?  You've never called the police for anything?  Needed to have friends or family helped by the fire department?

Truly, you receive nothing from the government.  I salute you, citizen.  You're a beacon to all of us.


It's funny how someone claims libertarians are hypocrites because of something government has taken a monopoly on. None of those things needs to be a government monopoly. In fact it is the limited ability of person making the charge to think about things beyond accepting the way he knows them. It's also his ignorance of history and where the things as he knows them came from originally. Government is force. It is someone or some group forcing what they think is a good idea on to everyone else. Government is usually a late comer.

For instance, in my profile I have an image from Ford Motor Company selling safety prior to government take over. It's not unique. Many automakers did similar things, to greater and smaller degrees. Government FMVSS standards were copies of prior SAE standards. The way statists think, there was no improvement in safety until government took over after Nader's book. Which is of course entirely false and based in ignorance. But government likes to make the story work that way.

Furthermore, it's sad that government has taken monopoly over so much in our lives, but it does not make a libertarian a hypocrite because he has no other choice but to use the services he's forced to pay for or else and the things which if he wants to use he has no choice but to use those the government has control over. Feel free to break government monopolies and government licensed cartels to allow free competition and then see if libertarians act in a hypocritical way. Until then, retire this nonsense.

Also, if we could say reduce the government to the manager of roads, that would be cheered by most libertarians. Some hard core wouldn't be satisfied, but it would be a vast improvement. Better yet to reduce government to another company in a free voluntary market competing for customers. Somehow I don't think they could manage not to go bankrupt as even with the monopoly on legal violence to simply take from people they can't seem to live within their means.

heavymetal: [i.qkme.me image 360x360]


Engineering standards started out as private standards. Many still are. Sure it is voluntary to comply with these standards unlike the 'or else' of those the government now controls, but if a product doesn't pass those UL, ISO, ANSI, SAE, etc and so forth standards and someone gets hurt guess who is going to have a very difficult time proving their product was safe to use? Furthermore, government often ignores the engineering standards itself puts into law or distorts them for the benefit of itself and its friends. For instance, take the MUTCD (which started from the AASHO, a private non-government group). This standard was altered to make red light cameras more profitable and is routinely ignored by government in favor of traffic ticket revenue. The thing is, it is often incorporated into the vehicle code.

As to fire codes specifically, ever hear of NFPA? http://www.nfpa.org/about-nfpa

This is just one of countless organizations that were created in voluntary society to make for safe buildings, products, and so on and so forth.

The reason voluntary libertarian society can work is because it brought about the good things people now credit government for. That's what government does, takes things over and demands credit for the work of others.
 
2013-08-01 08:09:12 PM  

cubic_spleen: GoldSpider: bopis: Liberal thinking:
Liberals agree with me 100% of the time and that makes them more highly evolved.
Conservatives disagree with me on pretty much 100% of issues, that makes them evil!
Libertarians agree/disagree with me on maybe 50% of issues, that makes them the worst!

While I too have scare a clue what you're blathering about, I will agree that self-described Liberals have more in common with libertarians than they are comfortable admitting.

With genuine libertarians, perhaps. The self-confessed American right-wing 'libertarians' are really Republicans who long for a return to feudalism, in the laughably false assumption that they will be inside the castle walls.


If you put 10 libertarians in a room, you'd get 11 different definitions of "genuine libertarian".
 
2013-08-01 08:19:59 PM  

ghettodwarf: The ones that set up a financial system that was bound to fail, simply so they could bet against it and profit greatly from the screwing of the middle and lower classes.


So you're upset that the wealthy elite control government and using that control of government ended up controlling the money? Go government, keeping the serfs and slaves in their place for the last six thousand years.
 
2013-08-01 08:26:30 PM  

cubic_spleen: The self-confessed American right-wing 'libertarians' are really Republicans who long for a return to feudalism, in the laughably false assumption that they will be inside the castle walls.


We are already living in modern feudalism. It's more appropriately called corporatism and actually it's worse than the dark age kind in many respects. The mechanisms just aren't as overt. They are done with financial control and scientific social manipulation and so on, but the end result, the effective result when it comes to money and power and living in luxury off the labor of others is everything medieval feudalism was and more. These days what we are seeing is the shift to the overt. Where it isn't hidden anymore. Both team D and team R cheer it forward.
 
2013-08-01 08:32:37 PM  
Libertarianism makes as much sense as telling perfectly happy people to be angry for no reason at all.
 
2013-08-01 09:18:44 PM  

leadmetal: It's funny how someone claims libertarians are hypocrites because of something government has taken a monopoly on. None of those things needs to be a government monopoly. In fact it is the limited ability of person making the charge to think about things beyond accepting the way he knows them. It's also his ignorance of history and where the things as he knows them came from originally.


Truly the Gilded Age was the best time in American History.

