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.

(Townhall)   "Honestly, what does being a Libertarian mean beyond legalizing drugs, banging hookers and sitting by while the rest of the world blows itself up?"   (townhall.com) divider line 499
    More: Fail  
•       •       •

1806 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Nov 2013 at 9:43 AM (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-07 11:10:02 AM

BMFPitt: People like you should terrify anyone who dislikes autocracy.


There is of course a balance required and power must ebb and flow as necessary, however in certain extreme situations there are times where member states cannot be trusted to govern themselves despite the representative structure in place because their governance or lack there of threatens the republic at large.

Essentially self interest is trumped when it threatens the great societal whole.

We are basically at a point in our human collective history where we need to stop thinking individualistically and start thinking for the species.
 
2013-11-07 11:10:15 AM

super_grass: That is PURE, uncut buttrage at the election spoiler. Which is ironic, given that the conservatives were SO sure that the Libertarian party will help sway voters away from the left just a few short years ago


There's pretty convincing evidence that the Libertarian in this race pulled more otherwise-McAullife voters than otherwise-Cucinelli voters, by something like a 2:1 margin. Which just makes the GOP outrage about how Sarvis was a "Democratic plant" (based on some nonsense about a guy whose wife had given to Obama making a donation to a pro-LP PAC a year ago) even more incoherent. Cuccinelli should have debated Sarvis for the same reason Reagan debated Anderson.
 
2013-11-07 11:10:35 AM

FarkedOver: skullkrusher: A Dark Evil Omen: Libertarians are just plutocrat-wannabes who like weed. Authoritarian shiatheels with a stolen name.

I do love anarcho-socialists-cum-uber-statists who call others authoritarian

He is an anarchist.  I would say he is the last person that will trample your rights.  Me on the other hand,  I love the state.  I don't love the state as it exists now.  I mean the state is a tool used by the ruling class to oppress other classes.  Who is the ruling class? Capitalists.  Now,  I love the state in as much as I want the working class (the majority of the people) to control the state to oppress the ruling class (the capitalists).  It's only fair :)


He's an anarchist in his fantasies and when talking to his buddies to impress them. Deep down he knows that is bullshiat so he embraces government control over everything except vaginas
 
2013-11-07 11:10:58 AM

BMFPitt: No, I get it. You are only referring to the craziest extreme, and you would like to keep it that way.


Libertarianism IS a crazy extreme.

BMFPitt: Do you believe that anyone who isn't a whackjob fundie isn't a member of a given religion?


What?
 
2013-11-07 11:11:48 AM

xalres: EWreckedSean: xalres: I put libertarianism up there with communism in the pantheon of BS political philosophies. Both fail for the same underlying reason, greed. Communism fails to take into account human greed and assumes everyone will be okay with sharing all the resources whereas libertarianism celebrates human greed and sociopathy and yet somehow assumes everything will turn out fine if we let these qualities run amok on a national scale.  We had a small taste of how a libertarian-style unregulated market would act with the sub-prime mortgage debacle and it almost broke the world economy. I shudder to think what would happen if we actually tried full implementation.

It's an interesting thought exercise but it quickly falls apart as a philosophy when subjected to even the slightest scrutiny.

There was nothing libertarian about the sub-prime mortgage debacle. Banking in the US is so intertwined with government it is disgusting.

Yes they are intertwined but that situation led to a period of completely lax regulation. They saw an opportunity in foreign investors clamoring for mortgage backed securities but there weren't enough new mortgages being created to meet the demand. So they went about meeting that demand in the most short sighted and destructive way possible. Whatever the reasons for the government dropping the ball the situation was still one of free reign for the most part. It was as close to a "free market" as I've seen.


You are looking at one small piece and saying see it is libertarian! That's like taking the bacon out of turducken and calling it vegetarian.
 
2013-11-07 11:13:37 AM

FarkedOver: skullkrusher: A Dark Evil Omen: Libertarians are just plutocrat-wannabes who like weed. Authoritarian shiatheels with a stolen name.

