Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Why libertarianism is so wonderful

Posted 2 years ago on Nov. 28, 2011, 12:40 p.m. EST by debndan (1145)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The mythos of libertarianism is that we left capitalism 90-120 years ago, and that the country woulda been better off with out so much government control.

Also that the gov't is at the center of todays problems, that over regulation, a federal reserve, anti-monopoly laws, and a social safety net only prolongs downturns. That the income tax only serves to allow for a huge military, which should be cut forth with, along with 3-5 departments of gov't.

So, being a fair minded conservative, I decided to try and find a country that has tried these things. Then it dawned on me... There IS such a country.. one that in the 1880-1900 were much like the USA. But they never fell victim to a federal reserve, conservative anti-monopoly laws, Liberal and Conservative military build-ups.

They never adopted guaranteed public educations that conservatives and liberals alike shoved down there throats. Never any liberal tinkering there, not any save-for-tommorrow conservatism either.

And let me tell you folks, I was there 20 years ago, and it's a 'paradise' no rampent health care costs, no out of control bureaucracy. None of that. Minimum wage, nope? too commie. Industrial regulation? what you some kinda teddy roosevelt l queer, Not there.

Ah yes, the philippeans, paradise on earth. The place where even children can get a job(only way to feed family)

Where women are free to be prostitutes, In fact there it's a major industry (try to outsource that)

Where the glistening brown waters of shit river(yes that's it's name) tells of it's beauty from the aroma a mile away( really not kidding)

And there health care is as affordable, as the begging you'll need to do to pay for it. None of that big gov't health services.

And being that the energy grid is COMPLETELY monopolized and UNREGULATED, it provides predictable and reliable service (in that it went offline every weekend)

Heck there wasn't just no animal cruelty laws toward cats and dogs, they were ON the menu(weather you knew it or not).

I could go on and on, heck, maybe a book (Atlas Shat). In it I'll have the main character invent a static stupid machine(libertarianism).

Cause remember folks, what libertarians did to the philippeans

THEY WILL DO, and have been doing here too.

273 Comments

273 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 14 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

Libertarianism is united only by a rhetoric of liberty. "Liberty" is the central glittering generality of libertarian propaganda.

Who can reject "liberty"? That makes it a powerful rhetorical tool; as long as you don't start getting specific. Different people have different ideas of liberty, and can divide over those issues. The defense against attempts to get specific is "equal liberty", but that rhetoric also begs important questions. We all might have equal liberty to kill each other, but do we want such liberty?

"Liberty" unspecified is vague enough to justify any atrocity. We routinely see libertarians promoting Barry Goldwater's "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." In the name of liberty, John Galt plans genocides dwarfing those of Communist states in "Atlas Shrugged". In actual history, liberty to own slaves was a frequent claim. Liberty to head your own family and religious liberty excused beating wives and disobedient children, sometimes fatally.

"Liberty" is the rhetorical tool of choice that unites libertarians: it can back any claim they make, no matter how bizarre. Libertarians have no single claim in common except this rhetoric, and they can gloss over their conflicting beliefs through the persuasion of their own rhetoric of liberty.

  • A Rightwing Populist Movement In Miniature

While libertarians may profess socially left ideas such as freedom of choice, their right-conservatism becomes obvious if you ask them what parts of the right-wing economic agenda they'd be willing to sacrifice to realize their left social goals. They just won't give up their opposition to government and taxation, nor will they give up their allegiance to absolute property. No matter what social goals you propose in exchange.

  • A Childish Selfishness

Libertarianism is a tiny movement of people who primarily want (a) to freeload on society by not contributing their share (b) to avoid social prohibitions and (c) want to lock in their good fortune. It's really that simple: all the supposed philosophy is really just after-the-fact (post hoc) rationalization. Everything springs from the childish "I don't wanna pay", "I wanna do that anyhow" and "no, it's mine!"

  • A Catspaw For Corporations

A great deal of libertarian literature is written by corporate hirelings. Sure they can throw in the occasional socially liberal complaint about warmongering to genuflect towards the purported ideology, but they do NOT bite the corporate hand that feeds them. Otherwise they'd be pointing out that corporations are government creations of special privilege, and asking that they be abolished the way they ask that public schools be abolished. And those authors would be looking for new jobs, as we've seen so often from think-tanks. Professional libertarians tend to be reliant on the corporate right-wing welfare employment of think-tanks, lobbying and astroturf organizations.

The liberty these corporate hirelings write of is generally the liberty desired by corporations, not the liberty desired by ordinary people. Hence we see propaganda such as the "Index of Economic Freedoms".

  • A Long-Running Public Relations Campaign

The extent of libertarianism today is largely the result of decades-long public relations campaigns that have been working on insinuating libertarian ideas throughout our society. The time, the ambition and the resources applied over the past 60 years are extraordinary. Generations of propagandists, scholars, lobbyists, think-tanks, astroturf organizations and political parties have been financed by large corporations and billionaires.

They have attempted (quite successfully) to subvert the language, to pack propaganda into textbooks and academic publications, to subvert science (smoking, pollution and global warming), to create intellectual shock troops to disperse their propaganda, to stack the legal system with specially trained judges, to direct politicians with think-tank plans and offers of revolving-door employment, and a host of other activities.

Because "he who pays the piper calls the tunes", the result is that libertarianism has benefitted major corporations and billionaires far more than it has benefitted the middle-class pot smoker (now approaching lower class.)

  • Philosophical Fairytales

There are three dominant libertarian fairytales. They are natural rights, the Nozickian night-watchman state, and Objectivism. All three are non-positivist: they are not founded on observable facts and just plain make stuff up that contradicts what's known of reality. Each has produced large, complicated apologetics that attempt to explain away their myriad failings. Like science, they create models, but unlike science their models cannot be validated because they presume the unobservable.

Most libertarian authors rely on natural rights.[1] Natural rights were originally invented to oppose stories such as rights of kings. They are "nonsense on stilts" that is as popular, insubstantial and unprovable as souls.

The supposedly just and non-coercive Nozickian minimal state of Anarchy, State and Utopia is notorious for its failure to justify initial acquisition of property, the basis of the entire scheme. The whole thing appeals to gut feelings as fallaciously as Steven Colbert does, starting with the first sentence: "Individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights.)"

Objectivism starts with the fairytale of a priori knowledge. "A is A", for example. But that doesn't work for the real world, because the real world has time: A at time 1 is not necessarily the same as A at time 2. It's never the same water in the river, and even protons can spontaneously decay. There is no supposed a priori knowledge that doesn't have this basic sort of problem..." MORE AT http://critiquesoflibertarianism.blogspot.com/2010/10/what-is-libertarianism.html

[-] 3 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

Please post this as a new thread. It's too good to be buried here. I'm also bookmarking the site - is it yours?

[-] 0 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

No, I did not write it originally. I tried to put it all in quotes, I ended up editing quickly for space, sorry if it looks like I wrote it. I found the blog yesterday, I was absolutely giddy reading it. Says everything I wish I could say. I hope everyone passes the blog along:

http://critiquesoflibertarianism.blogspot.com/

The specific post I quoted from:

http://critiquesoflibertarianism.blogspot.com/2010/10/what-is-libertarianism.html

Originally posted by Mike Huben, he references

1 David Boaz, Libertarianism: A Primer pp.82-87

Hope that clarifies.

[-] 0 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html More anti-libertarian goodies from Mike Huben.

[-] 0 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

Thanks for posting it.

[-] 2 points by orpandemocratt (7) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Well libertarians and republicans are going to win the next election if we waste our time talking about them and playing intellectual for the day and not work for the democratic party

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Me personally, I'm working for the ouster of almost the whole lot. The GOP and DEMS are corrupt, and the libertarians are plain nutty.

[-] 1 points by TheRoot (94) from New York, NY 2 years ago

You are mistaken in saying that Objectivism starts with a priori knowledge. Objectivists reject a priori knowledge because we accept the fact that no knowledge is independent of experience. The knowledge that water runs down river doesn’t contradict Objectivism neither does the knowledge that protons decay. In citing the motion of running water and decaying protons as your “proof” that Objectivism is wrong, you’ve ignored the law of identity applied to action. At best, you're confused; at worst, you're peddling philosophical snake oil. Either way, that’s on you not Objectivism.

To be clear, Objectivism starts with the acknowledgement of reality and human consciousness by correctly identifying and underscoring a fundamental fact of both- existence exists and consciousness is conscious. These axioms can’t be analyzed but are the basis for the analysis of any subsequent knowledge. They can’t be proved but are the foundation for all proof. These facts of reality are directly perceived (even if one hasn't formed these axioms conceptually) and as such are the starting points for philosophers even those philosophers who try to reject them.

In your post, you sweep aside as arbitrary the correct identification of the axiomatic concepts of existence and consciousness. But, in so doing, you are disqualifying not only what you purport to be your knowledge of the motives of libertarians but more importantly your knowledge of anything. To lump Objectivism with Libertarianism is a failure on your part to understand Objectivism. To say that John Galt, the protagonist in Altas Shrugged, planned genocides is a failure on your part to either have read the Novel or to comprehend what you’ve read. Stick to the facts as you post your stuff. The basic facts are existence exists and consciousness is conscious. For example, “A IS A”.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

You are an idiot.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Very insightful frog, shows how much thought libertarians put into their positions.

reason and logic need not apply....

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

I'm supposed to explain to you how much smarter, than you, I am.

You already know it even if you are too stupid to realize it.

[-] 1 points by technoviking (484) 2 years ago

"That government is best which governs least" - Henry David Thoreau

[-] 2 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

Thoreau could not have imagined the 1%er corruption we deal with today.

[-] 2 points by technoviking (484) 2 years ago

oh he knew. you underestimate him. he didn't just write 'civil disobedience', you know.

[-] 3 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

I generally dislike the idea of "less govt" in this current political climate, I think it is a great part of why we are in the mess we are in. I don't care what historical figure "advocated" it.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Excellent reply, could not have said better (without being a smart-ass). Also excellent link. kudos.

[-] 0 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

While I like the comment. I think you probably should have started your own thread for it.

[-] -3 points by theaveng (602) 2 years ago

What ^ he ^ said. Please start a separate thread because I think it's worthy of the attention.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Very nice explanation.

[-] -1 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

Why is it NOBODY on this site has ever picked up a book to know the difference between

Corporatism ( Big Corp/Banks in bed with corrupt Govt)

And Capitalism ( Free markets where government plays its actual role of 1) oversight and 2) accountability.

The U.S Constitution was crafted and everything NOT covered in the U.S Constitution was left up to the States and local govts to decide ( Tenth Amendment).

With regards to the Bill of Rights and everything else that has been included in the U.S Constitution, State and local govt have to TRUMP and supersede the Constitution or the Constitution will stand as the Law of the land.

Now it is quite appearent many here do not understand the role of the Federal govt. According to our Constitution it is quite limited. Your individual Civil Liberties are protected under the Bill of Rights

The Bill of rights APPLIES to the Government and is to RESTRAIN the Govt ...and NOT the other way around.

You are confusing Corporatism with Libertarianism ( free markets, where govt plays the ROLE of referree and NOT like today meddles in the economy and monetary policies where govt officials one year work in the govt and the next year become CEO of a company and go back and forth.

Time to read Nobel Piece prize winner Friedrich Hayek to clear up your copy and paste.

Thomas Jefferson's Free-Market Economics

Mises Daily: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 by Murray N. Rothbard http://mises.org/daily/5703/Thomas-Jeffersons-FreeMarket-Economics

[-] 1 points by Peretyatkov (241) from город Пенза, Пензенская область 2 years ago

Do you think if we take a book - Our opinion change?

Truth - it's is another!

Estatic Fear - Somnium Obmutum III : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOPxJWcj-rk&feature

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

No, because most people cannot and will not intellectually challenge themselves and evaluate facts.

[-] 1 points by Peretyatkov (241) from город Пенза, Пензенская область 2 years ago

Assessment of the facts - this is one.

But the change point of view - totally different!

Want, and you change it?

Let the Libertarians, will make it the basis of pre-election program.

