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 139
    More: Fail  
•       •       •

1806 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Nov 2013 at 9:43 AM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-11-07 11:06:56 AM
6 votes:
For my libertarianism, I'm considered a liberal.  I think GOD should stay out of politics, I think the government should lightly regulate emergent order in the markets and society to prevent harm.  I believe that we have way more police, laws and lawyers than we need to protect people and property and some laws, police and lawyers are employed simply to enforce a power dynamic onto people who don't want it.

In other words, I'm a libertarian in that I believe that there IS a role for government.  Libertarians do believe this.  Where most libertarians fall down on their own beliefs is that they think that government in the real world can be this tiny thing tied only to local problems.  That is unrealistic bullshiat. The size of government is related to the size of the population and the issues it faces.  If some states hadn't systematically ignored their responsibility to educate it's citizens, there would be no department of education.  If some states hadn't been corrupted by corporations into ignoring the obvious effects of pollution there would be no EPA.  The FEDERAL government did fark up healthcare in the war years through employer sponsored healthcare being the only thing firms can compete on because of wage and price controls, but that was during a national crisis and Democrats have been trying to fix that shiat for 70 years now.  Drug policy has been insane for decades and should be radically changed. Universal access to affordable health care is the only real way to handle the problems drugs cause so that we can wind down the failed drug war (which is really about controlling brown people anyway).

So I am a libertarian.  Because of that, I vote for and support the Democrats.  They go too far at times, but they are working to make the government the correct size to handle the issues of the day and not some hypothetical size dictated by unsupportable models created to reach specific conclusions, and not based upon moralistic punishment of the lower class.

And fark the libertarian brony guy.  Dude, you have too much time on your hands if this stuff means that much to you.  Get a different hobby.
2013-11-07 08:46:27 AM
6 votes:
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.
2013-11-07 10:04:18 AM
5 votes:
Like any pure political philosophy libertarianism in an extreme form is doomed to failure.  Socialism, Capitalism (technically it's a kind of Oligarchy, I guess), Communism, Authoritarianism...  every single one is a non-starter unless blended with several other philosophies.

This is why the general talking points coming from the GOP these days are so pants on head retarded.  You shouldn't have to change your underpants every time Rush tells you something socialist is a-brewing... you should be thinking about whether a socialist solution for a particular problem makes sense.
2013-11-07 10:20:22 AM
4 votes:

russlar: [i.imgur.com image 310x390]


If anyone missed the Unfrozen Caveman Libertarian thread, they should really check out it's epicness.
2013-11-07 08:41:14 AM
4 votes:
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!
2013-11-07 11:02:41 AM
3 votes:
Libertarians are fat guys with beards who envision themselves as heroic freedom fighters in possession of secret information about how the economy "really works" struggling against a faceless evil (the government). They're basically conspiracy LARPers.
2013-11-07 10:56:14 AM
3 votes:

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.


Notice all anecdotes about people who were libertarian until they grew up?  Now look at your post.  Look at it.
2013-11-07 10:33:59 AM
3 votes:

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!


All the libertarians I know are early-30s tech sector workers with bad beards who think they're so much smarter than everyone else and can simply solve all the world's problems by letting markets do everything.

Need to protect children from exploitation? Let kidnappers take them and sell them in the sex trade. If the parents care enough, they will hire mercenaries to get them back.

Want to open up a medical practice even though you're not a doctor? After ten of your patients die your Yelp reviews will be so bad you won't be able to stay in business.
2013-11-07 10:29:50 AM
3 votes:
Anyone who thinks that Mises or Rothbard were awesome people should be sterilized. Immediately.
2013-11-07 10:03:49 AM
3 votes:

UNC_Samurai: 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.


Libertarians, like the Tea Party, are a group that espouses ideas that are contrary to what the individuals actually believe. I like jeffersonian liberalism, but I understand that as a practical matter progressive liberalism is more aligned to today's practical realities. It would be really "nice" if we could have a small central government, strong constitutional liberties and a strong self reliance. It is something that did work when this country was expanding, but these days we can't go back to the quaint world of homesteads. That is where libertarians get into trouble. They have ignored why we got where we are. Social justice, government oversight and restraint of rights were all necessary to have a functional and better society.
2013-11-07 10:00:22 AM
3 votes:
It means you are too much of a pussy to call yourself an Anarchist
2013-11-07 09:22:48 AM
3 votes:

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.
Bf+
2013-11-07 01:57:19 PM
2 votes:

karnal: A libertarian is a liberal who learned economics.


...at the expense of ethics.
2013-11-07 01:14:55 PM
2 votes:

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 12:35:53 PM
2 votes:
Libertarians are authoritarians.

They just think that they should be the authority.
2013-11-07 11:53:48 AM
2 votes:

skullkrusher: Ya know, you and your coworkers could always get together and buy your own means of production rather than resorting to stealing it from someone else.


When the barrier for entry is placed so high that you cannot conceivably compete, stealing is not immoral. OTOH, part of you selling your labor for less than it's value is to pay for capital, infrastructure and other necessary resources. Marxism fails simply because it doesn't acknowledge that reality.
2013-11-07 11:48:56 AM
2 votes:

A Dark Evil Omen: 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.


Worth mentioning most libertarians misuse the word authoritarian, which is not just any authority.  Authoritarians are ends in themselves, and thus illegitimate.  Strong men and the like, not democratic governments.    What they're really talking about is totalitarianism, which is legitimate power but oppressive, which democracies can certainly become..  Authoritarian powers can be benevolent for example -- and they often are with their tribe or kin group that underpins their power.