Government is force. It is someone or some group forcing what they think is a good idea on to everyone else. Government is usually a late comer.

Government is a late comer in the respect that it takes enough citizens raising hell before they eventually step in.  Industry would have been more than happy to maintain child labor, lax to non-existent safety regulations, slave-like factory conditions, and dumping chemical waste into the local water supply if it meant maintaining their bottom line.
 
2013-08-01 09:39:19 PM  

Fart_Machine: Government is a late comer in the respect that it takes enough citizens raising hell before they eventually step in.


Oh, they can go overboard and attack problems in ways that are not even constitutional. Overall, government serves a function, but it needs to be evaluated and scrutinized in order to keep it healthy and in check.
 
2013-08-01 09:56:23 PM  

HeadLever: Overall, government serves a function, but it needs to be evaluated and scrutinized in order to keep it healthy and in check.


I'm OK with this.
 
2013-08-01 10:06:39 PM  

Garbonzo42: cubic_spleen: GoldSpider: bopis: Liberal thinking:
Liberals agree with me 100% of the time and that makes them more highly evolved.
Conservatives disagree with me on pretty much 100% of issues, that makes them evil!
Libertarians agree/disagree with me on maybe 50% of issues, that makes them the worst!

While I too have scare a clue what you're blathering about, I will agree that self-described Liberals have more in common with libertarians than they are comfortable admitting.

With genuine libertarians, perhaps. The self-confessed American right-wing 'libertarians' are really Republicans who long for a return to feudalism, in the laughably false assumption that they will be inside the castle walls.

If you put 10 libertarians in a room, you'd get 11 different definitions of "genuine libertarian".


...all of which can be boiled down to "I got mine, fark you".

/ and possibly "legalize pot"
 
2013-08-01 10:07:26 PM  

Fart_Machine: leadmetal: It's funny how someone claims libertarians are hypocrites because of something government has taken a monopoly on. None of those things needs to be a government monopoly. In fact it is the limited ability of person making the charge to think about things beyond accepting the way he knows them. It's also his ignorance of history and where the things as he knows them came from originally.

Truly the Gilded Age was the best time in American History.

Government is force. It is someone or some group forcing what they think is a good idea on to everyone else. Government is usually a late comer.

Government is a late comer in the respect that it takes enough citizens raising hell before they eventually step in.  Industry would have been more than happy to maintain child labor, lax to non-existent safety regulations, slave-like factory conditions, and dumping chemical waste into the local water supply if it meant maintaining their bottom line.


This idea that the past was 'libertarian' is outright bullshiat. It was a time where the wealthy exerted more overt control over the state and/or the government's utter failure in its basic advertised mission. Although not really failure because it was never designed to do anything but serve the wealthy in the first place.

You know why employers had unsafe workplaces? Because your government was in their pockets in a much more overt way, plus the biggest companies hadn't yet learned to use regulation as a weapon against upstart competition. When a worker was injured in those days your government's courts, you know the government's monopoly on dispute resolution, told the worker or his surviving family to go pound sand. It was a failure of your government to enforce basic liability. Today employers have safety standards up the wazzoo that go above and beyond government regulation. Why? Because now people have recourse. Your government has corrected that failing to a degree. What is safety regulation often used for now? A way to harass smaller companies over petty details and paperwork.

Children worked because of that was the cultural notion at the time. The idea of children not working to help support their families is rather recent. It's only about 90-100 years old compared to thousands of years of known human history. Children not working is a luxury that only the productivity that has resulted from relative freedom of last couple centuries has made possible. Now the modern extended childhood to age 21 or even beyond is another social engineering aspect that has been deliberately brought about for various reasons but is beyond the scope of this thread. On another note as government grows and takes more and more of the fruits of our labors and restricts freedom further and further we can expect child labor to return even if illegal. It will have to be for people to survive once again.

As far as dumping chemicals into the water supply I am glad you mentioned that. Under a libertarian society that is not permitted. Under your government run society those with political connections are permitted to do so. My drinking water comes from Lake Michigan. Across the border in Indiana BP is allowed by the US EPA and Indiana state government to dump their waste up to a certain amount into the lake. Into where my drinking water comes from. Why is that? Because BP has the political muscle to get that privilege. If I were to build a refinery no way in farking hell would I be allowed to dispose of waste into the lake. I would have to dispose/recycle it on my own dime. Which of course would make my refinery not competitive.

The reason pollution was out of control in the first place was because your government told the people to go pound sand. People started suing over pollution pretty early on but your government insisted that they had to prove the pollution was harmful. Under a strict libertarian property rights system these companies would be liable by default. Why? Because they were contaminating other people's property. There would be no reason to prove harm because under strict property rights they would have to contain their chemicals, their wastes, on their property or sell them or otherwise transfer the ownership of said wastes to another person or company (where the same rules would apply) That is recycle, treat, dispose of properly.