And will - a miracle!

But this will not happen!

Do you know why?

Because of vanity!

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Yes, it is their vanity and pride.

But if we present facts in a humorous way, we can puncture that vanity.

And get them to think about why they believe as they do.

When I was growing up I had 2 grandfathers, and both would hand out coins at christmas to the grandkids.

One anded out nickels and made us laugh for them with jokes.

The other handed out quarters, and explained how hard it was to earn that quarter.

Guess who ended up handing out the most?

[-] 0 points by Peretyatkov (241) from город Пенза, Пензенская область 2 years ago

I do not know. ) But, You said - very well.

[-] -1 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

Occupy Wall Street & Capitalism: A Professor's Response

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0125-spjL9s&feature=channel_video_title

[-] 4 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

Coyne, of Mercatus at George Mason:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mercatus_Center

http://mercatus.org/charles-koch

A Koch thinktank.

TKO

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

Koch is not a Libertarian. Examine his practices and you'll find them perfectly in line with today's Corporatism.

How often do I have to repeat this to you?

Read and investigate for a change ;)

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/07/hot-koch-brothers-ignore-ron-paul-give.html

Gosh you must wonder why?

I do know why? Because I did my fact checks!

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

Then why does all their thinktank money go to people like Coyne, whom you just referenced in support of your cause?

Few libertarians are libertarian. They use the ideas and the rhetoric as a weapon against any "statism" that doesn't benefit them directly. That's what it's best for, destroying the social contract as it benefits the many. It does little to affect the state's largess on behalf of the few. Libertarian principles of liberty are the best cover for neoliberalism - and when that doesn't work, bring out the Pinochet-type thugs.

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

because the Koch brothers HAVE TO rail in the support for their system and by doing that they have to pretend and appeal to those who have libertarian ideas and this is a tactic to throw sand in the eyes of constituents and those who support true free market capitalism.

The Ron Paul Revolution ( which started under Bush) was hijacked by the Koch brothers. To me, this was very clear from the very beginning. Over time this has been confirmed.

But again I investigate, even if I have to investigate things that go against my gutfeeling and beliefsystem.

There is a huge difference between the Republican party and Ron Paul. Even his son Rand is half neocon.

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

Ron PauI is a lie. A pretty face on the project to turn liberals into libertarians, against their best interests. Why do you think all the college recruitment? His whacky ideas. in turn, provide a bending rod for the slightly less whacky disemboweling of government and austerity proposed by the mainstream GOP.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

Why is it you have never elaborated what the lying is about?

Ron Paul ain't no liar. Instead he is the only real threat!

Watch your police state become a reality. This film is full of official footage on the floor of Congress, statement, executive orders etc. At 18 minutes, Congressman Brad Sherman....stating how Congress was intimidated with fearmongering on the bank bailout of 2008. I..questioned my Congresswoman on election night about this! I have been paying attention, sorting through the entire media to find out who speaks of facts!

What is it going to take for you to wake up? Martial Law is a matter of time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Klqv9t1zVww

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

When are YOU going to wake up and realize I don't have to support Ron Lawl to be concerned with civil liberties and the police state? The ACLU is a product of the progressive left.

The bank bailouts are only a tiny part of it, and the Fed even tinier. it's about pols protecting corporate interests, top to bottom, and THAT is about money in politics.

BTW - the lie is that his motivations are social. That he (or you) truly believes his society will be the more progressive one. When a man takes up positions in opposition to almost every progressive institution - that we won with blood, sweat, and tears over the course of the last century - it is truly ballsy for him to then expect support from progressives.

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

I support the ACLU and I support anybody that has been a whistleblower and dared to talk about it. For me that includes Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, Jesse Ventura, and everybody from the left center and right that gets it. You are obsessed with my posts it seems!

And the FEd is a HUGE factor. Follow the money! 16 trillion bloody dollars to foreign banks....You make me laugh!

The federal reserve HAS BEEN AUDITED! 16 trillion dollar THEFT! BANKER PARTY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-pav_yPFkI&feature=channel_video_title

You don't get it! its not about left right or center or whatever ideology. It is about the Constitution and the Rule of Law. FYI it is not an ideology. It is THE SET OF PRINCIPLES that is to guide this nation of laws!!!!!!

[-] 0 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

Libertarianism was entirely to blame for the bailouts, and yet libertarians constantly whine about it. Greenspan, a libertarian Ayn Rand follower, always opposed regulation. For example, he began gutting Glass-Steagall the moment he became Fed chairman, and also opposed oversight of derivative markets. Eventually, all this deregulation led to the situation in 2008 where we had huge financial institutions that actually were "too big to fail." Anybody, on the right or the left, who thinks we could have sat on our hands and done nothing at that point is simply uninformed, or an impractical ideologue. Next, libertarianism screwed the American people once again, when Bernanke, an avid follower of prominent libertarian Milton Friedman, refused to put any conditions on the money that was loaned out to financial institutions in the bailout, and downplayed the need for oversight. He has also constantly opposed any Fed action that would benefit normal Americans (such as loaning state and local governments federal money, and protecting consumers from predatory credit card rates), even actions which are backed up by textbook economic principles, all of this keeping true to his libertarian ideals. Now, being that libertarians are Monday morning quarterbacks who live in fairy-land, they blame Greenspan and Bernanke for "not being libertarian enough." Now that conservative anti-Keynes monetarism and supply-side theories are being questioned, they are trying to dust off Austrian economics (cough cough), a conglomeration of antiquated theories pushed by right-wing think tanks and neo-Nazi websites which rejects the scientific method. Anything to fight progressive taxes and government action (job creation), reality be damned.

[-] 4 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

loll..libertarianism was to blame

Well there is a difference between Libertarianism where govt is to oversee and hold accountable

and today's Corporatism where Big Corp and Banks are in bed with corrupt govt.

Milton Friedman, Alan Greenspan the Reagan administration ALL did NOT practice Free markets. They praise free markets but they don't practice it. if you had done your homework you would have known the sole person who stood up to Reagan and his economics.

Keep snoozing. Martial Law is coming. I am not wasting my time with this ignorance

You keep sleepin and confusing Capitalism with Crony Capitalism which is Corporatism..

I cannot help you

http://newsvoice.se/2011/12/02/us-senate-declares-the-entire-usa-to-be-a-battleground/

[-] 0 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

Libertarians like Friedman and Greenspan are the most responsible for putting our country is this stupid direction. But that's not far enough for you, so you brand them "Keynesians". What a joke, and what a blatant distortion of fact. You might as well call Reagan a Marxist while your at it, because that's about equally silly.

The only police state we might see would be corporate totalitarianism created by the libertarian "freedom" of might makes right and limitless individual power. What a shill you are.

[-] 3 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

Shills are people who permalink their posts.

like↧dislikereplyeditdeletepermalink

[-]TommyNYC1 points 5 hours ago

Libertarians like Friedman and Greenspan are the most responsible for putting our country is this stupid direction. But that's not far enough for you, so you brand them "Keynesians". What a joke, and what a blatant distortion of fact. You might as well call Reagan a Marxist while your at it, because that's about equally silly.

The only police state we might see would be corporate totalitarianism created by the libertarian "freedom" of might makes right and limitless individual power. What a shill you are.

↥like↧dislikepermalink

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Most libertarians have no idea who really backs that movement.

Nor the fact that most CEOs consider themselves to be libertarian.

[-] 3 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

the libertarians are the only ones who understand WHO is the corrupting link....

THEIR GOVERNMENT!

US Senate declares the entire USA to be a ”battleground”

2 december, 2011 By Mike Adams

http://newsvoice.se/2011/12/02/us-senate-declares-the-entire-usa-to-be-a-battleground/

I say with the amount of energy you stick in my posts.....you are infiltration of some sort!

[-] 1 points by TheRoot (94) from New York, NY 2 years ago

A good find. Thanks!

[-] 1 points by Peretyatkov (241) from город Пенза, Пензенская область 2 years ago

We must fight not against capitalism. We must fight with lies, and heresy. How?

But, I have not seen any of the slogan with the word Nardialog. Nor for the sake of my vanity - in the name of Truth!

[-] -2 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

Libertarian philosophy is founded on two moral axioms:

The initiation of force and fraud is wrong. The individual owns their own being.

Everything else simply logically follows from those axioms.

Do you disagree with either axiom? If so you aren't a libertarian. If you do you are one but your logic is poor.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Nice slogans, but life runs on the details. It seems, however, that Libertarians are very lean on their specifics.

Examine what a Libertarian would have done at various key moments in American history and you will quickly figure out that it would have been disastrous.

Spell out all of the programs you would gut, all the necessary regulations you would strip, all the norms you would bend to fit your ideology.

You may be a very nice person, but you've got a screwed up philosophy through which you are viewing the world.

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

Libertarianism is not only a pernicious ideology, but its followers (ie. "END THE FED" extremists) have ties to violence and racism that are damaging to OWS.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/end-the-fed-movement-has-ties-to-domestic-terroris/

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

So you cannot or will not say if you agree with those axioms or not?

You assume regulations are necessary just as you assume that the agencies follow the purposes they are intended to. That is an unexamined worldview. There is no evidence needed in that view - the intent to do X is enough to justify actions without examining consequence. I'll even ignore the legal arguments against many programs and departments existing.

I've examined the consequences of the well-meaning policies. They have failed because they are systematically flawed. The assumptions made which based their creation are not reflective of reality. This is the problem and continuing to support issues where the consequences of actions are left protected solely by the intent of those actions causes harm to continue.

[-] -2 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Blah blah blah axioms blah blah blah worldview blah blah blah

Life and democracies exist on the basis of competing demands. That means actions, ideals, and governments that do not function on the basis of pure logic. Libertarianism acts as if it has created the wheel while it's riding on a wagon.

Three things will happen in the future......taxes will go up, entitlements will get cut, and America will become more divided.

By representing the extreme of ideologies, Libertarians have made moderates appear as their natural antagonists......and, when that has occurred in history, the result has always been one thing,

violence.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

By understanding one's own moral apriori positions one can then understand one's own decisions without encountering contradictions which would destroy the entire moral structure.

I intensely dislike Democracy as a concept because it does not protect the rights of any minority.

Labeling something as "extreme" is simply a way to dodge discussion of the topic so labeled. Of course your statement also assume all the correct answers are moderate ones. I ask you should we be moderate or extreme in our pursuit of justice?

[-] -1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

You sound like Barry Goldwater.

[-] 2 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

I would prefer to see the question answered and debate continue however I think because of your answer you see the point of how noxious the term is when used in that way and that the way of its use is not universally valid.

Simply because some moderates believe that the fact that others hold an "extreme" view compared to their own is cause for ignoring discussion is not a critique at all on the libertarian position.

[-] -2 points by classicliberal (312) 2 years ago

Yes I hate personal liberty also! Down with freedom! I'll go find some more talking points to parrot because I'm too unoriginal to come up with my own!

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Too late. you were already unoriginal.

[-] 0 points by classicliberal (312) 2 years ago

So Who did I copy that from?

Oh, that's right, I copied your mom.

[-] 6 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

What? no lawn roll defenders?

[-] 4 points by an0n (764) 2 years ago

Lawn Roll 2102! W00t!

[-] -2 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 2 years ago

So cute and dignified. And with 4 points! Don't step in the p00t!

[-] 4 points by an0n (764) 2 years ago

You're right. In pennance, I shall go in search of a tiny violin.

[-] -2 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 2 years ago

You all have done pretty well to let them know that they are not welcome. Who else do you pick on like that? They come around and get the idea folks around here have something personal against them.

[-] 6 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I apologise.Nothing like a reformed libertarian to tease those earlier in the spin cycle.

[-] 0 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Who me? All I did was agree with their theories, and gave an example of where they have played out : D

Or is it they know I'm laughing AT them, and not WITH them??

[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Libertopia. Yeah!!!!

[-] -1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Cashalluhia!!!

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

This is from 1907 http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=FB0A14FC3A5A15738DDDA00A94DA415B878CF1D3

And this is from 1913: Wall Street's Troubles and How To Remedy Them http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F50D1EFA3D5B13738DDDAB0994D9405B838DF1D3

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Now you're trying to embarrass my kinfolk. My parents used to talk about this stuff.

