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 01:07:35 PM

FarkedOver: skullkrusher: I have never said taxation is theft. Not sure why you're asking me. We're talking about stealing from your employer

I REFUSE to give back the post its i took! FARK THE MAN!


My company doesn't get good pens. I have to steal from the dr's office.
 
2013-11-07 01:07:40 PM

skullkrusher: Yeah, I'm a known Marxist. Go back to trolling lefties


You sometimes criticize Republicans. Therefore, you are automatically a Marxist commie America hater to some people around here.
 
2013-11-07 01:09:39 PM

super_grass: Because a need is not something that is guaranteed to be satisfied? That's why it's a need, it's not there 100% of the time.


Yet we as a species have the ability to make food not a need.  We choose not to do this.  Why is that? The answer is it is not profitable to feed everyone.  Some people have to die in order to profit.  That's a problem.
 
2013-11-07 01:10:30 PM

QueenMamaBee: FarkedOver: skullkrusher: I have never said taxation is theft. Not sure why you're asking me. We're talking about stealing from your employer

I REFUSE to give back the post its i took! FARK THE MAN!

My company doesn't get good pens. I have to steal from the dr's office.


The bank puts those farking chains on their pens.... crafty farking capitalists
 
2013-11-07 01:12:24 PM

Phinn: skullkrusher: Yeah, I'm a known Marxist. Go back to trolling lefties

I was aiming at lockers, not you.  I edited his part out.  Sorry.


I was gonna say - I've never seen anyone accuse Skullkrusher of being a Marxist.
 
2013-11-07 01:13:36 PM

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.


Time for this:
i232.photobucket.com
 
2013-11-07 01:14:06 PM

skullkrusher: lockers: skullkrusher: I have never said taxation is theft. Not sure why you're asking me. We're talking about stealing from your employer

Sorry to misunderstand you then. Stealing from anyone is wrong, but society changing the game isn't. If society decides you shouldn't own something and should be given over to society, well thems the breaks. Just like how now, your grandchildren can own an expression of an idea. Copyright, just like private property are ideas and are inherently ammoral.

I disagree. There is nothing immoral about private property. Nor are copyrights on inventions immoral. Copyrighting a non-tangible idea is stupid tho


That is why I said ammoral. It is neither immoral nor moral about it. It is a concept that has utility in our society. When it ceases to have value it will cease being unethical. Private property makes sense in a world where scarcity needs to be managed. Once human labor becomes unnecessary so does property.
 
2013-11-07 01:14:55 PM

Gulper Eel: Thrag: It depends. Do you believe that the solution to your state's Medicaid problems is to assign knowledgeable non-political people to study the problems and propose solutions to reform the system that your state's legislature can then vote on enacting, or do you believe that Medicaid system should be burned down and abandoned because government has no business doing things like providing a social safety net?

What happens over time is that any government program of a certain size ends up with its own industrial complex - in New York that'd be the health-care-industrial complex, thanks to a Medicaid program that's grown to be almost half the state budget.

The question for New York is not whether to change, but how they're going to change before the change is imposed by Washington in a way New York is not going to like at all. Members of Congress do not like to be embarrassed, and when it was found out this year that New York had overbilled Medicaid by $15 billion over 20 years for care for the mentally ill - most of it at a handful of hospitals - even the libbiest libs on the oversight committee thought that was a bit much to skim off the top, and thus Congress ordered the state to make at least partial restitution and spread some CYA around for all concerned.

There's more of that coming for New York, which made the mistake of being too obvious about treating Medicaid as a vote-buying/check-cutting program rather than a program to pay for care of the poor.

In other words, tearing down the program and starting over may be a best-case scenario, if the ham-handers in Washington handle things in the usual way.


Tearing down and starting over seems to be your primary theme when it comes to solutions. "Tear it down and start over" is really a non-answer. It's more of a platitude. Until one has the solution to start over with (and a transition plan to get there), it's pretty meaningless.

I see that you had already answered my question about your notion of what to start over with when it comes to SNAP (my apologies, I make slow progress through threads due to limited time to fark). You mentioned

"Instead of providing a card, we provide the food itself, plus the knowhow as needed, along with expanded soup kitchens and pantries."