When the people revolted, government of course didn't embrace property rights, instead what it did was create a new political privilege. The political privilege BP's refinery on the lake shore benefits from to this day.

Ever notice that countries that had no libertarian aspect to their history lagged in these areas or are still completely screwed up to this day? Find a country where the government has always had complete power and there you will find a lack of any sort of building codes, children working in sweat shops, and pollution galore. China for instance. Very powerful government able to force anyone to do anything and look at it. Condo high rises toppling over, pollution everywhere. The goods that western statists attribute to government did not come from government at all. Government doesn't give a fark about you or me. That's why everything worth having comes out of voluntary society, from the people themselves. The best situation for government and those who influence/control it is a mass of poor people barely able to get by and/or dependent upon government, and that's where government will take us if it is allowed to.
 
2013-08-01 10:09:28 PM  

Fart_Machine: I'm OK with this.


Me too.  I think that most folks will be fine (on both sides of the political fence) if we could frame more of our political discussions in this context.  unfortunately, much of the maneuvering is all about attack and defend and the true point gets muddled.
 
2013-08-01 10:42:16 PM  

BMFPitt: ciberido: No.  And your troll-fu is weak.  You want to concern-troll, learn to do it better.

So I'll add "concern troll" to the list of terms you don't seem to understand.



I think I understand the term well, enough but I grant that I'm using the term based on an assumption about your motives that could be wrong.  I assumed you were a troll because your motive seemed to be wasting my time.  Maybe you're not a troll.  Maybe you're completely, totally sincere, and you're just all butthurt because the big mean liberal said some harsh things about Libertarians.  In which case, son, grow up.  This is Fark, it's a little rough-and-tumble here.  If, on the other hand, your little hissy fit is an act, then you're not just a troll, but a boring one.  If you have to troll, at least try to entertain someone other than yourself.

In either case, it's clear you're never going to answer the questions I asked, so fark off.  For what it's worth, you had your chance to convince me Libertarianism wasn't something I should sneer at, and you pissed it away.  Maybe that was your goal all along, maybe not, whatever.  Go waste someone else's time.
 
2013-08-01 10:45:51 PM  

leadmetal: This idea that the past was 'libertarian' is outright bullshiat. It was a time where the wealthy exerted more overt control over the state and/or the government's utter failure in its basic advertised mission. Although not really failure because it was never designed to do anything but serve the wealthy in the first place.


In the Libertarian Utopia the government has no role in preventing the wealthy from using their influence to exploit others.  It's not a bug, it's a feature.

leadmetal: You know why employers had unsafe workplaces? Because your government was in their pockets in a much more overt way, plus the biggest companies hadn't yet learned to use regulation as a weapon against upstart competition. When a worker was injured in those days your government's courts, you know the government's monopoly on dispute resolution, told the worker or his surviving family to go pound sand. It was a failure of your government to enforce basic liability.


They had unsafe workplaces because it was far cheaper to operate and the fact that there were no regulations in place for them to do otherwise.  The legal system cost money just as it does now.  The idea that workers making slave wages in factories somehow would be able to afford the costs in a corporate court of law is laughably absurd.

leadmetal: Children worked because of that was the cultural notion at the time.


It wasn't just a "cultural notion"; it was a necessity.  Poor families couldn't survive without every member working.  It wasn't the dream of every parent to have their children risk death and dismemberment by working in factories or cleaning out chimneys.

leadmetal: As far as dumping chemicals into the water supply I am glad you mentioned that. Under a libertarian society that is not permitted.


LOL!  Without a mechanism of enforcement then you've got nothing.  I love the naive notion that industries are all moral paragons who would never cut corners and operate as responsible citizens.  They only do bad things because they were coerced by Big Bad Government.

leadmetal: People started suing over pollution pretty early on but your government insisted that they had to prove the pollution was harmful. Under a strict libertarian property rights system these companies would be liable by default. Why? Because they were contaminating other people's property.


Um, contamination requires proof that the pollution was harmful as well.

leadmetal: Ever notice that countries that had no libertarian aspect to their history lagged in these areas or are still completely screwed up to this day? Find a country where the government has always had complete power and there you will find a lack of any sort of building codes, children working in sweat shops, and pollution galore. China for instance. Very powerful government able to force anyone to do anything and look at it.


Nobody is advocating for a totalitarian state.  But if you want to look at countries with far fewer regulations try Mexico, Bangladesh, or India.  Truly we need to strive for their standards of living.
 
2013-08-01 11:07:15 PM  

ciberido: Maybe you're not a troll.  Maybe you're completely, totally sincere, and you're just all butthurt because the big mean liberal said some harsh things about Libertarians.  In which case, son, grow up.  This is Fark, it's a little rough-and-tumble here.  If, on the other hand, your little hissy fit is an act, then you're not just a troll, but a boring one.  If you have to troll, at least try to entertain someone other than yourself.