I say, the more things stay the same, the longer your horizon of comparison.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

That works even better.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Wow, neat that you can pull up old newspapers...looks like today is just another remake from 100 years ago.

Good links!

[-] 3 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

Libertarians fight for the liberty to prey socially, economically and politically on other Americans without any of the regulatory constraints of democracy and government.

[-] 3 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Exactly, then they either claim that they are conservatives or liberals, when it suites them.

[-] 3 points by Vooter (441) 2 years ago

Libertarianism is popular because it allows people to be LAZY. It allows them to think of nothing but themselves and their own needs. It's CONVENIENT, which is why so many TV-, sugar- and alcohol-addled Americans love it...

[-] -1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

amen brother

[-] 3 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

When it comes to describing my political view, I’d say I’m a libertarian when it comes to social interactions, a socialist when it comes to regulating business transactions and a democrat at heart, willing to compromise as a republican citizen in consternation. That pretty much makes me an independent looking for a third way for my nation

[-] 2 points by Steffinworks (2) 2 years ago

In my view, "libertarianism" is a very unhealthy process. Although many Libertarians seem to have good intentions and one or two sound ideas, basically, what they want is to abolish government. For the most part, I think Libertarians are Anarchists with money.

[-] 2 points by blinxwang (25) from Johns Creek, GA 2 years ago

"libertarianism" is about as general a term as "left-wing". Just as we have left-wing statists and left-wing anarchists, Libertarianism also has two different camps that share one common ground: individual liberty. The ones most common in Murrca are Libertarian Capitalists; these are the Tea Partiers and Michael Bloombergs; the ones who believe that liberty should involve individual liberty as well as unregulated/minimally-regulated markets. However, the other camp of libertarians, often termed left-wing libertarians or libertarian socialists, believe that true freedom can only be achieved when all sources of power are abolished or heavily restricted, and this includes corporations as well as the State. I personally identify with the left-libertarians because they factor economic powers into their list of offending powers, something that libertarian capitalists (or right-wing libertarians) are either unwilling or too naive to consider as a threat to freedom.

[-] 2 points by MitchK (305) 2 years ago

LOVE IT...wish I would have seen this earlier could have used the cheering up from this burst of reality and love for what built and helped this country maintain its stature in this world,,,yes I say stature we may not be perfect but FAR better and better off than any other country in this world. Thank you debndan,thank you america, thank you industrialism thank you capitolism.

[-] -1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

If you like this, been thinking of expanding the post to an atlas shrugged short parody : )

[-] 1 points by MitchK (305) 2 years ago

lol...to funny

[-] 0 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Lol, if you thought this was funny, check out this...

http://occupywallst.org/forum/atlas-shat-and-excerpt/

Then try to guess who ben deck is, and who Mr. Rove is.....

[-] 2 points by julianzs (147) 2 years ago

Amiable Ron P a u l wants to cut one Trillion dollar, or nearly 40% of the budget, hand it over to the private hands to be promptly invested in Bengal, Vietnam, and elsewhere, not here. something like 4 million more Americans will lose their jobs.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I think Will Rogers may have said, "Democracy is the greatest idea that has never been tried." He also said something like, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with a voter."

Libertarianism can accurately be substituted into both of these statements and if Rogers didn't say them, I'd like to take credit before some other fool does.

[-] 2 points by dreamingforward (394) from Tacoma, WA 2 years ago

Libertarianism is great in theory, but it simply doesn't scale. By its own nature it goes against federation. There is the further problem, in America, that justice has never been done for the Native's who still suffer from the theft of the lands they held sacred.

[-] 2 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

That's just priceless!

then I realize I'm sitting here laughing over the stark reality of someone else's misery . . .

[-] 7 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Fear not. It is the laughter of insanity.

[-] 3 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

no doubt

I am quite mad

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Yes, looks like a couple hail mary's here, prayer of contrition, and pray hell forgets my thread here : 0

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

If you liked this post here's another smartass post I made on the subject.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/atlas-shat-and-excerpt/#comment-444877

[-] 2 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 2 years ago

I don't even know what they mean anymore when they use the term "Libertarian".

[-] 1 points by Vooter (441) 2 years ago

It means "I don't want to be bothered with anyone but myself."

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Libertarians don't seem to know what it means anymore.

It's why I left.

Like conservatives, they come in many flavors.

I just look to the "true" backers of the politic/ philosophy.

Helps me see them clearly.

[-] 2 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 2 years ago

"And let me tell you folks, I was there 20 years ago, and it's a 'paradise' no rampent health care costs, no out of control bureaucracy. None of that. Minimum wage, nope? too commie. Industrial regulation? what you some kinda teddy roosevelt l queer, Not there."

Yeah the first hit is always the most pleasurable isn't it.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

yeah, kinda miss the aroma of poop, with just a hint of urine from shit river.

Also miss tossing in a coin, and making a wish ( yes hell yawns open for me in my youth, anyone that's been there knows what I mean)

[-] 1 points by frontierteg (137) from Kalamazoo Township, MI 2 years ago

I disagree. Libertarianism recognizes the need for limited government for things like the EPA, Social Security, OSHA, etc... Libertarians expect freedom fro businesses and people. Libertarians expect responsibility from both as well.

A limited government with a large, FREE judiciary (read that as "free civil lawyers") and a stream lined case load provides gives everyone freedom and makes everyone accountable.

Give judges more freedom! Provide a social safety net, but prosecute abusers of it. Let individuals sue corporations without going into bankruptcy. Let everyone be on an even playing field. That's what Libertarianism is all about.

What you're taking about is anarchy, or unregulated capitalism. That is NOT Libertarianism. We recognize everyone's freedoms but expect EVERYONE to accept responsibility, and enforce that responsibility through a limited government.

I've read the "BlueRose" comments below, and I see lots of accolades. The problems is that BlueRose doesn't understand why we have a government. The government is not supposed to be in the business of social engineering.

The Libertarian point of view is that when the actions of anyone are judged to infringe on the rights of others then that action is deemed unlawful. If that action happens over and over by many people or businesses, then a law needs to be established to clarify actions that fall outside of lawful behavior.

BlueRose seems to think that government should create society instead of vice versa. "if you ask them what parts of the right-wing economic agenda they'd be willing to sacrifice to realize their left social goals. " This makes me think that BlueRose wants to give up freedom for security. A Libertarian would say "I'm unwilling to sacrifice freedom for security".

I think that's what really sticks in the craw of people who would give the government every penny they make to ensure their security. They'll put up with any restrictive laws to ensure their safety and comfort.

I want the freedom to scuba dive and sky-dive, go bungie jumping and surfing without my government telling me that I can't because that'll raise everyone else's healthcare costs. If I'm young and healthy, I want the freedom to say "I don't want healthcare". I also want the freedom to commit suicide if I contract fatal, debilitating, horribly painful death disease. I also want the freedom to go to another country to get healthcare. I want the freedom to choose my own job, instead of having the government tell me what I'll be doing for the rest of my life. I am a Libertarian, I want a limited government with a huge judiciary. Just like the Bible says, GIVE ME JUDGES, NOT KINGS!!!

[-] 4 points by anonwolf (279) from West Peoria, IL 2 years ago

When the anarcho-capitalists stop calling themselves libertarians, you'll be right.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Test that out and sue the Koch Bros.

[-] 2 points by frontierteg (137) from Kalamazoo Township, MI 2 years ago

If all lawyers were free and the Koch Brother's were represented by the same caliber Lawyer that I was and the Judge was impartial, that's my Eden.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Good luck with that.

Free lawyers? Now that's a fantasy I could get into.

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

"Libertarianism recognizes the need for limited government for things like the EPA, Social Security, OSHA, etc..." Which libertarians are those?

Free civil lawyers? That sounds social-democratic, not libertarian.

"The Libertarian point of view is that when the actions of anyone are judged to infringe on the rights of others then that action is deemed unlawful." Uh, so was Hammurabi a Libertarian? Libertarians don't have the monopoly on that one, sorry.

So basically what you're saying is, you're libertarian because you like to bungie jump. Libertarians don't have the monopoly on personal freedom either. You don't sound like a bad guy, but I feel like you need a brush-up on PoliSci 101. I don't see why you insist on using the Libertarian label. By doing so, you're just promoting the interests of elites who are trying to escape taxes and regulation.

[-] 1 points by smartguy2 (17) 2 years ago

Cool story, comrade.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

If you liked this here's another

http://occupywallst.org/forum/atlas-shat-and-excerpt/#comment-444877

Gonna continue the story line, till the Mods here ask me to stop.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

by Tim McCown: LIBERTARIAN Ayn Rand's character model of a " real man" was child killing sociopath She was Alan Greenspan's mentor and he used her model of laissez-faire Capitalism to guide his years at the Fed. She authored Justice Clarence Thomas favorite book The Fountainhead, which he makes all of his clerks read. Her book Atlas Shrugged is quoted by Conservatives from Rush Limbaugh, to Michelle Bachmann, Eric Cantor and even Newt Gingrich as they make their arguments for cutting the Social Safety net or denying health care to thirty million Americans without it. It is the guiding philsosphy of the whole Tea Party Movement. That her work is influential can not be denied.
Conservatism has been variously described by its detractors, as a movement always seeking a superior argument for why selfishness and greed are character virtues. Ayn Rand was the High Priestess of these ideas.
I personally would love to encourage every Right Winger to hurry up and go John Galt on us, a reference to a character, John Galt in Atlas Shrugged, who brings about the collapse of Government by refusing to work and be taxed and who also encourages others to do the same thing creating a sort of Capitol strike by the rich, because Conservatives arrogantly and narcissistically believe all the rest of us moochers and parasites can't function without them.
My real reason for writing this article however is that I wanted to ask Conservatives if they had read Mark Ames excellent article on Alternet about Ayn Rand's model for the real Conservative man. The person, one William Edward Hickman, who along with Nietzsche's concept of the "Uberman" or Superman, the same idea that animated Hitler's idea of the Master Race, are the sources from which Rand would draw her characters traits throughout her writing career. Uberman is behind her idea of the so called productive members, the mega rich Venture Capitalists of society as opposed to the rest of us average people who in her own words are nothing but moochers and parasites even if we work hard for a living every day. While these productive members, the Capitalists are her Ubermen Hickman was the Uberman's personality right on up to the charcater of John Galt in Atlas Shrugged. So who was William Edward Hickman? William Edward Hickman was in 1927 the most famous person in America. His fame was based on being a violent serial killing child murderer. In 1927 he kidnapped, murdered, and dismembered the body of a 12 year old girl. It is even farther alleged he had opined that he wanted to kill someone just to see what it was like. He later confessed to more murders. Ayn Rand knew all of this as she opined that he was a beautiful soul and that he was the finest example of what it was to be a man. Why?
Because he had no feelings for or connection to others and no ability to empathize with the feelings and needs of others. This cold ruthless inability to empathize or to feel in any way connected with the rest of society permeates her thinking and animates her ideals all the way through writing The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. and is behind much of today's Conservative Movement attacks on Obama and Liberals. William Edward Hickman was a true socio-path. Arrogant, narcissistic, devoid of feelings for others or any connections with or ability to empathize with others. These are the personality traits that animate the entire Conservative Movement. This is where Rand's ideas about Altruism is a weakness and a moral sin come from, a homicidal sociopath.
This needs to be thrown in every Conservatives face every time they bring out Ayn Rand to defend denying health care to thirty million Americans without it. Their desire to cut government to pieces stems not from Governments incompetence but from the fact that it provides a safety net for those injured by Conservatism's thirty year sociopathic reign of error on the working American Public with outsourcing, insourcing, plundering the economy and putting 20% of Americans in the ranks of the underemployed and costing millions of Americans their houses, while having no remorse about it because, after all they are the only productive members of society and if you dare tax us to pay for the disaster our greedy naive stupidity has caused we will all go John Galt on you. That's right your whole movement, your quotes, Greenspan's globalized ignorance is based on a homicidal sociopathic child killer named William Edward Hickman. Some Right to Life movement you are. Ayn Rand's writings have no more business being the guiding principles of our political and economic policy than do Marx's. Sadly a brilliant but extremely mentally ill woman never got the help she needed. But sociopathy is not a solution but a mental illness to be treated. Rand's ideas were given very little credibility when she wrote them and they deserve even less creditability now. You Conservatives better hope the God of your understanding is foregiving because you have destroyed people's lives not on scientifc principles of a rational market as you claim, but on the mentally ill rantings of a tragically sick woman.