I do love anarcho-socialists-cum-uber-statists who call others authoritarian

He is an anarchist.  I would say he is the last person that will trample your rights.  Me on the other hand,  I love the state.  I don't love the state as it exists now.  I mean the state is a tool used by the ruling class to oppress other classes.  Who is the ruling class? Capitalists.  Now,  I love the state in as much as I want the working class (the majority of the people) to control the state to oppress the ruling class (the capitalists).  It's only fair :)


skullkrusher is your basic model libertarian. He believes that a government that is composed only of the organs of state violence and is only empowered to act enforce capitalism and act as an enforcement arm for the rich is "liberty", while a system of horizontal democracy that actually does allow for real liberty is "uber-statist".
 
2013-11-07 11:14:28 AM

lockers: EWreckedSean: It's a pretty simple philosophy: Socially liberal, fiscally conservative (non-crony capitalism), and a more non-interventionist foreign policy. The author doesn't understand it...and judging by the lefty responses in this thread...neither do most farkers.

In theory, the Tea Party is socially neutral and smaller government. In practice it is quite different. Most libertarians I know (I know, anecdotes) aren't so much socially liberal as they are leave me the fark alone. While I applaud that attitude in general, it means that in practice they think the civil rights act is wrong. They think you should absolutely be able to discriminate as much as you want.


I tend to agree with them on that one, if we are discussing private business. Government has an obligation to treat all people equally, individuals and private entities don't.
 
2013-11-07 11:15:02 AM
I'm smoking marijuana, banging a hooker and staying totally uninvolved in foreign wars right now, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.
 
2013-11-07 11:15:23 AM

FarkedOver: That is the problem with libertarians. Everything boils down to dollars and cents. They go out and buy a product and they give no thought into how that product was created or who created it. The thinking is I have the money to by X product and I have now purchased X product and then BAM, the thinking stops. Their need or want has been met and that is all that matters.


Horseshiat.

Look at the left's reflexive defense of the food-stamp program status quo, when it is obvious to the casual observer it's providing not good nutrition for the poor, but easy access to cheap ag-subsidized processed crap food. It ends up being a subsidy for big agribusiness and big-box grocers. The left's standard response is emotional appeals for an increase in benefits, as if food prices won't rise to eat up the difference and leave the corporations wealthier but recipients back where they started.

If you were going to start a food assistance program from scratch, would it look anything like SNAP? I sure as shiat hope not.
 
2013-11-07 11:15:32 AM
I recently met a guy so libertarian that he doesn't think any kind of weapon should be banned from personal ownership. And he doesn't believe felons should be prevented from buying weapons.
 
2013-11-07 11:15:59 AM
an un-elected government branch should have zero authority to regulate.

wowwww
 
2013-11-07 11:16:01 AM

Gulper Eel: A Republican will pee on your leg and tell you it's raining.

A Democrat will pee on your leg and tell you you're racist/sexist/plutocratic for objecting to having your leg peed on.

A Libertarian will tell you to move your farking leg out of the way before he pees pee whereever the fark he wants, and if you don't like it then you can pay him to stop.


// the Coase theorem isn't a guideline for living your life
 
2013-11-07 11:16:11 AM
The libertarians don't even do the weed thing right, look at NH it's the only state in the northeast where pot is totally illegal.
 
2013-11-07 11:16:31 AM

FarkedOver: skullkrusher: A Dark Evil Omen: Libertarians are just plutocrat-wannabes who like weed. Authoritarian shiatheels with a stolen name.

I do love anarcho-socialists-cum-uber-statists who call others authoritarian

He is an anarchist.  I would say he is the last person that will trample your rights.  Me on the other hand,  I love the state.  I don't love the state as it exists now.  I mean the state is a tool used by the ruling class to oppress other classes.  Who is the ruling class? Capitalists.  Now,  I love the state in as much as I want the working class (the majority of the people) to control the state to oppress the ruling class (the capitalists).  It's only fair :)


But then the working class becomes the ruling class oppressing the lower classes, which means the Capitalists must rise up from their oppression to overthrow the working class, but....
 