Well if you see my attempt to explain why your question was like asking someone who goes to church on Christmas and Easter why a fundamentalist Christian theocracy would be good for gay people as butthurt, then you must be pretty desperate to believe you have caused butthurt.  Sorry kid, at best you made me sigh.

In either case, it's clear you're never going to answer the questions I asked, so fark off.  For what it's worth, you had your chance to convince me Libertarianism wasn't something I should sneer at, and you pissed it away.  Maybe that was your goal all along, maybe not, whatever.  Go waste someone else's time.

And just like talking to truthers, birthers, creationists, etc, I knew the odds of cracking your derp shield were pretty long.
 
2013-08-01 11:29:29 PM  

Fart_Machine: In the Libertarian Utopia the government has no role in preventing the wealthy from using their influence to exploit others. It's not a bug, it's a feature.


A libertarian system does permit a government that the wealthy can control and influence for their own benefit. Governments, like the US federal government, are established by the wealthy for their own purposes in controlling and exploiting the people. They will create as much tyranny as the people will permit. You are trying to project the statist system on to libertarians. This is typical of farkers and I am rather sick of it.

Fart_Machine: They had unsafe workplaces because it was far cheaper to operate and the fact that there were no regulations in place for them to do otherwise. The legal system cost money just as it does now. The idea that workers making slave wages in factories somehow would be able to afford the costs in a corporate court of law is laughably absurd.


The legal system is expensive because it is a government monopoly. The wealthy want it that way intentionally. Again, stop blaming libertarianism for the failings of your statist system. Even if a worker had money to fight in those days, and many did fight, on their own dime or through donations or private charitable organizations and so forth they lost. Why? Your government sided with the companies. No liability. They considered it assumed risk by the employee. This is basic history for anyone who's looked into it. You're just reciting state myths. I was taught the same bullshiat in government school too. State myths are to make the government look good. But its not reality.

Fart_Machine: It wasn't just a "cultural notion"; it was a necessity. Poor families couldn't survive without every member working. It wasn't the dream of every parent to have their children risk death and dismemberment by working in factories or cleaning out chimneys.


Read what I wrote again. Read the part about children not working being a recent luxury due to the increase in productivity that resulted from the relative freedom of the last couple centuries. The fact of the matter is you are once again blaming the wide spread poverty that centuries of statism created that libertarian freedoms solved, on libertarianism. Keep growing the state and you'll see the children forced to work once again because of the impoverishment that brings.

Fart_Machine: Um, contamination requires proof that the pollution was harmful as well.


Under strict property rights you can't dump anything on my property. You can't have anything that resulted from your activities go on to my property. That's what property rights are. If you understood libertarianism you would at least understand basics of it like property rights. The issue of pollution in libertarianism is derived from the basics. Libertarianism works like physics or engineering. The positions on any given topic are derived from basic principles. It's not like democrats or republicans who pick what feels good to them, what their emotions say or what's best for themselves. This is why libertarianism is 'weird'. It's a political philosophy that is logically derived from basic principles.  On pollution it comes from the principles of property rights. You have no right to so much as dump a bucket of clean water on my property. The harm is the cost to remove whatever of yours got on my property. To restore it to the state it was in before you contaminated it.

Fart_Machine: Nobody is advocating for a totalitarian state. But if you want to look at countries with far fewer regulations try Mexico, Bangladesh, or India. Truly we need to strive for their standards of living.


The governments ruling those places are more openly corrupt and more overtly controlled by those who benefit by exploiting the people. The USA has lots of regulation yet refinery waste is still being dumped in the source of my drinking water. Why? The amount for the 21st century USA should be ZERO. In fact it should be negative. The water returned to the lake should be cleaner than what was taken out. It should be reversing past pollution the way modern cars may do.  There's no good reason to dump anything into the great lakes. There is absolutely no excuse for any country not to be running at least a 1980 technology level of pollution control. That's the cheap and very effective hunk. But yet it doesn't happen. And the reason it doesn't happen is because of government power. The more powerful the government the worse the problems get. The poorer the people are. And poor people sacrifice their environment because they cannot afford not to.
 
2013-08-01 11:49:36 PM  
I claim Libertarianism mostly because I believe that one person's (or corporation's or government's) actions should not harm another person. I know that that day will never come, but I still believe in the ideal behind it. So, I live my life that way, staying out of other people's business, staying disgusted with the feds on a daily basis, and rolling my eyes at the shenanigans put forth by the left and the right.