And our friend Ron named his son lovingly after Ayn - how sweet!

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Well put, though the 'conservatism' you speak of is neoconservatism, or libertarianism. They have successfully hijacked the conservative movement through Berry Goldwater and Ayn Rand

Old school conservative are against prostitution, rampent drug use, child pornography, child labor, harming the environment.

They have these stances out of a love of their fellow man. One of the last real conservative senators Alan Simpson is now considered a moderate, though in the 80's he was considered a conservative. It's BECAUSE the likes of Rush, Glenn, and FAUX news, along with their Goddess/Godless Ayn Rand thinking has pried every vestige of morality from the conservative label. And they did it so slickly that many many old school conservatives never noticed it.

To put it in perspective Here is what one 'old' school conservative had to say on Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KmPLkiqnO8

People don't realize or forget that it was conservatives like Teddy roosevelt and richard nixon whom started protecting the environment. Because conservative= conservation, to uphold, build up, restore, to preserve-for-the-next-generation.

THOSE WERE the ideals of conservatism.

Today those Ideals are viewed as the problem by those who masquerade as conservatives, when they are actually libertarian/ nihilists.

If I ever finish Atlas Shat here I'll try and show this in a saterical way.

[-] 1 points by Peretyatkov (241) from город Пенза, Пензенская область 2 years ago

Bosh!

Here it is the Truth!

And music.

Estatic Fear - Somnium Obmutum II: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqwMxtxUlyY

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Been thinking...... How many people here would like to see this post expanded to an atlas shrugged short parody??

I think there are enough libertarian responses for even better material....

[Deleted]

[-] 4 points by Edgewaters (912) 2 years ago

Generally speaking, the left anarchists believe in getting rid of the state entirely, and worker ownership of the workplaces (ie no capitalist class, no investors, etc) via syndicates/unions/worker co-ops/etc.

The libertarians believe in keeping the state, but only for the police to protect private property, so that a capitalist class can exist. The rest of the state, being of no benefit to the capitalist class, is to be abolished.

They're both fruity if you ask me.

[-] 3 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

not really sure, I believe that anarchists are against any institution, against corps too, along with anti-gov't. Libertarians believe that by Individuals seeking there own selfish self interest, will provide a utopia. And that Gov't is immoral when it stands in the way of that self intrest.

The facts be damned

[-] -3 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 2 years ago

libertarians and anarchist agree that the initiation of force of any kind is wrong. Pretty much the rest flows from there. If state-sponsored coercion and theft is what you like, neither strand has anything for you.

[-] 1 points by Vooter (441) 2 years ago

Anarchists are willing to help other people.

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

anarchists want no govt at all.

libertarians want the amount of govt outlined in the constitution.

and as an extra bonus: liberals/leftists/socialists/progressives want govt up everyone's ass all the time with rules and state power controlling as much of your life as possible.

one MUST be a horrible cynic and hypocrite to be a liberal/leftist/socialist/progressive. see, they think people need all those rules and laws and control. so the question becomes: who administers them? why, the liberals/leftists/socialists/progressives do, of course. because THEY don't need such rules and laws, because they're better than everyone else.

cynical and hypocritical. no way around it.

[-] 4 points by Vooter (441) 2 years ago

Make sure you don't call the police if your house is broken into. And make sure you don't sue an airline when one of its poorly maintained aircraft crashes and kills one of your family members (because you abolished the FAA) or your child dies from e-coli-poisoned meat (because you abolished the FDA). And when a company dumps toxic waste into your neighborhood, don't sue them, and make sure you clean up the waste yourself (when you're done fixing the roads in your town, that is). And of course, if the mast breaks on your new sailboat and you're taking on water and are about to sink, don't call the Coast Guard. Rescue yourself. We certainly wouldn't want the government up your ass while you're dying....

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

make sure your laughable drama queenism and bullshit examples don't cause you to make a fool of yours--...oh, too late. you already did.

you could also learn something about the constitution. I guess I gave the crybabies and whiners like you too much credit when I mentioned...

"libertarians want the amount of govt outlined in the constitution."

...figuring you'd know I meant the federal govt. most other things you mentioned are the business of the individual states. I'll try to dumb it down for you next time.

[-] 2 points by Vooter (441) 2 years ago

Oh, I see--so you hate the federal government, but you're best buddies with your state government? Why's that?

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

"so you hate the federal government"

hilarious! I want the federal govt to work within the confines of its guiding document, and that means...I hate it?

what the hell is wrong with you? do you make a concerted effort to be a caricature of an actual person, or does it just happen naturally because you are so emotionally immature?

time to grow up, kid.

[-] 1 points by Vooter (441) 2 years ago

Okay, so go back to my examples. How would the constitution deal with the federal regulatory agencies that I mentioned in my previous post? Here's what James Madison had to say about federal vs. state powers:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

So explain to me how state governments are supposed to regulate peacetime practices and activities that extend over and effect large swaths of the U.S. population. Are you going to have 50 different bodies controlling the nation's air traffic? Governing national communications? Governing air and water standards? What happens when State A decides that a certain level of water pollution is okay, but its polluted water runs into a state with stricter pollution controls?

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

You're a sociopath.

[-] 0 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Sociopath definition: Sociopaths have little regard for the feelings of others and manipulate others in order to get what they desire.

Read more: The Definition of a Sociopath | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_5067762_definition-sociopath.html#ixzz1fTDwx98X

Hardly A sociolpath would be an ayn rand character or anyone that 'enjoys' her crap.

Also most ron pa ul supporters can be in that group too along with most libertarians.

This is why YOU constantly try to redefine these words,

your a sociopath

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

You may as well advocate a dictatorship. I feel sorry for people who have so little faith in themselves, and their fellow statespersons, that they just know all our problems stem from not having acquired quite enough government, both in power and size.

[-] 0 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Hardly, you creepy pond rol supporters use so much newspeak it isn't funny

[-] 2 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Right, I certainly have no need for easily impressed and inexperienced children do my thinking for me.

[-] 0 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Wow, been writing Atlas Shat for a couple days now. After trying to get inside the minds of the likes of Ron Lawl and glen beck, I feel like this crude won't wash off, feel permanently scarred.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by ScrewyL (809) 2 years ago

You essentially argue that for mankind to rise above the shit-filled waters of his natural state, he must oppress and conquer others, and you make an error of association; that, since The Phillipines exhibited certain qualities, those same results would occur here.

You are also taking your conclusion to an absurd extreme, under which circumstances ALL politico-economic systems can clearly be shown to fail.

It's the fallacy of most political debate nowadays, and definitely on these forums: There is no pristine ideal utopian "system", because, by their nature, systems cannot simultaneously be both:

  1. Simple enough to implement efficiently
  2. Complex enough to encompass all entropy

It's a law of nature; the real world is ugly.

[-] 3 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

He must, at least, abide by the social contract - which, unfortunately, does involve some coercion, because many are driven by selfishness and greed. Ebenezer Scrooge run amok does not a good society make.

[-] 2 points by ScrewyL (809) 2 years ago

^^ editted. ^^

[-] -1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 2 years ago

Where is this social contract of which you speak? Did I sign up for that? Should I? Can you give me a hint as to what I'd be agreeing to?

[-] 0 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

That's novel.

Social Contract? I never signed no stinking social contract.

There are several explicit means by which people make the social contract with government. The commonest is when your parents choose your residency and/or citizenship after your birth. In that case, your parents or guardians are contracting for you, exercising their power of custody. No further explicit action is required on your part to continue the agreement, and you may end it at any time by departing and renouncing your citizenship.

Immigrants, residents, and visitors contract through the oath of citizenship (swearing to uphold the laws and constitution), residency permits, and visas. Citizens reaffirm it in whole or part when they take political office, join the armed forces, etc. This contract has a fairly common form: once entered into, it is implicitly continued until explicitly revoked. Many other contracts have this form: some leases, most utility services (such as phone and electricity), etc.

Some libertarians make a big deal about needing to actually sign a contract. Take them to a restaurant and see if they think it ethical to walk out without paying because they didn't sign anything. Even if it is a restaurant with a minimum charge and they haven't ordered anything. The restaurant gets to set the price and the method of contract so that even your presence creates a debt. What is a libertarian going to do about that? Create a regulation?

Read more: http://stason.org/TULARC/ideology/libertarian/39-Libertarian-Evangelistic-Arguments-Part-2.html#ixzz1f2vNcEP9

[-] 0 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 2 years ago

OK. So I'm party to this contract. I don't mind living under the constitution. In fact, I rather prefer that. But it seems to be that the government formed to preserve my freedom to do has been taken over by control freaks, fear-mongers, corrupt politicians, and policies that are direct attacks, if not full contraventions of the constitution. Now what?

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

Help me to elect people like Elizabeth Warren, and to keep putting pressure on the others to find their inner idealists. Then keep the pressure up until we've stripped money out of politics, personhood from corporations, and are back on track towards being a free but modestly egalitarian society that promotes the general welfare. Of, by, and for the people - not the plutocrats.

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 2 years ago

I will and I am. I've been an Elizabeth Warren fan since before anyone knew who she was. But go easy on the good doctor. That's not only been his talk, it's been his walk. This movement does itself a disservice by shunning his well-informed and energetic supporters.

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

I won't make common cause with anyone for whom the New Deal is evil. Sorry. I don't want this new Gilded Age. And I like the EPA, a lot.

[+] -4 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 2 years ago

but you have to admit the new deal is not in step with the founding...if you can admit that we should just ignore the constitution when we feel we want to or when it benefits us the most. The New Deal was forced upon us by FDR without worrying about the constitution of the long term

[+] -4 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 2 years ago

I don't know this Gilded Age you keep talking about. I do know that you and I believe exactly opposite about the New Deal. You advocating confiscating everyone's gold and turning it over to foreign banking interests like FDR did? Great. No we won't be agreeing about the beginning of the end of America. It worked while it did, and now the math has caught up with us.

How about we put the IRS to work for the SEC and the CFTC and the like. Could you get behind that?

How about cutting militarism to preserve social programs? Could you get behind that?

Tell me which politicians you know who aren't owned by corporate interests?

I just asked you to go easy, and don't spread lies. And dump Krugman. He's demonstrated over and over he's a shill for the banksters.

[-] 1 points by an0n (764) 2 years ago

The way you folks focus on gold is so telling. Gold. Gold. Gold.

My precious.

[-] 0 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

you know i have more respect for Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania than I do for the good Doctor. At least when he noticed his party was a den of vipers, he pulled out of the den. that takes courage of conviction in my book. to always vote against one's party, knowing the party has the win, is just show boating in my book. but please explain to me why I could be wrong?

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

its NOT Libertarianism that is failing today.

It is Corporatism , where corrupt govt is in bed with Big Banks/Corps.

Now if you had picked up a book on it, you would know Free market capitalism goes hand in hand with 1) a solid justice system ( we do not have , see constitutional attorney Glenn Greenwalds book " with Liberty and Justice for some' and 2) a sound monetary policy ( which we do not have with all the trillions of dollars given to foreign banks.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Corporatism is also failing us, but it was libertarian clap trap that led to the repeal of the glaze-stegall act.

Which let to the housing bubble, fruad, and crash we are still dealing with

And it is libertarians like grover norquist that have stopped efforts to boost economy through works programs.

Not sure which is scarier, your misguided Ideas, or nihilistic leaders.

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

Ah Glass Steagal and the Sherman Act were eliminated by people like Ronnie Reagan who preached free market capitalism but practiced crony capitalism ( todays corporatism)

there sure is a lot of confusion about this very concept and it is because people like yourself refuse to actually investigate.

Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, Alan Greenspan, all self proclaimed libertarians or free market guys who have NOT practiced what they preached.

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

It was Libertarianism, because from your guys perspective, Glaze-Stegall was forcing banks to behave in a way counter to maximum profit. Libertarians opposed this forcing, And NEOCONS licked their lips at the maximum profit potential of the day.

Niether side looked down the road to see what would happen. It satisfied your wacky theory that by removing obsticles, the market would be 'freer'. And they, by seeking THEIR best intrest, the bankers would benefit all.

I have done the research, and I lived it. I remember ALL these arguements for it's repeal, libertarians swore that by banks being able to behave as they did in 1920's would benefit everyone. Sure they's be greedy, it was a collective libertarian 'so what'

Now we know the so-what.

[-] -2 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

Fake libertarians ( Reagan, Milton Friedman, Alan Greenspan) you mean who continued to practice Keynesian economics ( central govt planning of the economy and banking) backed by fiat money.

Free markets require 1) sound monetary policies and 2) solid legal system ( which we do not have with our Two Tier justice system. With Free markets...those very banks you are now demonstrating would be OUT of business. With free market...the government has no say in the economy but has the proper role of oversight and accountability.

So while those 'libertarians' you are talking about were taking down the protections of Keynesian economics ( govt central planning of the economy) they fooled the free market constituents into an economic format that is practiced today.

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

I "harass" you because you spread the most pernicious lies. Your bullshit is unending. How many times do we have to have the same conversation? But you keep presenting the same falsehoods as fact.

These two things are NOT Keynesian:

1.) Fiat currency. Did he invent it? No. Do Keynesian countercyclical economics even depend on it? No.

2.) Central planning. Stalin WAS NOT a Kaynesian, nor was Mao. Keynes talkes about macroeconomic countercyclical stimulus for aggregate demand. Central planning is a microeconomic activity and goes so far beyond Keynes... it is ridiculous.

Fake libertarians, again? Like the one you just posted a video from, above - funded by Koch - in support of your real libertarian arguments? Friedman is the cream of the crop. Beyond that lies Hayek, more extreme and more dangerous to humanity than even Friedman, which is saying a LOT.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

And I am on your case because you are the fascist of a lifetime!!!!!!!!

A collectivist! A fascist!

How the hell do you think Hilter came to power?

In a perfect legal way!

Study your bloody history.

People looked for govt to solve their problems and what did they get?

The very govt you look to 'take care of you' is f*cking you in the ass, eroding your civil liberites, invading other countries for natural resources, creating money out of nothing and giving it to foreign banks and have you pick up the tab, detaining people indefinitely, warantless wiretapping everybody's phones, allowing for corporations to get off the hook for violating the law retroactively, monopolizing food world wide and altering it..... THATS what your corrupt govt has done and NO oversight NO accountability NO equal access under the law!!!!!!!!

YOU are a product of lifetime indoctrination!

[-] 0 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

OMG, perfect. I'll just let that one stew.

Do you think it's not obvious how you people are redrawing the spectrum and rewriting history to make your extremism seem reasonable?

[-] 2 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

Let that one stew?

Why do you think OWS exists?

Its their govt that sold them to the Corporations and Banks but of course its too much to comprehend when you have been indoctrinated all your life.

I came to this country with my eyes wide open having experienced Gay U.S Military personell asking for political asylum in my homecountry when I was a teenager.

Next liar please!

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

Why don't you go overturn Dutch society instead of fucking with ours? Certainly they need to see your truth more than we do? It's ridiculous to treat the minimal welfare state here as worthy of your rabid attacks, then hold up anything about the society you left.

Along those same lines, can you please not continue to conflate civil liberties and economic libertarianism? Nobody here is going to disagree with you a bit that we need more civil liberties and to reign in the corporatist tendencies that infringe them. We had a free society for most of the 20th century, and going back to that is a worthy goal. That this sentiment must go along with your Austrian brand of extreme austerity is a non sequitor.

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

""Along those same lines, can you please not continue to conflate civil liberties and economic libertarianism""

lollll maybe time to pick up that book?

Its because g o v e r n m e n t has sold your economics to the highest bidder through legislation being bought up.

Not to worry. I have dual citizenship. But what is disturbing is the fact people here are clueless about their Constitution, free markets, and the proper role of govt through accountability and sound monetary policies.

You are your government bro!

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

Fuck off with Hayek! Just because extremists manufacture an unbreakable bond between liberty and social darwinism doesn't mean I have to accept it. Go prattle on about teleology to some Marxists, and leave me out of it.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

I am amused how you follow me around ;)

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

The government HAS sold our economic policies to the highest bidder: Libertarians like Friedman, Greenspan and Bernanke.

But they just weren't "Libertarian enough". lol

Now that those policies have floundered, and corporate America is scrambling to find anything that agrees with their ideology of low taxes and deregulation, they are turning to the suicidal non-sense Austrian school.

The Austrian school is only found in corporate funded think tanks, not serious universities. Why is this?

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 2 years ago

They are NOT Libertarians or Free market guys. They PRETEND to be to rail in the support, only to turn around and do the opposite.

Free Market Capitalism REQUIRES sound monetary policies and solid legal justice system.

We have neither!

Adam Smith , founder of modern day capitalism talks about 'Austrian school of economics' in his 'Wealth of Nations'

The other , Ludwig von Mises and FRiedrich Hayek were AUSTRIANS with Hayek receiving a Nobel Peace prize in economics.

[-] -1 points by w9illiam (97) 2 years ago

One thing you left out. A true Libertarian or Ultra conservative believes the government should only be there to protect the people from each other and foreign threats. Dose not sound like they are doing either. Not that the US is they are over regulating everything and telling you what to do with your life wile not protecting us from anything. Smells like communism.

[-] -1 points by Fedup15 (30) 2 years ago

Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

[-] -1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Stupid federalist dependents, ya can't handle the truth

[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

you have a problem with women being free to sell sex if they want to?

why?

[-] 1 points by QuietDay (59) 2 years ago

The majority of women in prostiution are women of colour, indigenous women, women from the third world and poor white women. The average age of entry into prostitution is 12 to 14 years old in the west. Pimps systematically 'season' girls and women into prostitution with brutal violence in order to 'break' them so that they can sell them like property. Pimps traffick vulnerable women and girls across borders to sell like property. This is one of the world's most common and profitable forms of organised crime. Child sexual abuse, poverty, racism, homelessness, addiction and other social and economic disadvantage commonly drive women and girls into prositution. This comes at the expense of their health, safety and often their lives and commonly causes physical and mental trauma, illness, injury, suicide and early death (the average age of death of a 'sex worker' is 34). This does not look like liberty, freedom or the abscence of coercion and force to me.

Libertarianism looks good on paper, but in reality is a simplistic, hypocritical, self serving abstraction designed to benefit the wealthy, powerful and mostly male elite. As De Clarke says, "Only to the violent, the wealthy, the privileged does liberty mean license".

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 2 years ago

Anyone who is honestly concerned about women's rights should support the decriminalization and regulation of prostitution, which is a victimless crime. Harsh penalties on sex trafficking and solicitation of minors could be more easily enforced once the black market was eliminated. Stop giving fuel to the libertarian sociopaths by being so puritanical.

[-] 1 points by powertoothepeople (280) 2 years ago

"The average age of entry into prostitution is 12 to 14 years old in the west. "

This is not true, if, when you say the west you mean the United States.

This often quoted statistic comes from a study of minors and didn't include anyone over the age of 18.

http://eminism.org/blog/entry/62

I really feel compelled to correct this as I have a personal interest in sex worker rights and this current push to abolish "human trafficking" is hurting ADULT sex workers who are making informed decisions to do what they do and is going to result in a new "Drug War" in the United States if we are not careful.

Seriously, if the average age of entry is 13, what does that mean? Half of all prostitutes started younger? Some started at age 7, in that case? It's mathematically impossible that the average age of entry for all American sex workers is 13.

From the link above:

"Assuming normal distribution (bell curve), the average of 13 implies that for every 20 year old entering prostitution, there are equal number of 6 year olds doing the same."

[-] 2 points by QuietDay (59) 2 years ago

The average age of entry means just that. Like the average age a person first has sex, drives a car or gets their first job. But lets say the average age is actually 16 as this website (which has a clear libertarian and I think anti-woman agenda) suggests. OK, underaged is underaged. Abuse is abuse. 'Aging out' is also an interesting phrase. Does that mean a formerly sexually exploited child who's been groomed into prostitution by years of systematic violence magically becomes a 'consenting adult' making 'informed decisions' on their 18th birthday? Which is basically my point. Libertarians have a very simplistic analysis which fails to recognise that power, coercion and force operate on all levels of society, not just from the big, bad government.

[-] 1 points by powertoothepeople (280) 2 years ago

The average age of entry based on a sample of teenagers only.

That's the point.

It's an inaccurate statistic.

It doesn't matter if it is quoted by a libertarian, a conservative, a progressive or a communist.

It's inaccurate. It's part of the human trafficking scare campaign.

And you are wrong that the blog is libertarian and anti-woman. The blogger is a sex worker's rights activist, among other things.

Not all sex workers are exploited.

Not all sex workers were forced into it as minors or "groomed".

No one really knows the actual average age of entry because there just aren't any reliable studies out there. The juvenile population is easier to study as they come into contact with law enforcment and other agencies more frequently than an adult who knows how to handle her (or his) business discreetly.

There should be more programs to help exploited teen prostitutes.

What there shouldn't be is a "War on Human Trafficking" based on scare campaigns and inaccurate statistics.

Part of women's rights and of human rights is - the right to determine what to do with one's own body.

Yes, that's a right that belongs to adults and children shouldn't be exploited. But please, base your concern on accurate data, not on scare campaigns.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

I didn't ask for a primer on the dark side of prostitution, I asked if/why the author has a problem with women being free to sell sex if they want to.

obviously no one 12-14 years old knows enough to "want to."

the key words are "want to." did you really miss them, or is this your roundabout way of telling someone you want control over THEIR bodies.

why are progressives so afraid of freedom? why do progressives want the state to have so much control and power over so many aspects of life and society?

[-] 1 points by QuietDay (59) 2 years ago

Do you think that most women in prostitution 'want to' fuck mulitple men a day in order to make a living, or 'have to'? The 'dark side' of prostitution is the reality of prostitution for most women. It has very little to do with freedom. It's pimps, traffickers and johns who want to control women's bodies, not me. I would like to live in a world where women and girls are free not to be groomed, coerced or forced to sell their bodies at the expense of their health, safety and lives. Libertarians have some very Orwellian ideas if they call that freedom. If everything is just a simple matter of personal choice, why are we even here? The strung out, brutalised sex worker is making her personal choice, the exhausted Chinese factory worker or Wal-Mart employee earning slave wages are making their personal choice. Great, we can all go home now.

[-] 1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

"Do you think that most women in prostitution 'want to' fuck mulitple men a day in order to make a living, or 'have to'?"

"most" women? probably not, but it is beside the point you seem so desperate and determined to avoid.

plus, an argument can be made that the illegality is what gives pimps and traffickers a role, similar to why there is violence as a result of drug prohibition.

anyway, is this your roundabout method of admitting you DO want to control women and tell them what they can and cannot do with their bodies? congrats, that's how pro-lifers feel, too.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

These libertarians are only for it, because they are vile, repugnant fools. By sparking this thread, I got them to show how black hearted they really are.

Prostitution, drug use, rampant selfishness, THESE are the hallmarks of libertarianism. And it's those beliefs that they wish to impose on america, just as has been done to the phillipines.

And all in the name of stopping force to boot.

[-] 1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

so you also want to tell people what they can and can't do with their own bodies.

and you're proud of this?!? how insane!

better set up a picket at an abortion clinic, fascist. some dumb woman might be exercising the right to control her own body! hurry! run!

[-] -1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

Lets start with the children - since you seem to base your judgements on emotions and not rationality lets start with the most emotional claim - that involving children labor.