2013-11-07 11:17:17 AM

Diogenes: justaguy516: I remember a friend who was a rabid libertarian. And then he had an autistic son born to him.

A true Libertarian would never have submitted to government-mandated vaccinations for his child.


I realize you're being snarky but there is a strong libertarian presence in the alternative medicine movement ranging from folks who want to remove all regulations to conspiracy kooks who believe doctors are conspiring with government to keep "real" cures from the public.
 
2013-11-07 11:17:54 AM

unexplained bacon: EWreckedSean: unexplained bacon: slayer199: The GOP establishment is afraid of growing libertarianism inside their party...so they're taking a break from attacking gays, women and Democrats to attack libertarianism.  Color me shocked.  Actually, it's good news for libertarians that they consider libertarianism a threat to the status quo.

It's a pretty simple philosophy:   Socially liberal, fiscally conservative (non-crony capitalism), and a more non-interventionist foreign policy.  The author doesn't understand it...and judging by the lefty responses in this thread...neither do most farkers.


It really does depend on which libertarian you ask.
devil is in the details I think....

what do you think of the EPA?

Terrible idea as it exists currently. There is value perhaps in it being an advisory institution, but an un-elected government branch should have zero authority to regulate.

Go back to the gold standard? yes or no.

No, but it is hard to say that fiat money has been a success. Maybe best to go back to some form of commodities backed currency.

So, EPA minus any enforcement capability then? There goes all the gains we've made cleaning up our air, water and soil. Just say you want them gone next time.

...and basically you want to go back to the gold standard, except instead of gold you'd like to pick some other commodity, perhaps OJ or pork bellies? Try to get specific on that one, run this logic out for us.

Sorry I think you're ideas are as naive as they are terrible. That's why I stopped being a libertarian many years ago I guess.


I want an EPA that can't create laws. When they create bad laws, there is little recourse. And by the way, the single biggest polluter by far the federal government.

As for commodities backed money, why do you have to pick one?
 
2013-11-07 11:19:12 AM

Headso: The libertarians don't even do the weed thing right, look at NH it's the only state in the northeast where pot is totally illegal.


You mean the state where various medical/decrim laws, passed by the GOP majority legislature on a split-party vote, were repeatedly vetoed and weakened by Democratic governors? They did finally manage to get through some form of medical passed and signed, though, so NH is not out-of-line with the rest of New England in that regard anymore.
 
2013-11-07 11:20:12 AM
Two things:

Firstly: That's a big old font they got over there.

Secondly:

They went from the movement for individual responsibility, small government and free markets to a gaggle of misfits who want pot and prostitution legalized and a total non-interventionist foreign policy.

I like how he slags off Libertarians for not being constructive yet his idea of the Halcyon days of Libertarianism are the meaningless buzz-declarations of "small govt and personal responsibility".

....At least legalising pot and prostitution is... yknow... a thing
 
2013-11-07 11:21:58 AM

Gulper Eel: FarkedOver: That is the problem with libertarians. Everything boils down to dollars and cents. They go out and buy a product and they give no thought into how that product was created or who created it. The thinking is I have the money to by X product and I have now purchased X product and then BAM, the thinking stops. Their need or want has been met and that is all that matters.

Horseshiat.

Look at the left's reflexive defense of the food-stamp program status quo, when it is obvious to the casual observer it's providing not good nutrition for the poor, but easy access to cheap ag-subsidized processed crap food. It ends up being a subsidy for big agribusiness and big-box grocers. The left's standard response is emotional appeals for an increase in benefits, as if food prices won't rise to eat up the difference and leave the corporations wealthier but recipients back where they started.