That doesn't make me elitist...just depressed. Let gays marry, let gun nuts buy guns, let potheads smoke reefer, etc etc. I don't give a flip because none of that affects me. Selfish? Damn straight. Because I can be selfish as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

As for politicians who claim to be Libertarian while running for president? BULL shiat. That's impossible, for to become president means gaining the power to kill with impunity, the power to pass laws that take away the people's rights. And if we ever have a president who doesn't abuse those powers every single day, that's the day I'll know we're in the Matrix because it's simply not possible.
 
2013-08-02 12:02:02 AM  

GoldSpider: HighOnCraic: Unfortunately, some fairly prominent libertarians want to allow the states to recriminalize it.

Care to name names?

HighOnCraic: As for ending the war on drugs, that's great, I mean it worked in Portugal, so I guess it would work here, as long as we had the same kind of healthcare system that Portugal has in order to provide treatment.

Ending the war on drugs does not necessitate taxpayer-funded treatment programs.  That's not to say it isn't a good idea though.


I was thinking of Ron Paul's "We the People Act."

Ending the War on Drugs would make drugs like cocaine and heroin cheaper and more accessible.  It's not too big a leap to consider the possibility that this would increase the number of addicts.  That usually gets lost in the "Legalize everything!" discussion.  I'm not saying that taxpayer-funded treatment programs are the only solution, but since countries like Portugal and Holland are cited as examples of where legalization works, we should remember that it works in those countries because they have taxpayer-funded treatment programs.
 
2013-08-02 12:08:59 AM  

Revek: Quit thinking you understand what it means to be libertarian from Wikipedia articles.  Go read about John Locke look at the state he lived under and then look at the one you live under now in terms of who gets the advantages.  All of you are talking out your ass about that which you really have no idea about.  Oh and before one of you half wits talks about his investing in the slave trade understand so did most of the guys who have their face on the money.


Don't tell me what I can't do!
 
2013-08-02 12:15:48 AM  

leadmetal: A libertarian system does permit a government that the wealthy can control and influence for their own benefit.


No, it just takes out the middle man so they can control it directly.

leadmetal: The legal system is expensive because it is a government monopoly.


Well no, it's expensive because to get the best legal representation you need money.  Lawyers can ask for whatever the market will demand.

leadmetal: I was taught the same bullshiat in government school too.


At this point I realize I'm dealing with a zealot or a conspiracy loon.

leadmetal: Read what I wrote again. Read the part about children not working being a recent luxury due to the increase in productivity that resulted from the relative freedom of the last couple centuries. The fact of the matter is you are once again blaming the wide spread poverty that centuries of statism created that libertarian freedoms solved, on libertarianism. Keep growing the state and you'll see the children forced to work once again because of the impoverishment that brings.


You're forgetting the part about union representation and the demand for more pay and benefits.  But yeah, we should see kids back in the factories any day now.

leadmetal: Under strict property rights you can't dump anything on my property.


You just claimed it required proof of contamination and now you want to move the goalposts.  In any case lakes and rivers weren't owned by anyone so it was fair game to dump into them.  You can't claim a violation of property when you don't own it.

leadmetal: The governments ruling those places are more openly corrupt and more overtly controlled by those who benefit by exploiting the people. The USA has lots of regulation yet refinery waste is still being dumped in the source of my drinking water. Why? The amount for the 21st century USA should be ZERO. In fact it should be negative. The water returned to the lake should be cleaner than what was taken out. It should be reversing past pollution the way modern cars may do. There's no good reason to dump anything into the great lakes. There is absolutely no excuse for any country not to be running at least a 1980 technology level of pollution control. That's the cheap and very effective hunk. But yet it doesn't happen. And the reason it doesn't happen is because of government power.


Yup, it's the government that's lobbying to prevent increased regulations on drinking water and air pollution.  Just like vehicle emission standards weren't opposed tooth and nail by the auto industry.

/facepalm
 
2013-08-02 12:21:16 AM  

leadmetal: Libertarianism works like physics or engineering. The positions on any given topic are derived from basic principles. It's not like democrats or republicans who pick what feels good to them, what their emotions say or what's best for themselves. This is why libertarianism is 'weird'. It's a political philosophy that is logically derived from basic principles.


That would certainly explain why there is only one type of libertarian.  Oh wait...
 
2013-08-02 12:43:53 AM  

ciberido: GoldSpider:If you're content with living as a pet, than who am I to judge?

PsiChick:Here in Nevada, we have a mandatory class on the Constitution as part of our freshman college year. It's very enlightening, especially the parts about social contracts. I think you'd rather enjoy learning that participation in social contracts does not make you a 'pet'.

Lawyers With Nukes: - if force is involved, it's not "participation", it's survival

In theory I agree with you, but anyone reading your posts, or, for that matter, listening to any Libertarian, should be aware that "force" in Libertarian-ese is a term of art.  It does not mean what most people think of when they hear the word "force."  When used in Libertarian-ese, it pretty much means "anything Libertarians don't like."