Libertarians like to pretend it's the opposite of authoritarianism, but it's really not.  Indeed the unrestrained struggle for indivudal power is often the root of authoritarian systems -- be it Henry Ford or Saddam Hussein.  Everyone is an underling in service to their ambitions.  Totalitarian systems like the Soviet Union are much more nebulous and bureaucratic and pretty much quash everyone and everything within it.  Even its leaders are subservient to the internal logic of the system.
2013-11-07 11:43:50 AM
2 votes:
Economics textbooks used to use a latin phrase "Caeteris Paribus" when talking about theoretical constructs such as the "laffer curve" (Invented by Ibn Khaldun and later attributed by Laffer to Keynes) that are not meant to be taken as a literal representation of how the world works, but rather as a device to demonstrate where the optimal tax rate is relative to the economy and government income.

The latin phrase means essentially "All things being equal." Unfortunately for libertarians, these models, just as advertised do not include the behavior of people in the real world in their calculations, and are therefore fundamentally flawed.

Being not bright enough to understand theoretical economics discussions is no basis for a system of government. Or on the other side of this argument, if some libertarian zero tax goon can prove that they have actually calculated the apex of the laffer curve, I invite them to come forward and claim their Nobel Prize in economics. Until then, I suppose, they can continue to burden the rest of us with their purely self interested quest to gargle on the ball sacks of hedge fund billionaires.
2013-11-07 11:34:51 AM
2 votes:
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 11:28:26 AM
2 votes:

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 11:16:11 AM
2 votes:
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 11:00:01 AM
2 votes:

Churchill2004: JusticeandIndependence: I was with you until this one...

 "Government should refrain from legislating morality."

What does this mean exactly?  No gay marriage?  No abortion or legal abortion?

Such wording is almost always used to indicate a pro-choice, liberal position on those questions.


Yup.. it's up to the individual.

Personally, I'd like to see marriage done away with (unregulated by government) and provide a contractual method to provide for the care of children and others along with estate matters.

The current laws were designed to protect women and to encourage the birth rate post world wars and is no longer needed.
2013-11-07 10:53:04 AM
2 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/13/libertarianism-for-dummies/

Too long. Don't read.


Thanks, but your name at the top of the post is enough for me.
2013-11-07 10:41:40 AM
2 votes:
It's worth noting that the "Sarvis is a fake libertarian!" crap isn't really coming from the usual suspects within the LP. It's coming from unabashed right-wing conservatives who are made the Republican lost, because a majority of voters cast ballots for social liberals. It's not even true that Sarvis cost Cuccinelli this election (though if it were that would be part of the point). All you have to do is compare the results from the Lt. Gov. election- the exact same voters cast ballots with only a Republican and a Democrat to choose from, and the Democrat won in a ten point blowout.
2013-11-07 10:36:51 AM
2 votes:

super_grass: Fart_Machine: slayer199: It's a pretty simple philosophy:

You can't even get Libertarians to agree what a Libertarian is in their own party.

I doubt any party completely agrees about its philosophy unless it's a party of one.


This. People act like the Libertarian Party is unique in this regard. It's not. Show me a single political party ever that didn't have fights over "He's not a real [fill-in-the-blank]!"

Sarvis was one of the best candidates the LP has ever had. He ran as a pragmatic libertarian, keen on socially liberal issues and not a strident holier-than-thou ideologue. He's in the mold of Gary Johnson and Jim Gray, and in my opinion the LP is definitely headed in the right direction with them.

/just got my Libertarian Party of Wisconsin membership card in the mail
//so yes, I'm a card-carrying Libertarian
2013-11-07 10:34:11 AM
2 votes:
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.
2013-11-07 10:30:51 AM
2 votes:

skullkrusher: 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.

That's Randians


Randians are narcissists, not sociopaths. They believe society is just jealous of how extra special they are and so tries to keep them down. Libertarians are closer to sociopaths because they usually recognize that societal structures help some people but want to get rid of them because they don't personally benefit.
2013-11-07 10:26:44 AM
2 votes:
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.
2013-11-07 10:17:30 AM
2 votes:
This reminds me of how Democrats complained about the Greens following Al Gore's loss in 2000.
2013-11-07 10:10:41 AM
2 votes:
I was a libertarian in High school. I was also an asshole in high school, and if I met my high school self, I would punch me right in the face.
2013-11-07 10:04:52 AM
2 votes:

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!


Damn. You really nailed every single Libertarian I know too.
2013-11-07 09:59:47 AM
2 votes:
Another article about how if they would just be TRUE libertarians it would be the best thing ever.

There is a reason why no one has ever successfully tried out your bullshiat philosophy, guys.
2013-11-07 09:55:36 AM
2 votes:

The Martian Manhandler: [www.leftycartoons.com image 650x976]


In my lolbertarian days (I was registered Librtarian from '76 to '06) I was a Briefly Tempting, Left-Wing, Stoned Libertarian, as best as I can remember.
2013-11-07 09:49:20 AM
2 votes:

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


Your friend was probably mildly autistic himself - it's common among libertarians. Probably passed it on to the kid.
2013-11-07 09:47:00 AM
2 votes:

kxs401: Also, there are a few who are Republicans but too self-aware to call themselves Republicans.


Most I have met are Republicans that are too self-aware to call themselves Republicans.

Both Sides are Bad! So vote Republican!
2013-11-07 09:46:07 AM
2 votes:
I remember a friend who was a rabid libertarian. And then he had an autistic son born to him.
2013-11-07 08:59:53 AM
2 votes:
It means you're probably white.
2013-11-08 02:25:54 PM
1 votes:

Phinn: As long as everyone trades voluntarily, then all trades create a mutual benefit. "Voluntary" means being free from attack on the person, or stealing others' property. That's also self-evident and axiomatic.