Okay, that's an alternative. However do you realize that you are creating a immense government infrastructure that will employ vast numbers of people. A single government run entity that produces (or procures) enough food, the logistics infrastructure to collect and transport all that food to distribution endpoints, and the soup kitchens and pantries to distribute the food, and an we'd still need the agency to keep track of what benefits people should be getting, enforcing the rules, and tracking down fraud. If you are a libertarian, that is one hell of a large government solution. If the answer then is to contract out all those operations to private companies, you have created huge opportunity for crony capitalism like abusing the contracting process and you still have a large government organization that is responsible for performing and overseeing the contracting process (and don't forget we still have the aforementioned bureaucracy for administering the benefits individuals get).

Compared to all this, the current SNAP program is astonishingly more free market/libertarian than your solution.

As someone on "the left" I find your idea impractical but I have zero ideological problem with it.  I find it to be a rather naive idea. The kind of simple but totally impractical solution that will readily pop into one's head. You demonstrate one the things that I and I'm sure many others find characterize conversations with self identified libertarians, and what gives the label a bad name. The firm belief that a system should be torn down because it is imperfect but no ideas to replace it beyond oversimplifications that don't address why the existing system was imperfect in the first place. The concentration of thought is on tearing down the system, and finding all sorts of reasons why it is bad, but expending little to no effort on a replacement solution. This focus also leads to the mischaracterization of the left's general position, which is not "more, simply more" but rather "can you please stop relentlessly trying to tear down the social safety net and instead focus on how to make it work better (and not then freak out if that may cost a little more)".
 
2013-11-07 01:15:23 PM
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
  LIBERTARIAN FOOD PANTRY
 
2013-11-07 01:16:23 PM

lockers: skullkrusher: lockers: skullkrusher: I have never said taxation is theft. Not sure why you're asking me. We're talking about stealing from your employer

Sorry to misunderstand you then. Stealing from anyone is wrong, but society changing the game isn't. If society decides you shouldn't own something and should be given over to society, well thems the breaks. Just like how now, your grandchildren can own an expression of an idea. Copyright, just like private property are ideas and are inherently ammoral.

I disagree. There is nothing immoral about private property. Nor are copyrights on inventions immoral. Copyrighting a non-tangible idea is stupid tho

That is why I said ammoral. It is neither immoral nor moral about it. It is a concept that has utility in our society. When it ceases to have value it will cease being unethical. Private property makes sense in a world where scarcity needs to be managed. Once human labor becomes unnecessary so does property.


Oh crap, sorry. My misread
 
2013-11-07 01:17:02 PM

vygramul: Phinn: skullkrusher: Yeah, I'm a known Marxist. Go back to trolling lefties

I was aiming at lockers, not you.  I edited his part out.  Sorry.

I was gonna say - I've never seen anyone accuse Skullkrusher of being a Marxist.


I'm a Man for All Seasons

/come see my play!
 
2013-11-07 01:17:21 PM
graphics8.nytimes.com
 LIBERTARIAN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
 
2013-11-07 01:20:58 PM

FarkedOver: [graphics8.nytimes.com image 600x331]
 LIBERTARIAN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT


And then they buy the land and have the cops evict the tent colony.
 
2013-11-07 01:23:19 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: FarkedOver: [graphics8.nytimes.com image 600x331]
 LIBERTARIAN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT

And then they buy the land and have the cops evict the tent colony.


Not before the Libertarian Meals on Wheels program stops and gives everyone a hot meal!

www.solarfeeds.com
 
2013-11-07 01:25:32 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: FarkedOver: [graphics8.nytimes.com image 600x331]
 LIBERTARIAN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT

And then they buy the land and have the cops evict the tent colony.


Well, they just evict the people.  They keep the tents so they can sell them back to their former tenants at a modest mark-up or for indentured servitude, whichever the former tenant chooses.
 
2013-11-07 01:25:36 PM
Ladies, don't feel left out.  The libertarians are thinking of you with their

swamprighter.files.wordpress.com
LIBERTARIAN ABORTION CLINIC!
 
2013-11-07 01:26:05 PM

lockers: Private property makes sense in a world where scarcity needs to be managed. Once human labor becomes unnecessary so does property.



That's all wrong, and could not be more wrong.

Scarcity is an omnipresent, unavoidable aspect of economic reality.  It's like gravity or electromagnetism -- it's an essential, integral aspect of the production and consumption of economic goods.

Scarcity has a specific meaning, by the way.  It doesn't mean "less of something than I want there to be."  It means rivalry -- more than one person competing for the use of something.