Lawyers With Nukes:  - contracts made under coercion are invalid

In principle, yes, though again I suspect you have a rather quirky definition of "under coercion" in mind.  If you mean, "someone literally held a knife to my throat and swore he'd kill me if I didn't sign," sure.

Lawyers With Nukes:  - you aren't bound by a contract made by your ancestors

Not as such, no.  But see the next point.

Lawyers With Nukes:  - refusal to leave the land of your birth is not tacit agreement with all or part of such contracts

Here's where it all falls down.  By living in a country, you DO implicitly agree to play by the rules of that country.  Joining a society is not strictly a matter of opting in.  When you're born into a society, you're part of it, like it or not, until such time as you leave it.  Here are your only three options:

1. You can obey the rules of the society you're in, even the parts you don't like (such as paying taxes).
2. You can leave the society (but that will probably involve physically moving to a location outside the society).
3. You can break the rules and accept the consequences, be they fines, imprisonment, or whatever.

I'm sorry (well, no, honestly, I'm not), but there IS no ...


Thank you. This is much better expressed than my version.
 
2013-08-02 12:54:43 AM  

Fart_Machine: leadmetal: A libertarian system does permit a government that the wealthy can control and influence for their own benefit.

No, it just takes out the middle man so they can control it directly.

leadmetal: The legal system is expensive because it is a government monopoly.

Well no, it's expensive because to get the best legal representation you need money.  Lawyers can ask for whatever the market will demand.

leadmetal: I was taught the same bullshiat in government school too.

At this point I realize I'm dealing with a zealot or a conspiracy loon.

leadmetal: Read what I wrote again. Read the part about children not working being a recent luxury due to the increase in productivity that resulted from the relative freedom of the last couple centuries. The fact of the matter is you are once again blaming the wide spread poverty that centuries of statism created that libertarian freedoms solved, on libertarianism. Keep growing the state and you'll see the children forced to work once again because of the impoverishment that brings.

You're forgetting the part about union representation and the demand for more pay and benefits.  But yeah, we should see kids back in the factories any day now.

leadmetal: Under strict property rights you can't dump anything on my property.

You just claimed it required proof of contamination and now you want to move the goalposts.  In any case lakes and rivers weren't owned by anyone so it was fair game to dump into them.  You can't claim a violation of property when you don't own it.

leadmetal: The governments ruling those places are more openly corrupt and more overtly controlled by those who benefit by exploiting the people. The USA has lots of regulation yet refinery waste is still being dumped in the source of my drinking water. Why? The amount for the 21st century USA should be ZERO. In fact it should be negative. The water returned to the lake should be cleaner than what was taken out. It should be reversing past pollution the way modern cars may do. There's no good reason to dump anything into the great lakes. There is absolutely no excuse for any country not to be running at least a 1980 technology level of pollution control. That's the cheap and very effective hunk. But yet it doesn't happen. And the reason it doesn't happen is because of government power.

Yup, it's the government that's lobbying to prevent increased regulations on drinking water and air pollution.  Just like vehicle emission standards weren't opposed tooth and nail by the auto industry.

/facepalm


One point: I though bodies of water may not be anyone's property, they abut property and deposit onto it that which is put into them. If you are dumping something into a body of water you are also dumping that something onto the property of anyone whose property it lands on. Nobody owns the air, but if you throw waste into the air and it lands on someone else's property you are dumping waste onto their property regardless of whether you put it directly, by hand, onto their soil. It seems to me the same principle should apply to throwing that waste into water as into the atmosphere. The cost of retrieving that which you dump should be yours.

Just saying, that argument doesn't smell right to me.
 
2013-08-02 12:57:18 AM  
I though -> Although

Derp
 
2013-08-02 01:07:39 AM  

Well Armed Sheep: One point: I though bodies of water may not be anyone's property, they abut property and deposit onto it that which is put into them. If you are dumping something into a body of water you are also dumping that something onto the property of anyone whose property it lands on. Nobody owns the air, but if you throw waste into the air and it lands on someone else's property you are dumping waste onto their property regardless of whether you put it directly, by hand, onto their soil. It seems to me the same principle should apply to throwing that waste into water as into the atmosphere. The cost of retrieving that which you dump should be yours.

Just saying, that argument doesn't smell right to me.


Yes you are.  On the other hand unless you have the resources to challenge the business in court the point is largely moot.  What Libertarians say to compensate for this is that we encourage everything to be privately owned.  So if I buy up the land and pollute it or pay the guy off who owns the water supply then it's none of your business.  And if you want to make it your business then the Libertarian option apparently is corporate arbitration (we don't want that government monopoly on the legal system now) which seldom works out in your favor anyway.
 