Only the division of labor and this sort of voluntary, peaceful, respectful (i.e. free) exchange of property rights in goods can increase wealth. All other types of interactions necessarily involve aggression, and thus result in a loss of wealth.


Yayyyy, more masturbatory "barrel of a gun" bullshiat.

When you decide to maintain citizenship and residence within a country, you agree to abide by its laws... even if you don't like them and feel they adversely affect you. In the U.S., you're free to try to change them, and if you can't, you're free to leave.

Opting to stay implies acceptance to the terms of residence... i.e. no "aggression" or "coercion" or "violence" or "theft" or any of the other shrieking chicken little bullshiat you guys like to spout.


cdn01.cdnwp.thefrisky.com
2013-11-07 07:25:10 PM
1 votes:
"Are you familiar with the concept of structural violence?"
"...no."



The Martian Manhandler
If anyone missed the Unfrozen Caveman Libertarian thread, they should really check out it's epicness.

The last post should have just been "/fark".


FarkedOver
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 :)

fuuka.warosu.org


xria
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.

Ideally, there would be a high enough level of social and labor organization to be able to do things without having to resort to the government. According to what you're saying, there is no reason the government can't do its part to rein in corporate power WHILE we work toward that level of organization. Anyway, do you really believe the government has any interest in actually reining in corporate power? If not, there's only one thing that could force the government to do its job- if we achieve a high enough level of social and labor organization that they are forced to either shape up or be made obsolete. But then if we do manage to achieve that kind of organizational power, why continue relying on a governmental system which is fundamentally hostile? At that point, if the government acts because there is a credible threat of a revolution, why not follow through on that revolution and be done with the problem once and for all?


skullkrusher
I believe money=money and should have no impact on political power

Economic power IS political power. "Politics" does not necessarily mean "government".


lockers
Kinda like communism and anarcho-capitalism. if only there was some sort of compromise that existed between these systems.

Mutualism? Anti-State capitalist, but with homesteading allowed on abandoned property even if someone else once held a title to it.
I don't mind mutualists, mostly because they tend to have good politics when it comes to racism, sexism, nationalism, poverty, etc. By their deeds judge them etc.


Felgraf
I really don't think communism can work for large-scale societies, because, yes, of human nature at the moment. Most people may be happy to help folks they know/work to provide for friends and family, but when the people you're supposedly aiding are so far away as to become a total abstraction, I suspect it is much harder to give a fark.

True, but this can possibly be solved by making a 'large-scale society' which consists of a vast number of small groups, organized and coordinated through an acephalous federation. You don't need to know everyone in the world; just the individuals in the organizations you're part of and the general overview of your supply chain and the world news. That's Anarchism.
2013-11-07 04:26:20 PM
1 votes:

Gulper Eel: Thrag: 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.

Fraud? It's a lot easier to swap a benefits card for booze than it is to swap a cabbage. Oversight turns out to be a whole lot easier when the program is distributing something that's not money.


Okay, so your solution might at best somewhat reduce the resources needed to police one type of fraud. That doesn't really make up for the immense logistics infrastructure required to implement direct food distribution.

As for the crony capitalism, that's what we have already - we're subsidizing crap on a massive scale. Since I'm not about letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, or even the somewhat better than the status quo. If big agribusiness is involved more with broccoli than corn, that's a step in the right direction.

You aren't addressing the problem at all. This is just hand waving.

A lot of this "massive" infrastructure you mention should be kicked down to the states as it is. States handle unemployment insurance programs; they can handle food assistance.

This is a total non-answer. Kick it down to the states does not address the fact that a massive infrastructure must be created at some level. Kicking it down to the states will just make the overall bureaucracy larger since there will be redundancies among the 50 states. Your solutions will require larger expenses and more government.

This reply just reinforces my point. You start with a naive over simplistic thought out solution as a replacement once the existing system has been burned down. When questions or raised or flaws pointed out you are just spouting the first answer (or non-answer) that comes to mind. The focus is on burning shiat down with only a passing afterthought about what comes next. You've got stats and cites to support the tearing down of the system, but zero research in how to make things work well.

For a solution that doesn't involve as much disruption but gets the job done, I suppose the SNAP program could be tweaked so that it's doled out not in dollar amounts, but in ingredient amounts.

Okay, how would that work? Who gets to decide what and how much of each foodstuff a person receiving benefits can buy? We'd need a whole new system for tracking not just the money spent, but what ingredients it is spent on. Isn't doing this a larger, more intrusive, more complex, government solution? With these solutions you are kind of a terrible libertarian ;)
2013-11-07 02:46:47 PM
1 votes:

heap: dude, your first statement was 'you should read the constitution' and then followed up with pretending 1 statement from the federalist papers means you're a constitutional scholar - if you don't want to be mocked as a stereotype, you could always be less stereotypical.


No, I was refuting his argument regarding his position that the Constitution was never written to protect and defend the rights of the People.  The Federalist papers were relevant as that clearly shows the intent of the founders that the People have Rights, and the government is granted powers....not the other way around.

Of course, if I made the claim and I didn't cite my sources, you'd be going off on how wrong I was and we exist to serve the government.
2013-11-07 02:40:13 PM
1 votes:
Wow...they're really butthurt about Cucinnelli losing huh?

They don't understand that the main reason so many people voted for Sarvis was because the Cooch was a walking trainwreck and McAlluffe wasn't that much better.
2013-11-07 02:39:35 PM
1 votes:

heap: slayer199: lockers: The idea that the federal government exist to protect and defend individual freedom is a mythical fantasy. The reason we have a federal government is to govern the states. We, thankfully, included the bill of rights to limit how it can govern. Make no mistake, as passed, the constitution limited the government from taking your liberties in no way. We had to amend it to get those liberties that we enumerated. It wasn't even till the reformation that we even applied those rights to individual states. It took a civil war and abolishment to guarentee states respected individual liberty. Think on that a minute.