If you were going to start a food assistance program from scratch, would it look anything like SNAP? I sure as shiat hope not.


No it would look more like WIC with a greater variety of healthy food choices. But this would be even more expensive and I seriously doubt any Republican or Libertarian would support it. The problem is there solution is to cut off everyone entirely.
 
2013-11-07 11:22:47 AM
There should be their. Ack need more coffee.
 
2013-11-07 11:23:48 AM

Candy Colored Clown: Thanks, but your name at the top of the post is enough for me


Ignorance is bliss eh?
 
2013-11-07 11:23:55 AM

Gulper Eel: Look at the left's reflexive defense of the food-stamp program status quo, when it is obvious to the casual observer it's providing not good nutrition for the poor, but easy access to cheap ag-subsidized processed crap food. It ends up being a subsidy for big agribusiness and big-box grocers. The left's standard response is emotional appeals for an increase in benefits, as if food prices won't rise to eat up the difference and leave the corporations wealthier but recipients back where they started.

If you were going to start a food assistance program from scratch, would it look anything like SNAP? I sure as shiat hope not.


That processed food is actually cheaper than fresh healthy food. The reason people buy it is it provides more calories per dollar spent. We could limit it to just unprocessed foods, but it would either be more expensive or force people to, ironically, be less healthy through starvation. Of course this is a red herring, your real point is that poor people should be punished for the crime of being poor.
 
2013-11-07 11:24:14 AM
Libertarian really has sort of morphed into the "no moral judgment" party.
 
2013-11-07 11:25:09 AM

Gulper Eel: FarkedOver: That is the problem with libertarians. Everything boils down to dollars and cents. They go out and buy a product and they give no thought into how that product was created or who created it. The thinking is I have the money to by X product and I have now purchased X product and then BAM, the thinking stops. Their need or want has been met and that is all that matters.

Horseshiat.

Look at the left's reflexive defense of the food-stamp program status quo, when it is obvious to the casual observer it's providing not good nutrition for the poor, but easy access to cheap ag-subsidized processed crap food. It ends up being a subsidy for big agribusiness and big-box grocers. The left's standard response is emotional appeals for an increase in benefits, as if food prices won't rise to eat up the difference and leave the corporations wealthier but recipients back where they started.

If you were going to start a food assistance program from scratch, would it look anything like SNAP? I sure as shiat hope not.


So your big issue with the "left" is that a centrist solution compromised by the capitalist right is inadequate? Farking really? Well, guess what: We agree with you.
 
2013-11-07 11:26:06 AM

skullkrusher: A Dark Evil Omen: Libertarians are just plutocrat-wannabes who like weed. Authoritarian shiatheels with a stolen name.

I do love anarcho-socialists-cum-uber-statists who call others authoritarian


We do it because you are.  The fact that your preferred authority is the rich, not the democratically elected matters absolutely nothing to us.
 
2013-11-07 11:28:00 AM

plewis: So I am a libertarian. Because of that, I vote for and support the Democrats.


That's something that'll depend on your local political environment. If I lived someplace like Oklahoma, I'd support Democrats too - but I live in ever-dysfunctional New York. There has been no meaningful small-government movement in this state for over 50 years, and it shows. Cuomo has toured the state halfheartedly calling for some governments to consolidate, but his consolidation is a one-way street sending more power to the crooks in Albany. Wall Streeters paying their tax bills is the only thing keeping the state from going full Detroit - so naturally the NYC politicians who dominate the show go to great lengths to one-up each other on who's supposedly going to be more badass about sticking it to The ManTM,
 
2013-11-07 11:28:02 AM

A Dark Evil Omen: So your big issue with the "left" is that a centrist solution compromised by the capitalist right is inadequate? Farking really? Well, guess what: We agree with you.


I know right, its pretty similar to the argument we had over Healthcare reform, where as now all they scream is "Everyone hates Obamacare!".