2013-08-02 01:56:22 AM  
I love how libertarians claim to be all about freedom for everyone, despite the fact that old school libertarians like Barry Goldwater (in his chapter on Civil Rights in "The Conscience of a Conservative") and William F. Buckley* (in numerous editorials in the Nationalist Review, including "Why the South Must Prevail") argued that the Federal government had no right to get involved with spreading freedom and democracy to blah Southerners, and they both approved of using American tax dollars (collected by force, of course) to spread freedom and democracy in Soviet-controlled nations, even if it meant funding anti-Soviet propaganda in foreign countries (while remaining silent on Mississippi's law against publishing anti-segregation material) or using tactical nuclear strikes.  But I'm sure that someone will claim that Goldwater and Buckley were no true libertarians, because they don't like haggis, or something.

*To be fair, Buckley admitted that he was wrong, and that Federal power was necessary to end segregation.  If only other libertarians could admit that at least on that particular issue, the Federal government was more pro-freedom than local governments. . .
 
2013-08-02 01:57:57 AM  

Revek: Quit thinking you understand what it means to be libertarian from Wikipedia articles.  Go read about John Locke look at the state he lived under and then look at the one you live under now in terms of who gets the advantages.  All of you are talking out your ass about that which you really have no idea about.  Oh and before one of you half wits talks about his investing in the slave trade understand so did most of the guys who have their face on the money.


ww2.valdosta.edu /Yeah, I know you said "most," but still. . .
 
2013-08-02 08:12:08 AM  
my side is better and has plans that can fix all the things

yup

I'm no longer even butthurt about watching america slowly die.
I'm highly entertained
 
2013-08-02 09:02:24 AM  

Voiceofreason01: Kome: My individual experiences are sufficient to formulate policies that should be in place to dictate to a country of 320,000,000 other people what they should expect from their government.

my individual experience is that libertarians are people who A: don't understand how a modern economy works and B: are greedy, selfish farkers who are looking for a way to justify not paying taxes

"Fark you, I've got mine" sums it up nicely


Also who don't know how human nature works.
 
2013-08-02 01:11:58 PM  

leadmetal: ghettodwarf: The ones that set up a financial system that was bound to fail, simply so they could bet against it and profit greatly from the screwing of the middle and lower classes.

So you're upset that the wealthy elite control government and using that control of government ended up controlling the money? Go government, keeping the serfs and slaves in their place for the last six thousand years.


If you admit that the wealthy elite control the government, why would you blame government for "keeping the serfs and slaves in their place", and not those who actually control it...seems like you're blaming the gun, not the shooter.

What if government was not about getting fat checks from lobbyists and keeping your position for as long as possible.  What if it was about setting a solid foundation on which as many citizens as possible have an opportunity at health and happiness.  What if they said "I don't give a shiat about what you choose to do with or to your own body, as long as you aren't hurting others AND no, you can't screw over thousands of people to get richer.  That seems somewhat libertarian to me...but I don't hear a lot of libertarians saying that, I mostly hear "Taxes! GUBMENT! SLAVERY!" and the sound of middle class white people fapping onto page 69 of Atlas Shrugged.
 
2013-08-02 01:27:22 PM  

ciberido: Lawyers With Nukes: UndeadPoetsSociety: Can I be weary of having my tax money used for mass murder overseas, instead of having actual infrastructure?

They say that taxes are the price of living in a civilized society.

But it is civil to force someone (under threat of violence) to pay for something they consider morally reprehensible?

If you should withhold that portion of your taxes that goes to our continual campaigns of mass murder, in what way will things start to become uncivil? Armed agents pointing their shotguns at you and your family, demanding payment...that's how.

Taken this way, taxes are "the price of civility" in more ways than one.


If you do not pay your taxes, you are a thief.  You have stolen from your fellow citizens.  It is entirely right and proper that police should use force to apprehend thieves and see that they are punished from their crimes.  Using force to apprehend and punish criminals is absolutely part of a civil society.

No matter how "morally reprehensible" you think taxes are, you broke the law, you are a criminal, and yes I DO hope that big, burly men with big-ass shotguns arrest your skeeving, criminal ass and haul you away in handcuffs.  Ideally it should be a quiet arrest without the need to draw guns, but if you or any member of your family resist arrest or otherwise try to interfere, then they get to do whatever is necessary to put down such resistance, up to burning your house down and driving over the flaming rubble in radioactive tanks.  Repeatedly.

And  I will applaud them and buy them doughnuts for doing their job.

Now, if you truly believe that you were standing up for your rights by committing an act of civil disobedience, then live up to it by accepting your arrest, pleading guilty in court and taking your prison sentence with dignity like a true activist.  Follow in the footsteps of Martin Luther King, jr, and others by writing letters from jail.

/You could also try a slightly more low-key approach by, say, vot ...


Or another option: disagree with the laws but still abide by them. I pay my taxes, and throw a little extra on top just in case. It drives my CPA nuts, but when your dealing with armed sadists that love to do their job, you can't be too careful.