You may want to re-read the Constitution sometime.  The government is granted power, the people have Rights.  Read the Federalist Papers (Federalist 84).  Alexander Hamilton argued against the Bill of Rights stating that if such a Bill of Rights were added that it could be interpreted that the People ONLY had those rights.   "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power."

The 9th and 10th Amendments were a compromise.

9th
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor ...


Can't refute?  Just post a cartoon that is a weak caricature of libertarians and achieve the admiration of those that disagree with libertarianism and also can't refute an argument.
2013-11-07 02:33:08 PM
1 votes:

super_grass: Rewarding logical behavior and punishing irrational behavior is the goal of having competition in the first place.


No it's not.  Competition doesn't decide who does things rationally vs irrationally or morally vs immorally.  When has competition ever punished irrational or immoral behavior?
2013-11-07 02:31:43 PM
1 votes:

Fart_Machine: heap: 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?

Well they're either nutters (like the lady who argued for the legalization of child porn) or has-been Republicans like Bob Barr.


or gary johnson. or ron paul.

again, i don't know why anybody could be surprised when party republicans treat libertarians like they were the double A league...when as a political party,  that's exactly what they set out to be, all too often.
2013-11-07 02:16:43 PM
1 votes:

Biological Ali: Beyond that, self-proclaimed "libertarians" will be among the most economically illiterate people you'll ever find.


kinda, but it's more a side effect of the larger problem - there is only 1 perspective - theirs. viewing something like macro-economics thru a lens of singular personal benefit isn't really illiteracy, it's treating your diary like it's porn. or something.
2013-11-07 02:13:24 PM
1 votes:

lockers: The idea that the federal government exist to protect and defend individual freedom is a mythical fantasy. The reason we have a federal government is to govern the states. We, thankfully, included the bill of rights to limit how it can govern. Make no mistake, as passed, the constitution limited the government from taking your liberties in no way. We had to amend it to get those liberties that we enumerated. It wasn't even till the reformation that we even applied those rights to individual states. It took a civil war and abolishment to guarentee states respected individual liberty. Think on that a minute.


You may want to re-read the Constitution sometime.  The government is granted power, the people have Rights.  Read the Federalist Papers (Federalist 84).  Alexander Hamilton argued against the Bill of Rights stating that if such a Bill of Rights were added that it could be interpreted that the People ONLY had those rights.   "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power."

The 9th and 10th Amendments were a compromise.

9th
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

I don't know how you can make that assumption that the People are subservient to the government.  By your opinion, the People have no rights and are only granted rights by the government.
2013-11-07 02:13:07 PM
1 votes:

Bf+: karnal: A libertarian is a liberal who learned economics.

...at the expense of ethics.


Even that much isn't true - the only libertarian that comes to mind with respectable economic credentials would be Hayek (and those who subscribe to his philosophies). Beyond that, self-proclaimed "libertarians" will be among the most economically illiterate people you'll ever find.
2013-11-07 02:10:16 PM
1 votes:

Phinn: But these same people suddenly become perfectly rational and all-knowing and supremely ethical when they vote.

Or when they work in a government job.

Because people are so smart and decent, generally.  They can't be trusted with the disposition of their own property, so naturally the solution is to give them power over the disposition of other people's property, too.

Brilliant, dude.  Cunning plan.


or maybe one could actually assess what happens and act accordingly - but no, doggedly pretending the assumption of rational actors has some basis in reality because it feels good makes more sense.

remember that week when alan greenspan said that there were some flaws in his assumptions? that was the 1 singular week where it was acceptable for a loon to admit this crux of their philosophy is worthless - and it only took the near destruction of the entire economy to get that 1 week vacation to reality. go figger, eh?
2013-11-07 02:06:09 PM
1 votes:

heap: 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.



But these same people suddenly become perfectly rational and all-knowing and supremely ethical when they vote.

Or when they work in a government job.

Because people are so smart and decent, generally.  They can't be trusted with the disposition of their own property, so naturally the solution is to give them power over the disposition of other people's property, too.

Brilliant, dude.  Cunning plan.
2013-11-07 01:59:31 PM
1 votes:

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 01:35:45 PM
1 votes:

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 01:31:08 PM
1 votes:

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 01:25:36 PM
1 votes:
Ladies, don't feel left out.  The libertarians are thinking of you with their

swamprighter.files.wordpress.com
LIBERTARIAN ABORTION CLINIC!
2013-11-07 01:25:32 PM
1 votes:

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 01:23:19 PM
1 votes:

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 01:17:21 PM
1 votes:
graphics8.nytimes.com
 LIBERTARIAN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
2013-11-07 01:15:23 PM
1 votes:
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
  LIBERTARIAN FOOD PANTRY
2013-11-07 01:06:19 PM
1 votes:
FTA - "Reason is great at highlighting abuses by every level of government pushing the idea that oil companies shouldn't have to deal with any environmental regulation because asshole cops in Podunkville, Indiana shut down a kid's lemonade stand...  which was also stocked with nachos, hot dogs, popcorn, candy, and commercial containers of about six different beverages and happened to be set up just outside of a car show in which vendors had paid a pretty hefty fee for the privilege to peddle their refreshments)

Oh, and did we mention that Reason is bankrolled by billionaire oil magnates?
2013-11-07 12:46:35 PM
1 votes:

Gulper Eel: Thrag: So, you express the notion of starting a new program from scratch. You've got the burn it down part, but what do you build in its place? What are your ideas, the ideas Libertarians you are aware of, or the Libertarian party position on this issue? How can we improve SNAP, or what should it be replaced with that would be more effective?