Yeah, we know, we're not big fans of it either. But really if we had our way we'd just go medicare for all central system with buy in but but but socialisms or something right?
 
2013-11-07 11:28:09 AM

FarkedOver: Anyone who thinks that Mises or Rothbard were awesome people should be sterilized. Immediately.


As long as it's not retroactive. Or I would never have been born.
 
2013-11-07 11:28:26 AM

EWreckedSean: xalres: EWreckedSean: xalres: I put libertarianism up there with communism in the pantheon of BS political philosophies. Both fail for the same underlying reason, greed. Communism fails to take into account human greed and assumes everyone will be okay with sharing all the resources whereas libertarianism celebrates human greed and sociopathy and yet somehow assumes everything will turn out fine if we let these qualities run amok on a national scale.  We had a small taste of how a libertarian-style unregulated market would act with the sub-prime mortgage debacle and it almost broke the world economy. I shudder to think what would happen if we actually tried full implementation.

It's an interesting thought exercise but it quickly falls apart as a philosophy when subjected to even the slightest scrutiny.

There was nothing libertarian about the sub-prime mortgage debacle. Banking in the US is so intertwined with government it is disgusting.

Yes they are intertwined but that situation led to a period of completely lax regulation. They saw an opportunity in foreign investors clamoring for mortgage backed securities but there weren't enough new mortgages being created to meet the demand. So they went about meeting that demand in the most short sighted and destructive way possible. Whatever the reasons for the government dropping the ball the situation was still one of free reign for the most part. It was as close to a "free market" as I've seen.

You are looking at one small piece and saying see it is libertarian! That's like taking the bacon out of turducken and calling it vegetarian.


Considering the hard-on libertarians have for free, unencumbered, unregulated markets I'd call it a pretty damn big piece. Playing "no true Scotsman" won't change the fact that, left to their own devices, companies will burn the world to the ground if it means they can make a buck.
 
2013-11-07 11:29:54 AM

Diogenes: vygramul: I guess Republicans are going to spend some time blaming Sarvis and Libertarians for farking up America.

You say that like you're surprised their MO hasn't changed.

Introspection?  Never.  Attack?  Of course.


Good.

That makes it harder for denialicans to vote GOP and still say, "I'm a non-partisan libertarian."
 
2013-11-07 11:30:07 AM
Libertarian (n): A selfish self-righteous prick who has deluded himself into thinking that he can take from society, but is under no obligation to give back to it.
 
2013-11-07 11:30:43 AM
stblogs.streetchopperweb.com

Recoil Magazine - When your penis is that small, accept no substitutes.
 
2013-11-07 11:30:43 AM

ikanreed: skullkrusher: A Dark Evil Omen: Libertarians are just plutocrat-wannabes who like weed. Authoritarian shiatheels with a stolen name.

I do love anarcho-socialists-cum-uber-statists who call others authoritarian

We do it because you are.  The fact that your preferred authority is the rich, not the democratically elected matters absolutely nothing to us.


It's totally different than the old systems of nobility, though. In theory the old nobles had significant responsibility to the people and the country. In Libertarian Land they would be constitutionally disallowed from having or demonstrating anything of the like, which is better because potato.
 
2013-11-07 11:32:18 AM

lockers: In theory, the Tea Party is socially neutral and smaller government. In practice it is quite different. Most libertarians I know (I know, anecdotes) aren't so much socially liberal as they are leave me the fark alone. While I applaud that attitude in general, it means that in practice they think the civil rights act is wrong. They think you should absolutely be able to discriminate as much as you want.


I don't think that's quite accurate in terms of libertarians.  Most libertarians I know (and speaking as a libertarian) are both.  Leave me the fark alone while being socially liberal (supporting gay marriage, etc.0   In theory, I don't think civil rights should be necessary as everyone should be treated equally.  In practice, I believe it to be necessary at times and abused at times.  The flip side of that as a private citizen, you can hold any stupid racist, sexist or homophobic viewpoint you like....so long as you don't infringe on the freedom of others.  Your rights to express those beliefs ends with restricting the freedom of another individual.