What are the consequences to themselves and their family if they didn't have a job? What were the children doing before industrialization came to the nation and what was the life expectancy and average income in adjusted dollars before and after industrialization?

[-] 4 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Oh, it's unemotional, child labor is a FACT, not feeling, not opinion, in the philippeans.

along with prostitution, pollution, no worker regs( many many one handed beggers) the philipeans is a virtual libertarian Utopia.

Of course normal people call it paradise if you can afford it, hell if you can't

[-] 5 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You have to remember, that one handed guy "chose" to be a beggar.

Poverty being a "choice" and all.

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Oh I know, plus he shouldn't whine when he still has a good hand. Perfect for the hand-job industry over there.

[-] -1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

The emotional part is your premise that all child labor is immoral.

So could you provide the information I asked for? You know the hard facts that would back up or destroy your argument?

[-] 6 points by Demian (497) from San Francisco, CA 2 years ago

How would you feel about your kids working in a mine somewhere? Google child labor pictures you tell me how moral that looks.

[-] 0 points by badconduct (550) from Ottawa, ON 2 years ago

My Grandpa worked in a mine. And fought in a world war. Question is, what does he think about me? "back in his day..." things were tougher. We just whine on the street when we can't get our way.

[-] 0 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

Ok I am glad you can admit it is a moral position for you. That is a start. We share the same moral concerns - we want the best for children - all children. I don't think you would disagree that those are your intentions.

The issue is that at the time the children did not have much of choice. Much like factory labor the choice was work on a farm (which was and still is one of the most dangerous professions and to this day is exempt from child labor laws) or a factory or mine. In addition the farming work was susceptible to drought, disease, flood, insects which meant it was impossible to save which means economic household future planning is impossible. At the factory or mine with a steady income planning and saving (for schooling for the last kid) is possible.

They choose the best option presented to them. They don't have the options we have, life isn't about choosing among perfect options - its about choosing the best among what is available.

Thus child labor is not in and of itself immoral. If its going to be child labor regardless (or starve) then why not pick the labor that is safer and allow for future generations to have better options available?

[-] 7 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

You might win your rational/logical argument, but not the hearts and minds of your opponents to your cause, and so it will have been all for naught. Nobody can prove that working with your parents on a family farm is better than working in a mine or a sweat shop, but people intuitively and emotionally know it is. Yes, I'm using the rigidly logical nature of your arguments against you, again.

[-] 1 points by badconduct (550) from Ottawa, ON 2 years ago

I don't think his view is forever, but it works for now. If you cut the fat off the system, it may not function in the best of everyone's interests, but once it has been taken apart to its basic form, it gives everyone an opportunity to vote for another party that will focus on reconstructing the the systems the majority would like to use again. It needs to be done either way. That's the joy of Democracy. Get the cuts party, cut everything you don't need, get the build party, build up area's that are needed. When they get to big again, vote in the cuts.

[-] -2 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

Use logic as you wish. If you're comfortable taking a position you know to be irrational and illogical and one that causes harm by impeding future success for individuals then do so. It does not make you moral because you choose to side with your feelings than with your brain. It does not make you moral because siding with your feelings causes more harm in this instance by preventing families from choosing options that better their lives.

You do are understand you're admitting you would rather keep families from choosing what they believe can better their lives because the idea of it makes you emotionally uncomfortable?

You do understand exactly how selfish and anti-intellectual that statement is don't you?

[-] 9 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

Robots use emotionless logic. Are they intellectual, while humans are not? I am human; more than just logic circuitry. This was Asimov's truth - the 3 laws of robotics were not enough without an emotional, intuitive, moral human consciousness. I am proud of my humanity.

Can I be anti-intellectual in agreeing with Einstein?

“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”

You do are understand you're admitting you would rather keep families from choosing what they believe can better their lives because the idea of it makes you emotionally uncomfortable?

Sounds like an empassioned plea to reverse child labor laws.

Choice? No family chooses to have their child leave home and work in a factory, or a mine. To accept this "choice" is a function of desperation unto despair. It should be society's goal to make this "choice" unnecessary. It has been society's goal, when society better reflected our values - not reason, not logic, but values. Values are not the product of logic. Values are based in emotion and intuition. You cannot replace them with logic. Reason can barely even be used to describe them.

You are lost until you understand this. A christian might say you have no soul. I say you have no balance.

[-] 1 points by kingscrosssection (314) 2 years ago

No family does but if my father died and my mom got sick I would do anything to provide for my family.

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

Yes, and you'd abandon your education and most likely end up in a hole from which you'd never escape. This is how it was before the New Deal and other liberal projects. Our goal is a society in which this kind of terrible sacrifice is not necessary. As a society we have the resources to provide a safety net, and doing so is the moral thing, and also the practical thing. If we prevent you from abandoning your education, in the long run you'll be a more productive member of society and someday your resources will be helping the next family.

[-] 0 points by kingscrosssection (314) 2 years ago

Here's the thing. Shit happens. You can't account for everything and I honestly don' want to deal with aid when I can work for myself and provide for myself.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

You may change your mind when you get to that desperate hour. People like me will be here for you when that time comes, and hopefully we won't have been entirely excised from government by your TP brethren.

[-] -1 points by kingscrosssection (314) 2 years ago

You can't make either statement because you don't know me. I don't really agree with all of your ideas or all of their ideas. I recognize there are problems. Maybe you could do that for your own organization

[-] -1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

I am not going to fall into the false dilemma you've offered of suggesting all people are either robots or humans with robots using logic and humans abandoning it. There are times for logical processing and times for emotional. When the wife is crying in sorrow or giving you the eye across the room is not the time for logical processing - however when discussing matters of politics and economy it is.

So would you like to have a discussion on politics and economics using logic and rationality or would you like to have a rant-fest filled with emotion? Isn't the well being of others worth the time and effort to stop and think and discuss a situation? Or is it so trivial an instant emotional reaction is all that should be afforded to the topic? If you really care as much as you claim over and over again to care then you would perform the investigative due diligence necessary to ensure your actions produce good results - wouldn't you?

I don't really care what it sounds like to you - its a question. One you have not answered.

I'll point out that through the process of the entire family laboring for the family's benefit that we achieved a society where that was no longer necessary. Don't you find it strange that you are arguing against the process by which your very goal is achieved? I suppose logical contradictions in thought don't matter because you can just toss emotions about again?

[-] 3 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

Whatever. I have a balance. When a logical conclusion is morally unacceptable I find it necessary to set that position off-limits and use logic to find an alternative, even if it's less efficient. Reason in the service of my values - which is what humans do. Values are the reason for reason, the underlying goal.

Otherwise, I would say we should just create a supercomputer of state and let it manage our society in the most logical, efficient manner possible, That's basically the idea behind letting the supposed free market run everything. No moral mandate, just a cold utilitarian one - without even an underlying moral goal like "less suffering". More like "most profitable." And funny, it's usually the right arguing against utilitarianism...

So:

would you like to have a discussion on politics and economics using logic and rationality

Only if we agree on moral underpinning, which we don't. If a society that doesn't depend on child labor is not your goal, I'm not interested in discussing methods with you.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

We all have a balance and we all make decisions based on morality.

The thing is once we have our moral goal we have to use logic and reason in order to understand the reasons that our goal is not here, to find the paths forward, and to determine which path is the best.

So if you fail to use logic in pursuit of your goal it is not likely you will reach it.

We have the same goal after all. A better future world for the most people possible. A world more at peace, more healthy, more understanding. At least I assume we share those goals as I assume most of humanity shares those goals. It is simply a difference on how best to get there. And when exploring that difference we should be open in our communication and minds and examine the options reasonably.

Our goals are far distant from the simple idea of child labor itself. At a certain point I believe it plays a way to get to our goal but when moved passed it no longer does. Our society is passed that point - many on the planet right now are not yet.

[-] 6 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

Libertarians are right now arguing for the abolition of child labor laws, minimum wage, environmental protection, protections for organized labor, and everything else won by progressives over the past 100+ years - in this country. Ostensibly in the service of some abstract future state that is better for all, but with a need to go through a new Gilded Age to get there - a race to the bottom with China. Rolling back every institution built since the 19th century seems to be the goal. Not interested.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Wait, some of those underlabor girls are smoking....if they would just shave their legs.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

none of my posts seem to make the top ten anymore.

Obviously, you need to dial up the snark.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 2 years ago

Thanks for the plug. Somehow, none of my posts seem to make the top ten anymore.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

Yes I understand that. But it is not our belief that the removal of those laws will cause harm - quite the contrary. You believe they will cause harm. Since our overall goal is the same it makes sense to discuss these differences and come to a point of agreement so we can move forward. This discussion should be done calmly and rationally.

See you are already writing off even having the discussion because you assume your conclusions are correct. That isn't being open-minded and if you do feel your premises are correct (as I do) then having an open, rational, and calm discussion can only move people towards your conclusion.

If we never have that discussion then we remain divided against the people who enjoy and profit from the 99% being divided. This is why all the hype and continued partisanship plays into the 1%'s hands. They don't want us coming together because we might eventually agree - and then what the heck could they do to stop us?

[-] 3 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

Sorry, you guys always go back to rigid principles of no coercion, no regulation, no role but the protection of property and liberty. By reasonable discussion you mean convincing me that this will achieve positive outcomes. I look at the history and the need for these laws in the past to know they're needed in the present. If we had followed your principles the Gilded Age would never have ended. Your principles are the problem and your team's rigid adherence to them makes any compromise impossible.

I repeat: not interested.

[-] 3 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I agree. There's no interest in compromise. Absolute rejection of the social contract in anything but its most trivial form - if even that - is the only acceptable outcome for this group. Supposed "compromise" with libertarians is behind the process of the dismantling of the state over the past 30 years - to terrible effect. Many will agree on this point, in a differenct context, and their solution is to go all the way into free market fundamentalism - almost no role for the state at all. They've been playing you since Goldwater.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

You're assigning your views of other people to me.

Reasonable discussion means examining things in detail and actually considering the opposition's arguments and not dismissing them outright. It means treating every person in the discussion with respect.

You are making an assumption when you say that the Gilded Age would not have ended. My principles - our end goals are the very same so attack my principles is not productive - you can attack my arguments but you're attacking me personally.

I have no "team" and the idea that you seek to push me into some team and then label me as an enemy is part of the divide and conquer that keeps us fighting instead of working together.

[-] 3 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

shouldn't we have a hundred percent employment rate, before we debate on whether we should allow families the lee way to send their children out to forge. or better yet wouldn't it be wiser to employ the parents at a living wage before we ask them to give their first born to the cause?

[-] 0 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

Well 100% unemployment is unrealistic. There will always be some who refuse all employment, those between jobs, those transitioning careers, those taking time off to study to improve existing skills or learn new ones. So within the group that is employable and seeking (ignoring the very young and old) about 3% of any given population is usually unemployed and is considered to be full employment.

I am not encouraging children work in factories or such today in this nation. I think the laws shouldn't exist but I also recognize the demand is almost zero. It might help the very poor in areas where children could get a job below minimum wage perhaps after school sweeping up at a shop or helping restock a local store's shelves or something.

My point was the assumption that all child labor is immoral is not true and its a bit of a myopic view in that it imposes the view from our culture in this very time onto others. Its American-centric and one really needs to cast a wider net of understanding to make such a moral decision.

In this I was hoping to show that how when viewed in more detail such a thing that is usually categorically viewed as immoral is not necessarily so and in so doing hoping to open up the chance for dialogue on other actions often covered with that same blanket.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

i hear you. one of my biggest gripes is a one size fits all uniformity of government regulations, and the way you framed it makes me even more confident that i'm a libertarian socialist. it should be the families decision if the child helps around the house and shop, but the government law saying a corporation can't use their labor.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

The real scary thing is that the child labor law creation likely locked some families into another generation or more of poverty. The families that could early use the savings management boons that come from planned steady income had already moved to the middle class and educated. Having heard the horror stories from their parents they championed laws which they felt would help but in reality blocked others from getting where they were quickly.

This is the folly of laws done to protect others from themselves - good intentions do not guarantee good outcomes. However once established on emotional grounds it is almost impossible to convince enough people to act rationally against those laws.