Read upthread. I'll oversimplify what I already wrote - Instead of providing a card, we provide the food itself, plus the knowhow as needed, along with expanded soup kitchens and pantries. I see no reason why Walmart should get rich selling poor people boxes of taxpayer-subsidized Frosted Flakes that'll land them in diabeetusland 20 years from now.


Who do you think would get the contract for providing that food?  I'm sure it would be some super-reputable upstart who cares about the best interests of the recipient and certainly not some MegaCorp that greases the wheels and does things on the cheap and provides food that over the years would end with the recipient in diabeetusland.
2013-11-07 12:36:39 PM
1 votes:

super_grass: Why the hell not? I lock my doors at night and distrust abstinence only education for the same reason. I'd rather redirect human tendency towards productive ends than to fight it.


Because the human nature argument is pure bullshiat.  Capitalists, libertarians, et al. all focus in on only the deplorable facets of what it means to be human.  Further, I have never seen a great definition of human nature laid out by capitalists.

I like the definition that human nature is merely how human beings adapt to differing social circumstances.
2013-11-07 12:36:06 PM
1 votes:

lockers: A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: hinten: Liberterianism would work if only everyone abided by my rules.

Kinda like communism and anarcho-capitalism. if only there was some sort of compromise that existed between these systems.

Why does the "reasonable compromise" always seem to match the current farked-up system, or, at best, be "strictly capitalist + welfare state"?

Because, in practice, communism fails to meet it's ideological goals. The ideology ignores the power seeking nature of humanity. Goal seeking is the human condition, and requires reward. Don't get me wrong, I think we will see in our lifetime automation forcing that hand. At some point there just won't be enough need for labor for people. We will have to either ditch capitalism or kill off almost everyone.


There are more than two choices, you do understand that, right? Hell, let's talk small-scale nitty gritty: Why not restructure the system of tax incentives to promote worker ownership? Why not remove the huge anti-labor legal infrastructure and promote unionization instead of attacking it? Why not give traditional banks the legal limitations that credit unions have and deregulate them instead? I think that a large-scale collectivist anarchism is practical now, but even if we're just talking "moderate compromise", why is that "moderate compromise" in actuality so immoderate and tilted toward the capitalist class? It doesn't have to be that way, and the welfare state is not the only or the best way out.
2013-11-07 12:33:46 PM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: lockers: skullkrusher: Capitalists are capitalists, man. You're a socialist. You're gonna have to come to terms with stealing from mom and pop

Providing for a larger society is the moral equivalent of taking pens from my company?

Huh? Capitalists are capitalists. They profit by taking in more revenues than it costs to provide their service or good. Whether they are globocorp or a corner furniture store, the mechanism is the same. You're not a socialist if you only want big companies broken up


Which doesn't answer my question. Why is the government, which is concerned about social welfare and not profit, taxing the moral equivalent of theft? We can argue just how much the government should intervene, but specifically why is taxation the moral equivalent of theft?
2013-11-07 12:29:57 PM
1 votes:

A Dark Evil Omen: lockers: hinten: Liberterianism would work if only everyone abided by my rules.

Kinda like communism and anarcho-capitalism. if only there was some sort of compromise that existed between these systems.

Why does the "reasonable compromise" always seem to match the current farked-up system, or, at best, be "strictly capitalist + welfare state"?


Because, in practice, communism fails to meet it's ideological goals. The ideology ignores the power seeking nature of humanity. Goal seeking is the human condition, and requires reward. Don't get me wrong, I think we will see in our lifetime automation forcing that hand. At some point there just won't be enough need for labor for people. We will have to either ditch capitalism or kill off almost everyone.
2013-11-07 12:28:33 PM
1 votes:

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.


As always, your characterization of "the left's" position is false. If anyone have proposals to make SNAP work better to provide good nutrition "the left" would be happy to hear them. Instead of sensible meaningful reform, all we get is the desire to cut it's funding or eliminate it entirely. What you view as "the left" trying to increase benefits is not a desire to throw money at the problem, it's barely even a desire to significantly increase benefits. It's primarily a push against the constant call to cut the program to the bone.

So, you express the notion of starting a new program from scratch. You've got the burn it down part, but what do you build in its place? What are your ideas, the ideas Libertarians you are aware of, or the Libertarian party position on this issue? How can we improve SNAP, or what should it be replaced with that would be more effective?
2013-11-07 12:27:50 PM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: super_grass: And also, what value system isn't created by man? The only thing that comes close is natural competition, and that's by definition jungle law.

If man can create and make capitalism work, why can man not make socialism or communism work?  Do you believe it to be beyond our capability as a species?  If so, you do not give man enough credit.

Difficulty: Don't give me the typical capitalist bullshiat line of "bb..b.b.butttt HUMAN NATURE!"


Uh, but pure capitalism DIDN'T work. It farked things up. BADLY, and lead to thinks like Standard Oil, etc. A fusion of Capitalism and socialism does seem to work the best.

I really don't think communism can work for large-scale societies, because, yes, of human nature at the moment. Most people may be happy to help folks they know/work to provide for friends and family, but when the people you're supposedly aiding are so far away as to become a total abstraction, I suspect it is much harder to give a fark.

This is also why pure captialism/no regulations screws up too, mind. ("So what if this makes the water undrinkable 100 miles downstream, I don't know those folks! Screw them, it's cheaper to dump the waste in the river, I own the water rights for this stretch of it!")
2013-11-07 12:12:13 PM
1 votes:

A Dark Evil Omen: toomuchwhargarbl: FarkedOver:
Capitalism is by far one of the most inefficient systems in place.  I bet I could even find capitalists who agree with this statement.