The problem libertarians have is inherent flaw of granting more power to the federal government.  It's like a scale.  The more power you give to the federal government, the fewer freedoms the individual has.  This is why I take exception to both the Democratic and Republican parties.  They both want to increase the size and power of the federal government at the expense of individual liberty...albeit from different angles.  The federal government exists to protect and defend individual liberty, NOT to usurp it.
 
2013-11-07 11:33:05 AM

cc_rider: Sideburns. Weird-ass sideburns.

[i28.photobucket.com image 640x360][i28.photobucket.com image 300x318]


Came for pics of that assclown.

/Leaving satisfied.
 
2013-11-07 11:33:28 AM

Gulper Eel: A Republican will pee on your leg and tell you it's raining.

A Democrat will pee on your leg and tell you you're racist/sexist/plutocratic for objecting to having your leg peed on.

A Libertarian will tell you to move your farking leg out of the way before he pees.Pee on your leg and demand that you sue him for damages if you feel that having your clothes peed on is a violation of your property rights, and then deny the legitimacy of the court that the hearing is held in because he didn't personally consent to having the conflict resolved in that fashion in an attempt to draw out the proceedings until you're bankrupt from trying to get your pissy pants, socks, and shoes replaced.

 
2013-11-07 11:34:51 AM
Libertarianism works perfectly fine as a political ideology, so long as:

1) Population density is low
2) People can self-select into a homogeneous, like-minded group with little or no societal friction with other groups.
3) The population never lets any one person get too powerful, either by self-limitation by individuals, strong social controls (like eschewing of wealth and banishment), or population control (exile).

None of those qualities exist in the modern world anywhere, except in remote regions where almost no one lives anyway.  You will note that most libertarians live in such an environment.  Heinlein's books happen under those conditions (mostly thinking of Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Time Enough for Love).  The end of Atlas Shruggedis just such a situation.  Even the popular proponents internally realize these preconditions.

- Externalities become more severe the more people they affect.
- Externalities become more severe with proximity, whether social, environmental, etc.
- Most people want to be left alone and go about their lives.

Therefore, the greater the population density, the less "positive" freedom you can have (i.e. freedom to do things), because "negative freedoms" of the 10,000 people around you start to outweigh your positive freedoms.
 
2013-11-07 11:35:08 AM

Diogenes: Honestly, what does being a Libertarian mean beyond legalizing drugs, banging hookers and sitting by while the rest of the world blows itself up?

Well, there's also the self-centeredness and sociopathy.


I was thinking more about the NeoFeudalistic wing that supports Corporatism as an article of faith, because they REALLY want to be inside the walls when the ravening hordes come for their stuff.
 
2013-11-07 11:35:21 AM
Not sure why most everyone thinks it had to be all or nothing.

I'm more libertarian in some political views.

I think legalizing drugs would go a long way in reducing all types of crime And could reduce taxes.

Not being the world police could free up some money for social programs.

I think there a lot of room for consensus and compromise.

I'd be all in for single payer healthcare if the Dems drop gun control.

I'd be all in for raising min wage if dems And repubs drop all these free trade agreements.

Ect, ect.
 
2013-11-07 11:35:55 AM

slayer199: The more power you give to the federal government, the fewer freedoms the individual has


I've often asked this question of libertarians and I can never get a straight answer.

What truly gives a person their freedoms?
 
2013-11-07 11:36:21 AM

xalres: I put libertarianism up there with communism in the pantheon of BS political philosophies. Both fail for the same underlying reason, greed. Communism fails to take into account human greed and assumes everyone will be okay with sharing all the resources whereas libertarianism celebrates human greed and sociopathy and yet somehow assumes everything will turn out fine if we let these qualities run amok on a national scale.  We had a small taste of how a libertarian-style unregulated market would act with the sub-prime mortgage debacle and it almost broke the world economy. I shudder to think what would happen if we actually tried full implementation.