If nothing else, there is always the rivalry of time -- two things cannot be done at once.  Choices have to be made.

All material goods are rivalrous.  You can't use the land I'm using for my house to grow your carrots.  You can't eat the food I am going to eat.  You can't use the rubber in my tires for the soles of your shoes.  You can't transmit a message through the earth's EM field at the same time I'm using that same field to make a transmission.

Property is just the set of ethical rules concerning the priority of use of things, as between two or more people who might be using it.

As long as people interact, there is property.  At the very least, there's property over the use of one's own body, over which we each have the first and inalienable priority of use, forever.  That's what it means to have the right to be free from aggression -- it is, at base, an expression of property in your own body.

Property in other things, like food and water and radiating out from there, is an extension of the property right in your body.
 
2013-11-07 01:26:31 PM

FarkedOver: Rwa2play: Capitalism is no different than Democracy: If checks and balances aren't put into the model to ensure a level of equity within the system, it'll soon get out of wack. See: The Great Depression, the 2008 near-meltdown of the world economy.

That's why bills like Glass-Stegall are sorely needed and why Wall St. cowers in fear at the mere mention of it's restoration. They're way too interested in using people's money like it's Vegas.

Communism, socialism, anarchism are no different than democracy either..... I hope you are aware of that......


Very: however I was making the point that economic systems are no different than political ones when it comes to transparency, responsibility and accountability.
 
2013-11-07 01:26:41 PM
that;s actually a pretty nice alley
 
2013-11-07 01:27:01 PM

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.


A Libertarian will pee on your leg and then tell you you should have moved your leg when you saw him unzipping his fly.
 
2013-11-07 01:27:42 PM

toomuchwhargarbl: Fedoraheads for freedumbs!

[i.imgur.com image 430x538]


download.gamespotcdn.net

/whether real or satire, it's still hilarious
 
2013-11-07 01:28:24 PM

FarkedOver: super_grass: Because a need is not something that is guaranteed to be satisfied? That's why it's a need, it's not there 100% of the time.

Yet we as a species have the ability to make food not a need.  We choose not to do this.  Why is that? The answer is it is not profitable to feed everyone.  Some people have to die in order to profit.  That's a problem.


We certainly try to. The US is one of biggest government and private donors to poor countries. A good chunk of the problem is that food delivery and production is a complex logistical process that doesn't always happen in war-torn or dictator controlled areas.
 
2013-11-07 01:28:48 PM

Jackson Herring: that;s actually a pretty nice alley


You think that's nice, check out the tools of the trade:

factorydirectcraft.com
 
2013-11-07 01:31:08 PM

Thrag: Tearing down and starting over seems to be your primary theme when it comes to solutions. "Tear it down and start over" is really a non-answer. It's more of a platitude. Until one has the solution to start over with (and a transition plan to get there), it's pretty meaningless.

I see that you had already answered my question about your notion of what to start over with when it comes to SNAP (my apologies, I make slow progress through threads due to limited time to fark). You mentioned

"Instead of providing a card, we provide the food itself, plus the knowhow as needed, along with expanded soup kitchens and pantries."

Okay, that's an alternative. However do you realize that you are creating a immense government infrastructure that will employ vast numbers of people. A single government run entity that produces (or procures) enough food, the logistics infrastructure to collect and transport all that food to distribution endpoints, and the soup kitchens and pantries to distribute the food, and an we'd still need the agency to keep track of what benefits people should be getting, enforcing the rules, and tracking down fraud. If you are a libertarian, that is one hell of a large government solution. If the answer then is to contract out all those operations to private companies, you have created huge opportunity for crony capitalism like abusing the contracting process and you still have a large government organization that is responsible for performing and overseeing the contracting process (and don't forget we still have the aforementioned bureaucracy for administering the benefits individuals get).

Compared to all this, the current SNAP program is astonishingly more free market/libertarian than your solution.

As someone on "the left" I find your idea impractical but I have zero ideological problem with it. I find it to be a rather naive idea. The kind of simple but totally impractical solution that will readily pop into one's head. You demonstrate one the things that I and I'm sure many others find characterize conversations with self identified libertarians, and what gives the label a bad name. The firm belief that a system should be torn down because it is imperfect but no ideas to replace it beyond oversimplifications that don't address why the existing system was imperfect in the first place. The concentration of thought is on tearing down the system, and finding all sorts of reasons why it is bad, but expending little to no effort on a replacement solution. This focus also leads to the mischaracterization of the left's general position, which is not "more, simply more" but rather "can you please stop relentlessly trying to tear down the social safety net and instead focus on how to make it work better (and not then freak out if that may cost a little more)".