When I realized that efficiency = unemployment, I suddenly realized why we don't scale it back.

The forced labor system is one of the big problems with capitalism, just as much as it was with the Soviet system.


Another issue with capitalism is that you would think that technological progress wouldn't result in more unemployment but would rather create an easing of the burden of work for all.
2013-11-07 12:10:59 PM
1 votes:

Gulper Eel: lockers: That isn't libertarianism. Greedy survivalist is more accurate.

So because, for example, my state spends as much on Medicaid than the next two largest states put together, without producing outcomes any better than the states that spend a shiatload less, and I think that's a damn stupid thing to do...I'm a greedy survivalist?

I take it you're with the Kris Kringle wing of the Democratic party.


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?
2013-11-07 12:09:57 PM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: super_grass: It's the worst system there is, except for everything else.

Capitalism is by far one of the most inefficient systems in place.  I bet I could even find capitalists who agree with this statement.

The fact remains that man created this system of economics.  We should constantly strive for a better system than what is in place now because it is terrible.  The profit motive needs a serious scaling back.


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.
2013-11-07 12:01:30 PM
1 votes:

Katolu: Look up "Moorish".


My comment was referring to this survey.

Compared to the general population, libertarians are significantly more likely to be non-Hispanic white, male, and young. Nearly all libertarians are non-Hispanic whites (94%), more than two-thirds (68%) are men, and more than 6-in-10 (62%) are under the age of 50.
2013-11-07 12:01:24 PM
1 votes:

toomuchwhargarbl: Gulper Eel: 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.

Soup kitchens and pantries, which being brick and mortar locations with staffs and whatnot would require much more overhead than just issuing SNAP cards and centrally managing them from one office with a data center attached. Meaning no, even from a libertaritron perspective your idea is bad and you should feel bad.

But hey, it punishes poor people more, so it's got that going for it.

/BSAB

Gulper

  is reacting to a straw man.  Industrialized food production was the future of convenience and efficiency not too long ago.  Housewives wouldn't need to do dishes anymore!  etc.    The very idea of "healthy" being "non processed" foods is a very new one.

Therefore his whole point is nonsense.  Would we design SNAP today the same way?  No, but that comes with quite a bit of hindsight.   The promise was convenience and efficiency for a modern world, not carbed up fatties eating the cheapest stuff we could make.  And like all bureaucracies, they're hard to change once they're entrenched -- especially when no one wants to pay for these healthy alternatives when sugar water is so cheap.  No 'big agra' conspiracy required.
2013-11-07 11:53:21 AM
1 votes:

ikanreed: skullkrusher: 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?

I have highlighted your lie.  You believe money=deserved power.  That's inherent to libertarian philosophy.


That's the ultimate blind spot of Libertarianism.
2013-11-07 11:53:19 AM
1 votes:
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?
2013-11-07 11:52:58 AM
1 votes:
Gulper Eel: 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.

Soup kitchens and pantries, which being brick and mortar locations with staffs and whatnot would require much more overhead than just issuing SNAP cards and centrally managing them from one office with a data center attached. Meaning no, even from a libertaritron perspective your idea is bad and you should feel bad.

But hey, it punishes poor people more, so it's got that going for it.

/BSAB
2013-11-07 11:48:49 AM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: 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?


I have highlighted your lie.  You believe money=deserved power.  That's inherent to libertarian philosophy.
2013-11-07 11:48:13 AM
1 votes:

Gulper Eel: 1/10


Cute. You are a moron if you think I am arguing from a dishonest place or seeking to provoke you.

Gulper Eel: 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.


Poor people don't deserve choice, gotcha. You restate exactly what I said, your argument isn't that SNAP is flawed, it's that it doesn't punish the sin of being poor.
2013-11-07 11:44:57 AM
1 votes:

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


Says the person who went "OH, so you think the government should have UNLIMITED POWER?!"

Physician, heal thyself.
2013-11-07 11:43:27 AM
1 votes:

slayer199: 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.


The idea that the federal government exist to protect and defend individual freedom is a mythical fantasy. The reason we have a federal government is to govern the states. We, thankfully, included the bill of rights to limit how it can govern. Make no mistake, as passed, the constitution limited the government from taking your liberties in no way. We had to amend it to get those liberties that we enumerated. It wasn't even till the reformation that we even applied those rights to individual states. It took a civil war and abolishment to guarentee states respected individual liberty. Think on that a minute.
2013-11-07 11:42:37 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-11-07 11:42:32 AM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: No I don't but you brag about being a farking anarcho socialist so higher thought cannot be reasonably expected of you


I'm a socialist filthy red marxist.  What I want, I will attempt to put into capitalist terms.  I want to maximize my profit.  I am effectively selling my labor power at a loss.  As a capitalist, this cannot stand.  I mention this to my other capitalist co-workers.  I let them know, we are all selling our labor at a loss.  We decide together..... (collectively, if you will...ohhh i know it's a dirty word!) that the only way in which we can stop selling our labor power at a loss is to take over the means of production ourselves.
2013-11-07 11:41:37 AM
1 votes:

AdmirableSnackbar: 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.


But if gummint regulations weren't so oppressive, an entrepreneur could just move to those impoverished areas and open up a low cost natural grocery store! Without zoning and health regulations and a minimum wage, that business could get started at a price that could be afforded by the people there.

Obviously since no one has poor people are too stupid to know how good natural food is and should be left to die.
2013-11-07 11:41:28 AM
1 votes:

slayer199: 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.