[-] 2 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Febs, it appears that arguing for child labor presumes a maturity on the part of children. They are children for the very fact that they lack maturity and the ability to make informed choices. The attention span of a child is often too short to absorb the required actions that must be taken to insure safety of both child and product, just as the attention span would be to short to see a job well done with an acceptable product when finished.

It is not so much a matter of moral or immoral as it is a matter of practicality, to not be in agreement with child labor becoming once again an item this country or a family depends on.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

I don't wish to see child labor become a common practice here and I seek to have it not be a common practice anywhere. My problem stems from those who argue that child labor is - in and of itself - an immoral action. Well many times the choices are not so nice in life - in some places it is work or there isn't enough to feed the child or perhaps their younger siblings. This is reality and to say that it is immoral for the child to work is pretending that there is some better option or worse ignoring reality and trying to enforce one's utopian view on others while not understanding the position of those others.

It falls on the parents to understand their family's situation when it comes to children working but even in this nation family farm work (one of the most dangerous operations) is exempt from child labor laws - precisely because this was the natural state of human existence for all but a short period recently. The whole family worked in ways they were able in order to produce the most for the family.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

I did not and do not argue the morality of child labor, however, I did and do argue the practicality of it.

I pointed out attention spans, I could include strength and dexterity and the comprehension levels of why an action produces certain results.

I could further argue that opening up 'certain jobs' to children when the unemployment factor for adults is currently unstable it would further destabilize that factor.

Your point about farm work, until recently being a natural state of human existence leaves out that, until recently (historically speaking), that hunting was a natural state of human existence, as was gathering.

Farming parents aren't sending their children to the fields to 'work' as we define work, chores that contribute to the success or failure of the immediate family or simply lighten the load of adults, including a child being required to take a turn washing dishes, is quite a bit different than 'janitorial' work for hire. I say this from personal experience, I was raised on a farm and have farmed myself.

I have yet to see, in my personal experience, a child removed from a classroom to 'work on the family farm'. Education of the public should not be traded.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

Not anymore they aren't in most of this nation. That is only due to the progress made by having the opportunity to decrease time needed (through education or innovation). This isn't the case for everyone in America today (poor rural communities for example) nor is it the case for most farmers outside of America.

Denying the option to best use the resources at hand for the family is necessarily pushing the economic advancement of that family backwards. To do so because we insist on pushing our misplaced moral cultural-centric attitudes on others is entirely misguided, harmful, and egotistical.

[-] 1 points by kingscrosssection (314) 2 years ago

Well it does make him moral in relation to societal views. However, I don't agree with most of them so I don't really give a damn.

[+] -5 points by BuggerAll (-32) 2 years ago

Dude (or dudette), admit it - this is YOUR site.

Your sometimes good, sometimes nutty, but usually very ordinary posts are suspiciously ranked as "BEST POST OF THE DAY" almost EVERY DAY.

It's EXTRAORDINARALY FISHY.

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

Interesting.

Actually this site is run by jart and the main moderator is AgnosticNixie. They do not share my political views.

[-] -3 points by BuggerAll (-32) 2 years ago

WHOA! You blew it by admitting you knew who runs it.

You don't 'run it', but you're part of the click that does. There's no way in hell your posts are that popular without help.

Sure, some of them are great, but most are ordinary.

It's ODD.

[-] 4 points by an0n (764) 2 years ago

Clique. You're kind of an idiot, aren't you?

[-] -1 points by BuggerAll (-32) 2 years ago

Lol- smartphone autocorrect, racist.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

you are such a conspiracy theorist. man, go write a book. the way your mind connects the dots makes for good fiction. what is stopping you from finding a hundred friends who all have the same ideological preferences as you and coming to this site and liking all the comments that you agree with. but, let me tell you, that would not change what i believe. i guess that is what separates gods from clogs. who cares who is winning the war of words. i just hope you are being more open to other points of view.

[-] 4 points by Edgewaters (912) 2 years ago

Actually that's historically untrue. As the medieval era gave way to the industrial era, peasantry was kicked off their land (eg Enclosures etc) and forced to look for work in the cities, cottage industry done at home (eg. the Weavers) was put out of business by textile mills and industrialization. The family farm was not subsistence agriculture, they made money and traded goods. Otherwise there wouldn't have been markets, which is where they all headed at the end of a week to sell both agricultural goods and the products of cottage industry.

After the Enclosures, the Highland Clearances, and other similar measures which forced people off their land, the newly-urbanized population had to labour for industrialists at rates below the cost of living - so the children were forced to work as well. They did not choose to leave the farm because of diseases and insects (the cities were far more disease-ridden at the time than the farms; modern urban sanitation did not exist yet). When the Commons were privatized and feudal tenure abolished, they had nowhere else to go. Not only did they not want to do it, they revolted, several times (that was the whole cause of the Luddite movement, for example. Study it yourself, you'll see).

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

I don't believe I ever talked about subsistence level farming ie homesteading simply the case of rural farmers and the real negatives of living on a farm in that era.

Of course you're coming at it from the perspective of the Industrial Revolution in Europe while I am pointing out what occurred in America.

[-] 1 points by Edgewaters (912) 2 years ago

Perhaps, but industrial capitalism was born in Europe.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

So lets look at it from the perspective of Europe - an area I freely admit I have not studied.

It seems to me the key of the unjust actions there were measures that used force to get people off of their land. Could you explain a bit more about the "Enclosures", and "Highland Clearances"?

Thank you.

[-] 2 points by Edgewaters (912) 2 years ago

I don't think just/unjust is really relevant here ... that's just what the history is. It's not even unique to capitalism really, its more a factor of industrialization. Same process usually happens - Stalin and Mao did it through agricultural collectivization in rapid time. It's happening in Africa as we speak.

The Enclosures happened in England over a long period of time. Before the Enclosures, the farmers in a village would have strips of land divided only by a thin line of unplowed soil. They had private access but only from the time of harvest to the next planting (ie when it was growing crops). The rest of the time, it was the Commons, and was used for grazing flocks and herds by everyone. It was not a system of private ownership of land - the farmers didn't own the strips they had, they had "tenure" under the system of feudalism, and of course much of the year, it was the Commons, owned by everyone on the estate, and the estate was "owned" (not as private property but by feudal title, granted by the king) by a noble.

As time passed, wool became increasingly lucrative. The lords discovered you could make more money in sheep than in farming. So they evicted a few peasants and walled their strips in, blocking access to the Commons. Each farmer's strips were scattered so that everyone got access to different soil grades, and long thin strips - scattered at that - weren't really ideal for grazing flocks. So they started evicting lots of peasants, to make larger, broader enclosures. Peasants who had lived on the same land since God knows when, probably back at least as far as the Anglo-Saxon invasions. As a side benefit to the noble classes, now you had something for your kids beyond the first to do: they had a system of primogeniture, meaning the whole estate went to the eldest son alone, and it was always a problem what to do with the other kids. So now, after they'd evicted the peasants, they could set up the younger aristocrat children as wool merchants.

The wool merchants - mercers - discovered that to bring, say, a shirt to market you had to deal with all these people who owned their own capital. You had fullers and weavers and dyers, each step in the process of turning the wool into textiles, you had to business with a private individual. Those guys were making lots of money that the wool merchants thought should be theirs. But there were all these desperate peasants they'd evicted - so, they hired them in large numbers, brought them all under one roof in the factory system, and had them do each step in the process not as private individuals but as employees. They didn't pay them very much, because they owned no capital and couldn't command much leverage in terms of wages - so they were able to bring textiles to market very cheaply and put all the private individuals out of work (and thus dispossessed of capital, there would be more cheap labour).

[-] 2 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

To me just and unjust are always relevant. If an action is unjust it should be opposed. Recognizing unjust actions in the past may not change the present we must deal with but it allows it more quickly identify similar unjust actions in the present to be able to oppose them.

All of the problems you describe are born of a lack of private property rights. Its a huge chain of a command economy dictating changes that have negative consequences. Although as you tell it society went instantly from feudalism to the industrial revolution (such as the evicted peasants under a Lord suddenly existed to be unemployed workers during the Industrial Revolution) - and there has to be a more subtle change over a longer timeline than that.

[-] 3 points by Edgewaters (912) 2 years ago

All of the problems you describe are born of a lack of private property rights.

No, actually, what I'm describing is the birth of private property rights. And no, it didn't happen overnight. Very gradual process.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

The birth of private property rights or not - the problems that were caused by the people would have been solved or lessened by respect for private property being established earlier in the system.

I'll point out that just because private property didn't exist in the legal system at the time doesn't mean that the problems would not have been remedied or greatly reduced in scope and scale if they did. So you can't really say "no" to my statement.

A Lord with no power to compel changes to the peasant's land would have not resulted in the endstate it did.

[-] 3 points by Edgewaters (912) 2 years ago

The peasants couldn't have survived on the land without the Commons.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

They couldn't have voluntarily agreed to mutual use? Especially if survivability was on the line?

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

The fact is that countries that allow child labor (kids in factories) have lower wages.

I've already provided that FACT in my last reply. The philipeans IS my example. It's the one nation where they have ALL the libertarian clap trap, and that I've seen for myself.

If you didn't see it or understand it.....

Also, I never said it was immoral, I provided facts, the reader can decide if a society like that is moral/immoral

[-] 0 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

Yes they do. I am asking what their alternatives are. It doesn't matter if they have lower wages than here - they aren't here - they can't choose to instantly work here. Here is not a factor.

You're judging another nation by the standards you're familiar with and not the reality of their given options. That is my point. You're being Amero-centric in your judgment.

I am trying to be very patient with you. You didn't provide any facts that I asked for. Standard of living, income, life expectancy. So please provide them.

Your argument assumes that it is immoral because you listed it as a negative. Don't play games here we are all adults. You find child labor in all conditions immoral. It's a common sentiment.

[-] 3 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

No, I am judging a nation that was similar to ours during the gilded age, they chose libertarianism, we did not.

The results ARE the point.

[-] 2 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

Are you willing to provide those facts? Yes or no.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Well, we did help them shoot all the opposition, back in the 19th century.

Such 'facts', provided by the libertarians, would be suspect.

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

Standard of living, income, life expectancy.

I think we can all agree these are not up to par with ours, nor have they increased relative to the previous conditions on par with our increases, nor are their lives overall improved - the Phillipines were somewhat of a bucolic paradise prior to industrialization. The statistics you're looking for wouldn't change that.

[-] 3 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

I made this thread for a good cause (reasoning with libertarians) though I feel like I'm going to hell for it : p

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

:D To hell with them. I say. Either that, or they take us to hell with them.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

thank-you human, also realized I've been misspelling phillipines... oops

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

Phonetic spelling works just as well. ;)

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

I am not interested in comparing their situation with ours as we are vastly different nations with vastly different resources and populations.

A bucolic paradise - I find this is as much a figment of imagination as "the good ole days" of the 50's many conservatives imagine.

[-] 3 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

It is what it is. Used to be the sort of place you'd want to go on vacation, like Hawaii or Tahiti. Now, it is assuredly not. Rivers of shit.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

I'd have to examine in depth the history and economic policies of the nation in order to comment more. The points on child labor not always being immoral still stand. And that was my goal - to show how a common moral position is not always so moral when examined - especially when we project our culture onto others.

[-] 1 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Ahh, the last grasp of the logic impaired.

"so what if it didn't work there, it'll work here, it really really will. What, you gonna believe me, or your own eyes."

You libertarians cling to a fantasy that never was, nor ever can be. Similar to the Stalinists and Nazi's, the logical need not apply.......

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

Not at all what I am saying if you read my replies however I do understand how it would be convenient for you to present such a summary.

All I did was request information that could be used to prove or disprove your statement. You've failed over three opportunities to provide the data - and yet your retort is to call me impaired of logic.

It is a fantasy to state that the base case for mankind is peaceful interaction between all people? The core of libertarian belief is that the initiation of force or fraud is unjust and immoral. Do you somehow contend that either of those are just or moral?

[-] 2 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

That same exact argument could be used to justify slavery in both America and in other countries..