Thanks you for taking the time to type this out. This is pretty much exactly what i wanted to say, but I couldn't be bothered to take the time to type it all out, especially knowing that  the response is just going to be a digging in of the heels and more spouting of simpleminded libertarian platitudes..
 
2013-11-07 01:33:43 PM

Clever Neologism: slayer199: 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).

That would require studious legislatures truly knowing the intricacy of multiple fields of study and expertise, and not just a bunch of lawyers and politicians.

The reason lobbyists and life-long civil servants have such a large impact on the government is they are the only ones who actually know about their industries and sectors.


Or instead they could have an advisory organization that provided the knowledge but the regulations themselves still be created by the body that is the only one that should be creating them is answerable to the people.
 
2013-11-07 01:34:59 PM

vygramul: 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.

A Libertarian will pee on your leg and then tell you you should have moved your leg when you saw him unzipping his fly.


A Libertarian will piss in your drinking water and then tell you "tough shiat, the stream passes thorough my back yard. PRIVATE PROPERTY biatchEZ"
 
2013-11-07 01:34:59 PM

super_grass: FarkedOver: super_grass: Because a need is not something that is guaranteed to be satisfied? That's why it's a need, it's not there 100% of the time.

Yet we as a species have the ability to make food not a need.  We choose not to do this.  Why is that? The answer is it is not profitable to feed everyone.  Some people have to die in order to profit.  That's a problem.

We certainly try to. The US is one of biggest government and private donors to poor countries. A good chunk of the problem is that food delivery and production is a complex logistical process that doesn't always happen in war-torn or dictator controlled areas.


Are you saying that many parts of the US are war-torn or controlled by a dictator?  Because there are still quite a few people starving here.
 
2013-11-07 01:35:45 PM

Clever Neologism: EWreckedSean:

This isn't no true scotsman, it is calling massive corporatism, that is intertwined with government at every level, suddenly libertarian when the farking federal reserve pushes policies that limit certain regulations. That in no way makes it libertarian. Sorry.

Libertarianism leads to corporatism, numb nuts.  Without a strong government, it cannot stand against against even more powerful influences, namely the wealthy capitalists and corporations, which then have undue influence in government via either campaign contributions at the top, or influence over the populace.

A political and economic system can be judged on how resilient it is to corrupting influences and decay by those who don't give a shiat about sustaining it.  Libertarianism, both big and little 'l', fail miserably at this metric, and is only pushed either by those who know this, and want to corrupt the system further, or the naive.  Which are you?


Corporations are the creation of government numb nuts, not libertarianism. More to the point, government IS the favorite tool of influence and corruption used by these entities, because it is the only one that has the ability to make law.
 
2013-11-07 01:36:25 PM

EWreckedSean: This isn't no true scotsman, it is calling massive corporatism, that is intertwined with government at every level, suddenly libertarian when the farking federal reserve pushes policies that limit certain regulations. That in no way makes it libertarian. Sorry.


What do you think the end result of removing government intervention and regulation of companies will be? They'll become even more of a de facto government than they already are. But whatever. I wasn't arguing the situation was caused by libertarian ideals, just that the situation itself was close to what a lot of libertarians say they want, companies given control over the markets with virtually no intervention. Well, they got that with part of the market for almost a decade and they almost collapsed the world economy.

There's this assumption among libertarians that if the government would just get out of companies' way they'd self regulate and do what's best for everyone because it's the best long term plan. But we saw what really happens when given that kind of power, they get theirs and get out. Completely short sighted money grabs with no regard to what happened down the road or how many regular people got farked over in the process. That's why I said it's a BS ideology.
 
2013-11-07 01:36:30 PM
Libertarian safety net:

/that's the joke
 
2013-11-07 01:36:34 PM

AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: FarkedOver: super_grass: Because a need is not something that is guaranteed to be satisfied? That's why it's a need, it's not there 100% of the time.

Yet we as a species have the ability to make food not a need.  We choose not to do this.  Why is that? The answer is it is not profitable to feed everyone.  Some people have to die in order to profit.  That's a problem.