Problem: most of the government's power comes from the necessity of ensuring that one person or group isn't restricting the freedom of another.  When libertarians seek to remove that "power" they - unintentionally, for the most part - are working to ensure that some people don't have the same freedom as others.
2013-11-07 11:40:16 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-11-07 11:39:10 AM
1 votes:

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 11:36:57 AM
1 votes:

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 11:36:40 AM
1 votes:

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 11:33:28 AM
1 votes:

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 11:28:02 AM
1 votes:

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 11:23:55 AM
1 votes:

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 11:17:17 AM
1 votes:

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 11:16:01 AM
1 votes:

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 11:13:37 AM
1 votes:

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 11:10:35 AM
1 votes:

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 11:10:15 AM
1 votes:

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 11:09:12 AM
1 votes:

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!


All the Libertarians I know are Republicans too embarrassed after Bush's tenure to call themselves Republicans.
2013-11-07 11:04:19 AM
1 votes:

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 :)
2013-11-07 11:03:13 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-11-07 11:02:32 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-11-07 11:01:32 AM
1 votes:
In the years since, that attitude has only grown. And what it means to be a Libertarian has blurred even more than before. So much so that a "Libertarian" candidate for governor in Virginia - many of whose views would disgust "real" Libertarians - pulled 7 percent in a race decided by much less pretty much solely on the strength of his party ID.

http://votesmart.org/candidate/political-courage-test/134537/robert- sa rvis/#.Unu4q_nJY64

What views of his would disgust "real" libertarians?

I'm not even sure what the author is biatching about here?

(stolen from a thread yesterday: Yes, the pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-pot legalization, anti-death penalty Libertarian candidate. The sound of Cuccinelli voters stampeding to him was deafening. "
2013-11-07 11:00:12 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-11-07 10:59:54 AM
1 votes:

EWreckedSean: 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.


This is why we can't have nice things.
2013-11-07 10:59:30 AM
1 votes:
Lemme alone!

You guys suck!

I'm taking my ball and bat and I'm going home!

/ What Libertarians sound like to the rest of us.
2013-11-07 10:56:20 AM
1 votes:

odinsposse: skullkrusher: 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.

That's Randians

Randians are narcissists, not sociopaths. They believe society is just jealous of how extra special they are and so tries to keep them down. Libertarians are closer to sociopaths because they usually recognize that societal structures help some people but want to get rid of them because they don't personally benefit.


This is a false characterization. There is nothing to libertarianism which says it is immoral to help a stranger in need. In general terms, they just reject government being involved in that believing that the decision to help others should be left to the individual. Randians attach a moral wrong to assisting the "leeches".

Randians are the ones required by their philosophy to be self-centered. Not right(or left) libertarians
2013-11-07 10:53:56 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-11-07 10:52:05 AM
1 votes:
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.
2013-11-07 10:51:59 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-11-07 10:48:55 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-11-07 10:42:31 AM
1 votes:

BMFPitt: 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'm 32, I have never smoked anything, I work for the federal government, and I want a properly sized nd scoped federal government.

So you think the war on drugs is a proper and effective use of resources, the government is always benevolent, and that power is always better centralized?


Now I can add to the list: people who don't understand words and ideas.
2013-11-07 10:41:42 AM
1 votes:
Libertarians are just plutocrat-wannabes who like weed. Authoritarian shiatheels with a stolen name.
2013-11-07 10:38:47 AM
1 votes:

BMFPitt: Are you saying that you think the federal government should have unlimited power over everything, or just that you didn't understand what you were reading?


Limited within the scope of what is necessary at the time, up to and yes included unlimited should the republic need it

We fought that war already and settled this argument some time ago
2013-11-07 10:36:27 AM
1 votes:

Gulper Eel: lockers: That isn't libertarianism. Greedy survivalist is more accurate.

So because, for example, my state spends as much on Medicaid than the next two largest states put together, without producing outcomes any better than the states that spend a shiatload less, and I think that's a damn stupid thing to do...I'm a greedy survivalist?

I take it you're with the Kris Kringle wing of the Democratic party.


No, what I am telling you is libertarians are defined in whole as greedy survivalists. If you want to group yourself in with that, I won't stop or mock you, but that is who you are throwing in with. I think you are more likely an independent moderate, but there isn't a real good national party behind that.
2013-11-07 10:36:03 AM
1 votes:
It means you're not sure how things work or why some laws were necessary in the first place, but you're pretty sure both sides are bad, but you're good so...,

it's basically for people who don't quite get what's happening, but want to act as though they are above it all without offering any real world solutions.

/had a brief bout of libertarianism in my early 20s
//I got better
2013-11-07 10:35:12 AM
1 votes:

IdBeCrazyIf: BMFPitt: and that power is always better centralized?

Even Jefferson recognized the need for a strong centralized federal government in a global world, lay off it already


Are you saying that you think the federal government should have unlimited power over everything, or just that you didn't understand what you were reading?
2013-11-07 10:32:04 AM
1 votes:

lockers: That isn't libertarianism. Greedy survivalist is more accurate.


So because, for example, my state spends as much on Medicaid than the next two largest states put together, without producing outcomes any better than the states that spend a shiatload less, and I think that's a damn stupid thing to do...I'm a greedy survivalist?

I take it you're with the Kris Kringle wing of the Democratic party.
2013-11-07 10:29:03 AM
1 votes:

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'm 32, I have never smoked anything, I work for the federal government, and I want a properly sized nd scoped federal government.

So you think the war on drugs is a proper and effective use of resources, the government is always benevolent, and that power is always better centralized?
2013-11-07 10:28:58 AM
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/13/libertarianism-for-dummies/

Too long. Don't read.