It's an interesting thought exercise but it quickly falls apart as a philosophy when subjected to even the slightest scrutiny.


Not so much greed but human nature that ideologies like Libertarianism, Communism and Conservativism never take into effect (or they do and just ignore it).  Even theologically based governments like Iran's completely fail because they either don't take into account what greed, ambition or a lack of self-control do to people or just ignore it believing that people will just fall in line.   Think about it:  Iran deposed the Shah and his totalitarian rule; now they have a government no different than what they had with the Shah but now backed by religious edicts.

It's also funny how religious RWers all talk about how Iran's so evil but yet (secretly) envy the power, control and influence the mullahs have over the populace.
 
2013-11-07 11:36:40 AM

Fart_Machine: Gulper Eel: FarkedOver: That is the problem with libertarians. Everything boils down to dollars and cents. They go out and buy a product and they give no thought into how that product was created or who created it. The thinking is I have the money to by X product and I have now purchased X product and then BAM, the thinking stops. Their need or want has been met and that is all that matters.

Horseshiat.

Look at the left's reflexive defense of the food-stamp program status quo, when it is obvious to the casual observer it's providing not good nutrition for the poor, but easy access to cheap ag-subsidized processed crap food. It ends up being a subsidy for big agribusiness and big-box grocers. The left's standard response is emotional appeals for an increase in benefits, as if food prices won't rise to eat up the difference and leave the corporations wealthier but recipients back where they started.

If you were going to start a food assistance program from scratch, would it look anything like SNAP? I sure as shiat hope not.

No it would look more like WIC with a greater variety of healthy food choices. But this would be even more expensive and I seriously doubt any Republican or Libertarian would support it. The problem is there solution is to cut off everyone entirely.


GE also doesn't seem to understand that the vaunted Free Market has dictated that poor people don't generally have access to quality grocery stores where they can purchase healthy, safe food.  For the most part they don't have the time or money to travel across town (or across the county for the rural welfare recipients) or at least out of the food deserts, to shop at a decent supermarket.
 
2013-11-07 11:36:57 AM

ikanreed: skullkrusher: A Dark Evil Omen: Libertarians are just plutocrat-wannabes who like weed. Authoritarian shiatheels with a stolen name.

I do love anarcho-socialists-cum-uber-statists who call others authoritarian

We do it because you are.  The fact that your preferred authority is the rich, not the democratically elected matters absolutely nothing to us.


Oh wait... You're one of them too? That explains a lot. My preferred authority is not the rich, however. Assumptions and categorizations do make things a bit easier on the old gulliver though, huh?
 
2013-11-07 11:37:13 AM

EWreckedSean: I want an EPA that can't create laws. When they create bad laws, there is little recourse. And by the way, the single biggest polluter by far the federal government.


This is the real problem with how these agencies are created.  The creation of laws should reside with Congress and Congress alone....no agency should have cart blanche to make up their own rules which have the force of law.  You can look at many federal agencies and see the same problem (FDA, FCC, etc).
 
2013-11-07 11:37:16 AM

lockers: That processed food is actually cheaper than fresh healthy food. The reason people buy it is it provides more calories per dollar spent. We could limit it to just unprocessed foods, but it would either be more expensive or force people to, ironically, be less healthy through starvation. Of course this is a red herring, your real point is that poor people should be punished for the crime of being poor.


1/10.

I would rather replace a program like SNAP with a food program - straight-up deliveries of nutritious ingredients and staples as is necessary, plus more soup kitchens and pantries. Saves time for the recipients, no need for asset checks...and if done right, it shows people that government can be competent far better than anybody in a social-services office trying to figure out who's been swapping out their SNAP card for booze and smokes.

