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
    More: Obvious, GOP, Kentucky Republican, Justin Amash, pork barrel spending, expediencies, libertarians, Rand Paul  
•       •       •

7975 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Aug 2013 at 9:10 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



339 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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.meView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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

bodybuilding.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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.