Thanks for the offer, but I have no desire to drink that hemlock. Free speech is still legal, so I'll just stick around, ask my annoying questions, and do my best to "corrupt the youth of Athens."
 
2013-08-02 01:44:57 PM  
ciberido: GoldSpider:If you're content with living as a pet, than who am I to judge?

PsiChick:Here in Nevada, we have a mandatory class on the Constitution as part of our freshman college year. It's very enlightening, especially the parts about social contracts. I think you'd rather enjoy learning that participation in social contracts does not make you a 'pet'.

Lawyers With Nukes: - if force is involved, it's not "participation", it's survival

In theory I agree with you, but anyone reading your posts, or, for that matter, listening to any Libertarian, should be aware that "force" in Libertarian-ese is a term of art.  It does not mean what most people think of when they hear the word "force."  When used in Libertarian-ese, it pretty much means "anything Libertarians don't like."


Laptop battery dying, so I'll make this brief, no time for foreplay...
For our purposes here, lets just use the traditional, commonly understood meaning of force: assault and/or battery. My point still stands.


Lawyers With Nukes:  - contracts made under coercion are invalid

In principle, yes, though again I suspect you have a rather quirky definition of "under coercion" in mind.  If you mean, "someone literally held a knife to my throat and swore he'd kill me if I didn't sign," sure.



Wrong. Contracts are invalid when there is any coercion involved. Period. This includes physical assault or battery, threats, intimidation, harrasment, and the like. You really need to look this up. Google up "contract law duress". My point stands.

Lawyers With Nukes:  - you aren't bound by a contract made by your ancestors

Not as such, no.  But see the next point.

Lawyers With Nukes:  - refusal to leave the land of your birth is not tacit agreement with all or part of such contracts

Here's where it all falls down.  By living in a country, you DO implicitly agree to play by the rules of that country.  Joining a society is not strictly a matter of opting in.  When you're born into a society, you're part of it, like it or not, until such time as you leave it.  Here are your only three options:

1. You can obey the rules of the society you're in, even the parts you don't like (such as paying taxes).
2. You can leave the society (but that will probably involve physically moving to a location outside the society).
3. You can break the rules and accept the consequences, be they fines, imprisonment, or whatever.

I'm sorry (well, no, honestly, I'm not), but there IS no ...


I'll make this real simple, I don't have to win this point because I won the others. Remember I have to prove only one of my points to invalidate the social contract. But what the hell, here goes:

1) Your presence on the earth is involuntary (nobody chooses to be born)
2) By being present on the earth, you implicitly agree with with social contract.
3) Therefore, you involuntarily agree with the contract.

Which is of course oxymoronic gibberish. You cannot involuntarily agree or consent, it's a contradition in terms. I suggest you rethink your stance.

Thank you for playing!
 
2013-08-02 03:49:07 PM  

Lawyers With Nukes: 2) By being present on the earth, you implicitly agree with with social contract.


It isn't  a"legal contract".

You grew up with the roads, schools, social stability, etc.  You can't take that then turn around and say, fark you I am not going to pay for anything I don't like...well you can say that and people will call you out for the selfish shortsighted idiot you are.
 
2013-08-02 08:06:47 PM  

Lawyers With Nukes: I'll make this real simple, I don't have to win this point because I won the others.


No, you'll make it real simple because simplistic ideologies are all you understand.  I seriously doubt that anything I say will convince you otherwise, but just for the record, here's the flaw in your reasoning:

Lawyers With Nukes: 1) Your presence on the earth is involuntary (nobody chooses to be born)

You're wrong in two ways: first, the Earth isn't a single society.  If you don't like the USA, move to Canada, or China, or Somalia, or any other place that'll take your worthless carcass.  (I'll assume you're an American citizen living in the USA, but it really doesn't matter.)  You CHOOSE to be here, because you could be somewhere else.  Sitting on your ass and staying here is a CHOICE to be here, like it or not.  You can say "No, it is!" until you'll blue in the face, but you'll be just as wrong every time.

Second, even if the world WERE a single society, and there was no other way to end membership than to die, then you could commit suicide.  There's your choice.  And frankly, nobody would miss you very much.

You can fantasize and mouth off about all that you've "won" to your little heart's content.  In the end, it doesn't really matter whether you understand or agree with the rules.  You just have to follow them.  You say you "disagree with the laws but still abide by them," and that's fine.  In the end, we don't need you to understand OR agree with them (though it would be nice if you did), just abide by them and we'll do fine.

But for what it's worth, you are EXACTLY why people dislike Libertarianism.  I can't really speak for anyone else, but every post you've made has made me like Libertarianism less, and I can only imagine it's had the same effect of most of the people in this thread.
 
Displayed 339 of 339 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report