I'm assuming that the government workers who administer the program are really in it out of compassion and their innate goodness as government workers, and so they won't mind in the least working in neighborhoods more rough-and-tumble than the suburbs they commute to from their office jobs.
 
2013-11-07 11:37:40 AM

Gulper Eel: Horseshiat.

Look at the left's reflexive defense of the food-stamp program status quo, when it is obvious to the casual observer it's providing not good nutrition for the poor, but easy access to cheap ag-subsidized processed crap food. It ends up being a subsidy for big agribusiness and big-box grocers. The left's standard response is emotional appeals for an increase in benefits, as if food prices won't rise to eat up the difference and leave the corporations wealthier but recipients back where they started.

If you were going to start a food assistance program from scratch, would it look anything like SNAP? I sure as shiat hope not.


The solution is obvious then.... if you cannot afford to eat you simply do not eat.
 
2013-11-07 11:37:44 AM
You will note that most libertarian  characters live in such an environment.  Heinlein's books happen under those conditions (mostly thinking of Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Time Enough for Love).  The end of Atlas Shrugged is just such a situation.  Even the popular proponents internally realize these preconditions.

FTFM.
 
2013-11-07 11:38:55 AM

A Dark Evil Omen: FarkedOver: skullkrusher: A Dark Evil Omen: Libertarians are just plutocrat-wannabes who like weed. Authoritarian shiatheels with a stolen name.

I do love anarcho-socialists-cum-uber-statists who call others authoritarian

He is an anarchist.  I would say he is the last person that will trample your rights.  Me on the other hand,  I love the state.  I don't love the state as it exists now.  I mean the state is a tool used by the ruling class to oppress other classes.  Who is the ruling class? Capitalists.  Now,  I love the state in as much as I want the working class (the majority of the people) to control the state to oppress the ruling class (the capitalists).  It's only fair :)

skullkrusher is your basic model libertarian. He believes that a government that is composed only of the organs of state violence and is only empowered to act enforce capitalism and act as an enforcement arm for the rich is "liberty", while a system of horizontal democracy that actually does allow for real liberty is "uber-statist".


No I don't but you brag about being a farking anarcho socialist so higher thought cannot be reasonably expected of you
 
2013-11-07 11:39:10 AM

Gulper Eel: trying to figure out who's been swapping out their SNAP card for booze and smokes.


Red herring, the Food Nutrition program with SNAP and WIC have the lowest fraud amount of any federal program, this includes the Department of Defense.
 
2013-11-07 11:40:16 AM

A Dark Evil Omen: timujin: UNC_Samurai: kxs401: All the Libertarians I know are either 20-something dudes who love weed and have very little idea what the federal government actually does or brilliant sociopaths who believe they would flourish in a country without a strong central government and therefore, screw you.

Anecdata!

I can't disagree.  I went through a dumb college libertarian phase.  Then I graduated and the real world slapped some sense into me.  Between wising up and watching the political spectrum around me being distorted, I'm now pretty damn liberal.

Late to the show, but this was pretty much my path as well.  As in, co-founding member of the largest Objectivist club in my city kind of libertarian.  And that was with another well-known ex-farker.  He's still got a hard on for it, too, and that has pretty much destroyed his life.

I think a lot of people went a route like this. Young people in the west haven't heard any real critical words about capitalism in decades, so you end up with lots who decide that some form of ultra-capitalism must be ultra-good. I was a bit of a libertarian type when I was younger, then I grew up and got a job. Sixteen years later and I've ended up all the way at the far left end.


I ended up somewhat to the left economically, but very liberal and while I can see where left libertarianism makes sense philosophically as concentrating too much power in any set of hands (private or public) is not ideal, in a practical sense the only real way to rein in the power of corporations is to have a relatively powerful government, which at least has to respond to public pressure to a reasonable extent in regulating and limiting their worst abuses. Obviously it is far from ideal, but "Never let perfect become the enemy of the good" or whatever the phrase is.
 
Displayed 50 of 499 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report