We certainly try to. The US is one of biggest government and private donors to poor countries. A good chunk of the problem is that food delivery and production is a complex logistical process that doesn't always happen in war-torn or dictator controlled areas.

Are you saying that many parts of the US are war-torn or controlled by a dictator?  Because there are still quite a few people starving here.


And we have both a massive assistance program and one of the lowest household expenditures on food in the world.
 
2013-11-07 01:37:02 PM

FarkedOver: Jackson Herring: that;s actually a pretty nice alley

You think that's nice, check out the tools of the trade:

[factorydirectcraft.com image 450x306]


That's the classiest wire hanger I've ever seen.
 
2013-11-07 01:37:51 PM

grumpfuff: skullkrusher: Yeah, I'm a known Marxist. Go back to trolling lefties

You sometimes criticize Republicans. Therefore, you are automatically a Marxist commie America hater to some people around here.


I'll also defend conservatives against unfair criticism. That makes me a teabagger
 
2013-11-07 01:38:19 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: FarkedOver: Jackson Herring: that;s actually a pretty nice alley

You think that's nice, check out the tools of the trade:

[factorydirectcraft.com image 450x306]

That's the classiest wire hanger I've ever seen.


www.bitlogic.com
 
2013-11-07 01:38:28 PM

super_grass: AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: FarkedOver: super_grass: Because a need is not something that is guaranteed to be satisfied? That's why it's a need, it's not there 100% of the time.

Yet we as a species have the ability to make food not a need.  We choose not to do this.  Why is that? The answer is it is not profitable to feed everyone.  Some people have to die in order to profit.  That's a problem.

We certainly try to. The US is one of biggest government and private donors to poor countries. A good chunk of the problem is that food delivery and production is a complex logistical process that doesn't always happen in war-torn or dictator controlled areas.

Are you saying that many parts of the US are war-torn or controlled by a dictator?  Because there are still quite a few people starving here.

And we have both a massive assistance program and one of the lowest household expenditures on food in the world.


Oh, so everything's OK then.
 
2013-11-07 01:38:29 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: FarkedOver: Jackson Herring: that;s actually a pretty nice alley

You think that's nice, check out the tools of the trade:

[factorydirectcraft.com image 450x306]

That's the classiest wire hanger I've ever seen.


That's for the classy lady about town.  The rest of the women get a rusty wire hanger. Fark em.
 
2013-11-07 01:39:09 PM
lbre.stanford.edu
LIBERTARIAN PAINT AND MOTOR OIL DISPOSAL SITE
 
2013-11-07 01:39:46 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: vygramul: 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.

A Libertarian will pee on your leg and then tell you you should have moved your leg when you saw him unzipping his fly.

A Libertarian will piss in your drinking water and then tell you "tough shiat, the stream passes thorough my back yard. PRIVATE PROPERTY biatchEZ"


A first worlder would tell you to stop getting your drinking water straight from a stream
 
2013-11-07 01:40:06 PM

AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: FarkedOver: super_grass: Because a need is not something that is guaranteed to be satisfied? That's why it's a need, it's not there 100% of the time.

Yet we as a species have the ability to make food not a need.  We choose not to do this.  Why is that? The answer is it is not profitable to feed everyone.  Some people have to die in order to profit.  That's a problem.

We certainly try to. The US is one of biggest government and private donors to poor countries. A good chunk of the problem is that food delivery and production is a complex logistical process that doesn't always happen in war-torn or dictator controlled areas.

Are you saying that many parts of the US are war-torn or controlled by a dictator?  Because there are still quite a few people starving here.

And we have both a massive assistance program and one of the lowest household expenditures on food in the world.

Oh, so everything's OK then.


NO! YOU FOOL! What we need to do is leave it people to voluntarily help the poor.  THEN we deregulate the market and the invisible hand will take care of the rest.  It's really as easy as that.
 
2013-11-07 01:40:47 PM

AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: AdmirableSnackbar: super_grass: FarkedOver: super_grass: Because a need is not something that is guaranteed to be satisfied? That's why it's a need, it's not there 100% of the time.

Yet we as a species have the ability to make food not a need.  We choose not to do this.  Why is that? The answer is it is not profitable to feed everyone.  Some people have to die in order to profit.  That's a problem.

We certainly try to. The US is one of biggest government and private donors to poor countries. A good chunk of the problem is that food delivery and production is a complex logistical process that doesn't always happen in war-torn or dictator controlled areas.