Do you advocate slavery?? Or are you too emotional??

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

No it cannot. Slavery isn't a situation anyone chooses to enter into (unlike employment) and thus is not on the spectrum of options of choice.

If that is the best argument you can counter with I think you already realize the argument is lost.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

They choose to work or starve.

Same exact circumstances, except the liability for a slave to starve lies with the slave owner. The fact you willfully ignore those similarities proves how delusional you are.

[-] -1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

So your fundamental position is that you think the laws of thermodynamics are unjust? It isn't fair people have to take into energy in order to expend it?

Argue with physics if you like. I'd prefer to acknowledge the unchangeable realities of the world and work within them. Since slavery is a changeable option I choose to not support slavery. The laws of thermodynamics are not changeable.

You call me delusional yet your entire premise is built on a fundamental rejection of reality?

I think you need to stop throwing around insults. First of all they make your argument look weak because it appears you need to use them. Second it is very unflattering when your own insults better fit yourself than those you are attempting to insult.

You should have stopped when you realized you had to try to strawman my position with slavery.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

That's right. Kids slaving in a sweatshop for food is "thermodynamics". As is slavery.

You may want to ask your therapist to up the dosage.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

You might want to understand how closed systems work.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

You're really proud of this awful analogy, aren't you??

[-] 0 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

How can I be proud for stating a fact?

If people find that the need to eat is itself a moral condition they have a fundamental problem operating in reality. Instead of creating a moral system for operating in reality these people instead adopt a moral system which tries to pretend that reality either isn't the way it is or can be changed by human action or thought. It is as its core a most juvenile outlook.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

"How can I be proud for stating a fact?"

So now you've decided to go completely off the deep and actually deny you were using it as an analogy.

You are now LITERALLY claiming that human interactions are not to emulate the laws of thermodynamics, but they ARE subject to the laws of thermodynamics, and that we somehow aren't following these laws of physics.

Thanks for proving to me how completely absurd you are. I suggest you visit your therapist and up the meds.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

I made no such claim as you state. I will repeat my claim: people who declare it is unfair that people need to eat must necessarily find the laws of thermodynamics which cause that need to also be unfair.

Your post is simply a strawman - assuming a position I do not take and attacking it. You then attack the person and not the argument.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

Perhaps we should charge people to breathe??

Maybe we should just gas people to death for not paying for my privately owned air??

Your argument was already a strawman when you first posted it. The only thing impressive about it is the extent to which you've gone to defend it, despite there being nothing of substance to defend.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

Another strawman attack.

Please show me where I stated or even alluded to charging people to breathe or stated air is not a public good?

There is plenty of substance to my position but I do understand your preference to avoid discussing my actual position.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 2 years ago

Do you think it's morally wrong that people need air??

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

Not in the least.

[-] -2 points by alexrai (851) 2 years ago

Its too bad people have to pick between personal freedom (Ron P) or the Environment (Obama) but considering there is no progressive candidate and Obama is not interested in keeping his environmental promises anyway... well nothing to lose voting for Ron P, only something to gain.

No patriot act, no drug war, no conventional war, and he seems quite keen on getting rid of corporate cronyism... what have you got with Obama? All of those, plus a million broken promises.

[-] -2 points by mookie (38) 2 years ago

Ron Lawl is the only politician that is offering the reform we need.

[-] 3 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

RonPaul on the Issues:

Total free market capitalism.

Free market health care.

Repeal Roe v. Wade.

Eliminate capital gains and estate taxes.

Eliminate the EPA.

Repeal ban on assault weapons.

Undermine UN arms control efforts.

Go to his website and read it for yourself.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by mookie (38) 2 years ago

National Sovereignty, personal liberty, R O N P A U L! ATF gun running, welfare state, reverse racism =obama.

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

How will corporations survive without a "welfare state"? The Bank Bailout Was Actually $8 Trillion

How is repealing Roe v. Wade "personal liberty"?

How is global free market capitalism "national sovereignty"?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

It would be a repeal of a woman's personal liberty.

There is NO "free market". It's a myth.

[-] -1 points by mookie (38) 2 years ago

What about the child's personal liberty? Perhaps you should perform an abortion before you comment!

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

A fetus is not a child, nor a baby.

You're presenting a religious argument.

According to the constitution, one must be born to have 'rights'.

Plus there is no 'free market".

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Ummm, fetus is latin for child.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Then move to ancient Rome, and tell your boy to leave my constitution alone.

This is one of the main reasons I'm starting to actually hate the man.

All this BS hiding behind a shiny surface.

.

[-] 1 points by mookie (38) 2 years ago

I'm not religious, but would like to see you perform an abortion before being so Pro-baby killing.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

A fetus, is not a baby.

I am not a doctor, nor a psychologist.

I do disagree with late term abortion, unless the mothers life is at stake.

A repeal of Roe V Wade, would be a bad thing.

[-] -1 points by mookie (38) 2 years ago

Your never going to agree with any philosophy 100%, but it is important to realize the most important issues we face. We are living in an expanding empire, the deficit is out of control, our politicians and the establishment are using misinformation to keep pressure off them. They are the cause of these problems, our constitution no longer exists, and these problems will undermine our national security if we don't get a grip. The war, the bloated gov, and the out of control entitlement system are the most important issues. Roe Vs Wade can take a back burner until these important issues are solved.

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 2 years ago

Don't let them get you down, mookie. Not sure what the smear campaign is all about. Most of the libertarian types I've read in this forum are earnest and thoughtful and would really like to help think through these issues you outline. We've been out ahead on these issues, and are rather surprised that when we seem to be the object of derision and censored. I love honest debate. This huffpo BS, though, gets me down.

[-] 0 points by mookie (38) 2 years ago

I'm afraid this movement is being used to keep many disenfranchised democrats in the dark, focusing energy at Wall street alone, instead of the administration, which has now continued most of the policies they ran against.

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 2 years ago

I don't really think so. It became apparent from the beginning that this administration was totally controlled from the outset, from inside and out. It's the nature of the beast, not really a left or right sort of thing.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by mookie (38) 2 years ago

How is letting the UN decide any of our policy national sovereignty? Corporations would fail in true free market if they mismanaged their finances, they would not be bailed out by tax payer $$$, privitizing profits, while taking no risk.

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

Exactly what part of US domestic or foreign policy is decided by the UN?

[-] 0 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 2 years ago

Well, what wars get started for one. Libya anyone?

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

The UN mandated that the US assist Libyan rebels? Please provide evidence.

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

Actually, the Arab Spring started Libya's war, Gadhafi was about to finish it, NATO and the UN disagreed - to the massive cry of "thank Allah" from Benghazi.

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 2 years ago

So where was congress during all this? Do you believe that bypassing their authorization, as the constitution mandates, is tantamount to loss of national sovereignty?

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

In this scenario, it's a lower priority for me than the lives that were at stake, and the principle of defending a people rising up for democracy and being trampled by a dictator. It was a rapidly escalating humanitarian crisis and we were enforcing a UN mandate. The rest is technicalities.

[-] 1 points by FreedomIsFree (340) 2 years ago

I guess you and I have been reading different reports about what has gone on there. Last I heard, al-qaida was in power and they were busy killing black people and setting up a bank?? I don't watch TV, though, so. . .

[-] 1 points by badconduct (550) from Ottawa, ON 2 years ago

They aren't in power, but they do have a legit political party. The people (like in Egypt) won't put up with a power tripping over-religious Government trying to run the country again.

The guys who are revolting are young, internet savvy and educated, like us. They won't put up with any dictatorship, or any extreme government again. They will go right back on the streets if the new system proves to be false.

What keeps Al Qaeda in business, is the drug trade into Europe. They are 100% backed by South American drug cartel money, and they defend the roads on the way to Europe. They go up from Nigeria, to Niger, to Morocco and up into Spain. http://www.mowatsparty.ca/?p=534

They are trying to get the same thing established in North America too.

[-] 1 points by CrossingtheDivided (357) from Santa Ysabel, CA 2 years ago

<"reverse racism =obama."<

Being a Ron P.aul supporter, you really oughtn'ta brought up the whole racism bit. Slippery ground yer on there, son.

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

no world like the 3rd world eh.

Lawn Rol will make America what it once was !!! Child laborers of the world UNITE!!

whoohoo to prostitution

Hoorah for no public education!!

[-] 0 points by mookie (38) 2 years ago

Mis-information from mindless sheep that voted for Obama. Willfully ignorant to the history of the socialism. Willfully ignorant to the fact that the centralized education has failed our children. Distort the facts like a true child, unable to understand the complexity of economics and government!

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 2 years ago

The history of socialism, in Germany, Canada, Norway, Denmark, the 40s-70s US, you mean?

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Naw, my whole post is based in fact. But the facts be damned for RP people.

[-] -3 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

How idiotic! The federal government is way out of control and well beyond oppressive.

If my kids want to mow lawns and deliver news papers, so what?

If your daughter, sister and mother insist on being prostitutes, so what?

If you don't like it, use the new found control OVER your government and pass a law, in your state to get your whores get off the streets. If you can't, then move to a fawking state where they agree with you.

If your neighbor violates common law and pollutes the river, then he is punished. To imply that this nation's healthcare industry isn't wildly out of control and corrupt is completely asinine. We have the highest cost and lowest level of consumer satisfaction of any nation.

The power grid, of course there is NO WAY POSSIBLE it could ever work without an Unconstitutional corrupt government that cannot even operate a single day without fictitious money borrowed from the Communist China. Well, if that is true, you and your fellow statesmen, buy more energizers or sit pouting in the dark!

To suggest that your state will not enforce it's own laws, even animal cruelty without our twice bankrupt and corrupt federal government forcing it to, only shows you completely lack self-reliance and are far removed from being a reasonable person.

You are most likely one of the many remedial individuals who truly are dependent, for either your entitlements or grossly overcompensated employment, on the same corrupt government. I'm certain you're not one of the highly educated and specially trained for professionals of which this Incorporated Government creates need for and together you proactively seek to seemingly grow the Government until all are completely enslaved by it, or 100% dependent on it.

And this covers a lot of people, like even millions of lawyers, cpa's and other various service providers whose very existence is required because of unconstitutional laws evil people have put in place to criminalize and control all which are collateral for the big bankruptcy and all other fake money borrowed.

Yeah man, give me some more big federal government, screw the constitution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cd-SLRyuRq0&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFXdCH--Gjo

fawking federalist vampires and leaches

[-] -3 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

How idiotic! The federal government is way out of control and well beyond oppressive.

If my kids want to mow lawns and deliver news papers, so what?

If your daughter, sister and mother insist on being prostitutes, so what?

If you don't like it, use the new found control OVER your government and pass a law, in your state to get your whores get off the streets. If you can't, then move to a fawking state where they agree with you.

If your neighbor violates common law and pollutes the river, then he is punished. To imply that this nation's healthcare industry isn't wildly out of control and corrupt is completely asinine. We have the highest cost and lowest level of consumer satisfaction of any nation.

The power grid, of course there is NO WAY POSSIBLE it could ever work without an Unconstitutional corrupt government that cannot even operate a single day without fictitious money borrowed from the Communist China. Well, if that is true, you and your fellow statesmen, buy more energizers or sit pouting in the dark!

To suggest that your state will not enforce it's own laws, even animal cruelty without our twice bankrupt and corrupt federal government forcing it to, only shows you completely lack self-reliance and are far removed from being a reasonable person.

You are most likely one of the many remedial individuals who truly are dependent, for either your entitlements or grossly overcompensated employment, on the same corrupt government. I'm certain you're not one of the highly educated and specially trained for professionals of which this Incorporated Government creates need for and together you proactively seek to seemingly grow the Government until all are completely enslaved by it, or 100% dependent on it.

And this covers a lot of people, like even millions of lawyers, cpa's and other various service providers whose very existence is required because of unconstitutional laws evil people have put in place to criminalize and control all which are collateral for the big bankruptcy and all other fake money borrowed.

Yeah man, give me some more big federal government, screw the constitution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cd-SLRyuRq0&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFXdCH--Gjo

fawking federalist vampires and leaches