LIbertarians

F

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
Simple-minded libertarians, reducing everything in life to simple absurdity so that they can have simplicity, instead of thinking things through. They don't believe in reality, they believe in libertarianism, and if reality disagrees with that, it is reality that is wrong. It's an entire ideology based around a few common logical fallacies that tries to simplify all human philosophy and existence, so that they don't have to think. Libertarianism will do that for them.
 
Yeah, sure thing midcan. :rolleyes:

Yet you can't give an example of your hypothesis here.

Libertarians are the only ones that do think things through. Libertarians are always talking about unintended consequences of state action and the perverse incentives of central planned system that can be gamed.

It's your new lefty personna that fails to think and instead boils everything down to emotional appeals and the unreality of some ridiculous scenario played out in some novel from a 100 years ago.
 
Unfortunatly for Watermark, he's unable to see the bigger picture and how Libertarians fit into it. RString points out something that Libertarians are always bringing up. If we want better policy to be implemented, we need as much diversity in politics as possible. There is very little wisdom in policies given by a two party system. Disagreements aren't well discussed, they are mocked and laughed at from one side to the other. It's a constant struggle for power so polcicies can be one-sided. We need more diversity in Washington. Libertarians provide another aspect to the discussion that is rarely brought up when Republicans and Democrats squabble with one another.
 
RStringfield said:
Yeah, sure thing midcan. :rolleyes:

Yet you can't give an example of your hypothesis here.

Libertarians are the only ones that do think things through. Libertarians are always talking about unintended consequences of state action and the perverse incentives of central planned system that can be gamed.

It's your new lefty personna that fails to think and instead boils everything down to emotional appeals and the unreality of some ridiculous scenario played out in some novel from a 100 years ago.
Click to expand...

You mean the sausage/rat droppings?
 
uscitizen said:
Has there ever been a functioning libertarian govt in the world ?
Click to expand...

No, most governments have more than one party that controls it. Why would you be for keeping a party from having a decent shot at putting forth valuable incite just because if they 'ran' government, you wouldn't agree? They would only be a PART of the government, and they would be pushing govrnement to be more responsible. Just as Republicans can't outlaw abortion even when they had control, just as Democrats can't stop funding the war even with control of the house and senate, libertarians wouldn't get rid of social security.
 
uscitizen said:
Has there ever been a functioning libertarian govt in the world ?
Click to expand...


Iraq.

Weak central federal government; power devolved to local communities and tribes; little government or regulatory oversight; completely free trade with no tarriffs; very lax guns laws or regulation (if any); flat national tax (no progressive taxation)
 
Cypress said:
Iraq.

Weak central federal government; power devolved to local communities and tribes; little government or regulatory oversight; completely free trade with no tarriffs; very lax guns laws or regulation (if any); flat national tax (no progressive taxation)
Click to expand...

Yeah, nice try. That's exactly what Libertarians stand for :rolleyes: We want America to get invaded by an outside force so we can have complete anarchy!
 
The Neocons wanted the war.

But it was Bush, and his merry band of "free marketeers" who wanted to magically transform iraq into a "free" market paradise, of open trade, privitization of state assessts, and "property" rights. That's the core of economic libertarian philosophy.

It was never widely reported in american media, but the utility of installing Paul Bremer as, essentially, the Dictator of Iraq, was that at a stroke of a pen he could single handidly order and mandate economic "reforms" that would never get passed in a democratic country, or through a functioning legislslature. Because Bremer's "orders" were full of all the crazy shit free marketeers have been drooling about for decades. But, never able to implement because democratically elected legislatures around the world laugh them off.

Googe "Order Number 38". That's only one of Bremer's mandates. A regressive flat tax. Elimination of tariffs, and completely "free" trade; privitization of state assests, allowing foreign ownership of Iraqi banks, divesting State owned water and oil assets; mandates that weakened labor unions.

This was all planned years ago. It was no accident. And the imposition of these crazy CATO inspired ideas nearly crushed the iraqi economy.
 
Last edited:
I have been thinking on this and perhaps some of the pirate ships were some the most libertarian form of govt we have had.
 
Cypress said:
Iraq.

Weak central federal government; power devolved to local communities and tribes; little government or regulatory oversight; completely free trade with no tarriffs; very lax guns laws or regulation (if any); flat national tax (no progressive taxation)
Click to expand...

True.
 
I don't consider them my allies in most circumstances, but I do respect at least that the crazy Libertarians actually practice what they preach. Myself, I've never been as much as an Orthodox Jew, so I'm certainly not going to try to be an orthodox libertarian, but the word shouldn't be thrown around as an insult as if liberty is a bad thing. It is a most important value that is getting trampled in the current state of affairs.

It is also most unappreciative of modern liberals to dismiss the classical ones. They owe our thinkers for giving birth to their ideas, and if they would follow the original new liberals, they would know that they were much more inspired by Locke and Rousseau for the sake of individual liberty than they ever were Marx or any wanker who wanted more government and more collective society just for the sake of sticking it to the vices he wanted to regulate.

That said, it wouldn't be so bad if liberals were a bit more orthodox to their own alleged ideology. It is vexing that the left is afraid of the word liberal, and their actions indicate that they are more leftist than they are liberal. I recall Senator Clinton at a debate some months ago when she gave an excellent definition of liberalism that any good American should appreciate, and then she essentially cast off that wonderful notion for the label "progressive"

Of course, all that seems to add up to is progressively more government, not to suggest that the current alternative is much different.
 
If liberal philosophy actually worked, they would destroy themslves as a party. So they have the Democratic party that makes sure the programs don't work in order to keep people down. Otherwise, who would vote for them. What good would bitching about people being poor do if there were no poor people?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top