Are you saying that many parts of the US are war-torn or controlled by a dictator?  Because there are still quite a few people starving here.

And we have both a massive assistance program and one of the lowest household expenditures on food in the world.

Oh, so everything's OK then.


I didn't say that. I just see a different problem and solution.
 
2013-11-07 01:44:06 PM

skullkrusher: Ctrl-Alt-Del: vygramul: 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.

A Libertarian will pee on your leg and then tell you you should have moved your leg when you saw him unzipping his fly.

A Libertarian will piss in your drinking water and then tell you "tough shiat, the stream passes thorough my back yard. PRIVATE PROPERTY biatchEZ"

A first worlder would tell you to stop getting your drinking water straight from a stream


The odds of a libertarian country being "first world":

f0.bcbits.com
 
2013-11-07 01:44:42 PM

xalres: EWreckedSean: This isn't no true scotsman, it is calling massive corporatism, that is intertwined with government at every level, suddenly libertarian when the farking federal reserve pushes policies that limit certain regulations. That in no way makes it libertarian. Sorry.

What do you think the end result of removing government intervention and regulation of companies will be? They'll become even more of a de facto government than they already are. But whatever. I wasn't arguing the situation was caused by libertarian ideals, just that the situation itself was close to what a lot of libertarians say they want, companies given control over the markets with virtually no intervention. Well, they got that with part of the market for almost a decade and they almost collapsed the world economy.

There's this assumption among libertarians that if the government would just get out of companies' way they'd self regulate and do what's best for everyone because it's the best long term plan. But we saw what really happens when given that kind of power, they get theirs and get out. Completely short sighted money grabs with no regard to what happened down the road or how many regular people got farked over in the process. That's why I said it's a BS ideology.


Companies being able to act with government support at all levels, but with controls that go with that support stripped out isn't libertarianism remotely, and that is my point. A huge factor in the crash was that the federal government made credit way cheaper than the market supported, which led to massive amounts of borrowing that made little financial sense. You are taking a reduction of regulations, one little part, throwing away the millions of other way the government is involved, and calling it libertarianism. You are acting like regulation is the only way the government interferes with the market.
 
2013-11-07 01:45:37 PM
www.independent.co.uk
Oh I'm sorry you're starving? You want something to eat? FARK YOU, PAY ME!
 
2013-11-07 01:46:17 PM

karnal: A libertarian is a liberal who learned economics.


hmmm All the livertardians I know are conservatards.
 
2013-11-07 01:48:07 PM

Felgraf: karnal: FarkedOver: karnal: FarkedOver: karnal: A libertarian is a liberal who learned economics.

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.

So be like Obama and just borrow the money from China to get your X product?  Obviously it was his fuzzy math that figured out Obamacare.

Here's a guy who thinks I give a shiat about Obama's shiatty policies.

After the period at the end of this sentence, I will never give you another thought.

We get it, you really don't like it when people don't match up to your assumptions of them, it harms your little worldview-bubble.


Then you don't get it.
 
2013-11-07 01:54:11 PM
the last two big L party nominations have been recycled republican offerings - does anybody involved with libertarian politics reeeeeaaaaaaaallly get to be too surprised when Republicans treat you like you're the conservative farm league (like this article) when......you are the conservative farm league?
 
Bf+
2013-11-07 01:57:19 PM

karnal: A libertarian is a liberal who learned economics.


...at the expense of ethics.
 
2013-11-07 01:58:49 PM

HotWingConspiracy: They even disagree on what libertarianism is, I don't think they've exactly coalesced around the Max Bordersian definition.


So they disagree on basically every important issue, except they all want to abolish taxes.
 
2013-11-07 01:59:31 PM

xalres: There's this assumption among libertarians that if the government would just get out of companies' way they'd self regulate and do what's best for everyone because it's the best long term plan. But we saw what really happens when given that kind of power, they get theirs and get out. Completely short sighted money grabs with no regard to what happened down the road or how many regular people got farked over in the process. That's why I said it's a BS ideology.


the assumption of rational actors is the best political pixie dust the world has ever seen.

no evidence ever shakes it, even when it is supplied daily.
 
2013-11-07 02:01:33 PM
It's not like anyone was thrilled to vote for John McCain that day. But as bad as McCain was (and still is), he was better than Barack Obama. At least that's a conclusion you'd expect anyone who supported liberty to draw.

That's gold Jerry.  Gold!
 
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