Here's your problem, "Max Borders"

8. Myth: Libertarians agree on everything.
Here's a mini top ten list of things about which libertarians are fairly divided:
1.) Immigration
2.) Austrian or Chicago economics
3.) Abortion
4.) Origin of rights
5.) The status of children and teenagers
6.) War and pacifism
7.) Strategy of reform
8.) Tactics of reform
9.) Whether to compromise
10.) Intellectual property rights

They even disagree on what libertarianism is, I don't think they've exactly coalesced around the Max Bordersian definition.
2013-11-07 10:28:58 AM
1 votes:

slayer199: It's a pretty simple philosophy:


You can't even get Libertarians to agree what a Libertarian is in their own party.
2013-11-07 10:25:54 AM
1 votes:
Wanting smaller, less intrusive government and supporting personal liberty. What a bunch of greedy cave dwellers.
2013-11-07 10:23:57 AM
1 votes:

Karac: What Libertarians do exceedingly well is sit on the sidelines, arms folded, and complain.

How is that different from Republicans?


They don't get opposed by others in their own party when they try and run for something.
2013-11-07 10:23:18 AM
1 votes:
Well, subby convinced me.  Off to change affiliation.
2013-11-07 10:20:05 AM
1 votes:
I guess I'd pass for libertarian here at Fark - that comes from watching the progressive model be at best an expensive mediocrity in my home state, and watching power seeking more power in Washington no matter who's in charge.

Call libertarianism the opposite of whatever the party that wants to play Santa Claus and the party that wants to play God are doing.
2013-11-07 10:17:31 AM
1 votes:
Townhall: "Libertarians don't conform to our conservative views enough"

Happens whenever a libertarian candidate steals votes from them.
2013-11-07 10:17:26 AM
1 votes:
It used to be about defensive government, until they turned against healthcare.

It used to be about protection of property rights, until they decided that the greatest historical theft stealing from an entire people the payment for their work through centuries of slavery needed no retribution.

So yeah, now just hookers and blow, with undercurrents of racism.
2013-11-07 10:17:00 AM
1 votes:
Some people just want to watch the world burn. Others want to snort lines off a hooker's ass while the world burns.
2013-11-07 10:15:40 AM
1 votes:
"The word no longer has any meaning, no definition or parameters, certainly no coherent philosophy to speak of."

I suppose this is the case because "libertarian" is just the opposite of "authoritarian" and never had its own philosophy.  Certain flavors or communists called themselve libertarian communists to distinguish themselves from authoritarian communists.  In many respects the Green Party is libertarian.  It's a word that should be one peice of a political philosphy, because by itself it doesn't mean a whole lot.
2013-11-07 10:15:01 AM
1 votes:
What Libertarians do exceedingly well is sit on the sidelines, arms folded, and complain.

How is that different from Republicans?
2013-11-07 10:13:05 AM
1 votes:

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.


I understand some semblance of Libertarianism and, in some circumstances, it may actually work.  Trying to apply Libertarianism in the real world however, is suicidal at best.
2013-11-07 10:09:40 AM
1 votes:
i.imgur.com
2013-11-07 10:08:38 AM
1 votes:
DarnoKonrad: This guy is arguing contradictions.

Well look, DarnoKonrad, if he argues with you, he must take up a contrary position!

I've tried formulating coherent arguments with and about Libertarians - I really have. But I've found making Monty Python references is really the only sensible response in the end.

/YES IT IS!
2013-11-07 10:06:05 AM
1 votes:
4.bp.blogspot.com
2013-11-07 10:00:18 AM
1 votes:

jso2897: The Martian Manhandler: [www.leftycartoons.com image 650x976]

In my lolbertarian days (I was registered Librtarian from '76 to '06) I was a Briefly Tempting, Left-Wing, Stoned Libertarian, as best as I can remember.


Due to influence from my mother's then-boyfriend (who was a weird combination of Naive, Terrified, Whitey and The Apostle), I became a big fan of Ron Paul's 1988 Presidential campaign on the Libertarian ticket.

Then as I grew older, I realized most of everything in the Libertarian platform short of legalizing drugs was stupid.
2013-11-07 09:58:42 AM
1 votes:
It is always fun to see someone get exposed to libertarian ideas. Usually they start out with all the stuff they agree with and get somewhat excited

Then they find the other half of the general views and discover they are things that they usually despise.

It is just like watching a horrible prank on someone. Sure you feel a little bad about it but it is hilarious at the same time.
2013-11-07 09:57:59 AM
1 votes:
The only positive thing you can say about libertarianism is that it's internally consistent.  It's failings become obvious in any attempt to address a real-world issue.
2013-11-07 09:57:54 AM
1 votes:

toomuchwhargarbl: Fedoraheads for freedumbs!

[i.imgur.com image 430x538]


...wow

That is either the most disturbing thing I've read in quite some time, or some brilliant comedy.
2013-11-07 09:56:02 AM
1 votes:

kxs401: Also, there are a few who are Republicans but too self-aware to call themselves Republicans.


THIS.

My best friend from high school has recently decided to call himself Libertarian, but he pretty much parrots Rand Paul (who himself apparently hasn't had an original idea in years). I finally had to block him from FB because of all the "ERMAHGERD! SEEKRIT MOOSELEM!" bullshiat.

I do enjoy my debates with the couple of friends who can hold decent, thought-provoking conversations, but this guy apparently thinks Monty Python's Argument Clinic is a good idea.

/no it isn't
2013-11-07 09:54:01 AM
1 votes:
Fedoraheads for freedumbs!

i.imgur.com
2013-11-07 09:51:59 AM
1 votes:
"No true libertarian..."
2013-11-07 09:48:57 AM
1 votes:

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


A chip off the old block, then?
2013-11-07 09:48:54 AM
1 votes:
i.imgur.com
 
Displayed 139 of 139 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report