Libertarians...Quite Possibly the Stupidest People in the World....

[Epicurus]

Fixed. I only mean to say that there are many types of market failures where the free market system breaks down and does not function efficiently. That is all.

Fair enough.

 

[Cypress]

I view my ideology as necessary as a counterbalancing force to yours. I hesitate to launch into a lengthy discussion so far into a thread on a different topic, but I view the political landscape as a permanent game of tug-of-war between our competing ideologies, as well as conservatism and populism. The dominance of an extreme view of any ideology is dangerous for a country over a long period of time.

I do not think that America would be any better off if we were a government-free, anarcho-capitalist paradise. I advocate and defend anarcho-capitalism because people like you are working in the same capacity for socialism.

I hope that you don't genuinely believe that America would be better off under progressively more restrictive policies in economics and civil liberties; but even if you do, there are anarcho-capitalists like myself, and Norquistesque fiscal conservatives to stop you from implementing it.

At the risk of sounding somewhat cliche, we all serve necessary functions in maintaining some degree of status quo in political developments. I do not hate you for being liberal or espousing liberal policies. It is an admirable, even essential function for a certain element of society to work for more state intervention. And it is an equally admirable and possibly even more essential function for certain elements of society to work to oppose such intervention.

We all have our role to play, each as essential as the others.

I'm not a socialist, and I don't know a single democrat who is a socialist. I've never even heard a single Democratic candidate talk about going as far as transforming us into a carbon copy of Sweden or Norway, which are allegedly socialist countries according to many or some libertarian sympathizers.

FDR certainly wasn't a socialist. His stated goal was to save capitalism from the siren song of 1930s socialism, or fascism..... By smoothing off the hard edges of lassaize faire capitialism, to make it more tolerable for the working woman or man. It seemed to work. The 50 years after the new deal witnessed the greatest economic expansion of any country in world history. And it marked an era of increasing social and economic equality, and the rise of a large middle class.

I'm not sure what restricting economic freedoms means. That's a buzzword that get thrown around a lot. I can only assume it pertains to taxes and regulation. I have no emotional investment in ill-defined, generalities like "taxes" or "regulation. My view is that we need a revenue-based public service, and regulation of commerce, environment, and safety that is adequate to serve the needs of a functioning economy, while preserving and protecting the public interest.

 

[Timshel]

I am having no luck finding the quotes. They are obvious bs with the ... (taken completely out of context symbols) and all. You really need something more substantial than a bunch of out of context quotes.

Here we can see the extent of Friedman's role as an adviser in his letter to Pinochet.

http://books.google.com/books?vid=I...ple&sig=6ng0c3opnTYXlHD7mck3CzBo31w#PPA592,M1

I especially like this part where he clearly forcefully lays out his detailed specifications for murder and economic control...

My knowledge of Chile is too limited to be either precise or comprehensive, so these measures are taken to be illustrative.

...

LOL.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/117278.html

But that was the extent of his involvement with the Chilean regime—and it fit with a recurring pattern in Friedman’s career of advising with an even hand all who would listen to him. It was not a sign of approval of military authoritarianism. Friedman, in defending himself against accusations of complicity with or approval of Pinochet, noted in a 1975 letter to the University of Chicago school newspaper that he “has never heard complaints” about giving aid and comfort to the communist governments to which he had spoken, and that “I approve of none of these authoritarian regimes—neither the Communist regimes of Russia and Yugoslavia nor the military juntas of Chile and Brazil. But I believe I can learn from observing them and that, insofar as my personal analysis of their economic situation enables them to improve their economic performance, that is likely to promote not retard a movement toward greater liberalism and freedom.”

 

[blackascoal]

I view my ideology as necessary as a counterbalancing force to yours. I hesitate to launch into a lengthy discussion so far into a thread on a different topic, but I view the political landscape as a permanent game of tug-of-war between our competing ideologies, as well as conservatism and populism. The dominance of an extreme view of any ideology is dangerous for a country over a long period of time.

I do not think that America would be any better off if we were a government-free, anarcho-capitalist paradise. I advocate and defend anarcho-capitalism because people like you are working in the same capacity for socialism.

I hope that you don't genuinely believe that America would be better off under progressively more restrictive policies in economics and civil liberties; but even if you do, there are anarcho-capitalists like myself, and Norquistesque fiscal conservatives to stop you from implementing it.

At the risk of sounding somewhat cliche, we all serve necessary functions in maintaining some degree of status quo in political developments. I do not hate you for being liberal or espousing liberal policies. It is an admirable, even essential function for a certain element of society to work for more state intervention. And it is an equally admirable and possibly even more essential function for certain elements of society to work to oppose such intervention.

We all have our role to play, each as essential as the others.

Thank you brother .. I agree with much of what you've said. I believe that the proper balance for society lies somewhere in between capitalism and collectivism.

I do not advocate restrictive policies in civil liberties .. that comes from the other side of the political fence, far to the right of me. However, I certainly advocate restrictive policies on some things that have been couched as "economics" .. which are in fact nothing more than corporatism.

Like Jefferson, I believe that freedom from corporations is a basic human right. We exist in a plutocracy disguised as a democracy where the will of the corporatists have replaced the will of the people.

Plutocratic societies create war, chaos, and suffering, and none of us should want that for our children.

 

[Socrtease]

Thank you .. didn't know you were libertarian, but thanks.

But is it not true that the glorification of the free market works better in theory than it does in actual practice? The demonstrations of almost any form of it always ends in failure.

Isn't this why there is no truly free market system in practice today?

I think the reason most don't know or think I am a libertarian is because I have some very serious left leaning social beliefs. I also am a supporter of things like Affirmative Action and oppose things like privatiazation of the schools and school vouchers. I think that the government should stay out of peoples private lives, both personal and financial, supporter of a flat tax but not well versed enough in economics to give you too many specifics. Believe in a woman's right to choose and an individuals right to own a gun. THink drugs should be legalized and Queers (not meant as an insult at all) should be allowed to marry, kids should be allowed to pray in school but should not be led by anyone, 10 commandments belong in churches and not courthouses. Wars are sometimes necessary but Iraq is not one of those. The warrant requirement is absolute, and so is the freedom of thought. I am not a property rights over civil liberties libertarian, and believe there is no such thing as an absolutely free market because there is no perfect competition due the the lack of limitless resourses. I could go on and on. Conservatives think I am too liberal and liberals think I am too conservative so I must be doing something right.

 

[Epicurus]

I'm not a socialist, and I don't know a single democrat who is a socialist. I've never even heard a single Democratic candidate talk about going as far as transforming us into a carbon copy of Sweden or Norway, which are allegedly socialist countries according to many or some libertarian sympathizers.

FDR certainly wasn't a socialist. His stated goal was to save capitalism from the siren song of 1930s socialism, or fascism..... By smoothing off the hard edges of lassaize faire capitialism, to make it more tolerable for the working woman or man. It seemed to work. The 50 years after the new deal witnessed the greatest economic expansion of any country in world history. And it marked an era of increasing social and economic equality, and the rise of a large middle class.

I'm not sure what restricting economic freedoms means. That's a buzzword that get thrown around a lot. I can only assume it pertains to taxes and regulation. I have no emotional investment in ill-defined, generalities like "taxes" or "regulation. My view is that we need a revenue-based public service, and regulation of commerce, environment, and safety that is adequate to serve the needs of a functioning economy, while preserving and protecting the public interest.

Before I argue your points I would like to take issue with your balatant lie about not knowing any socialist Democrats. There are examples of socialist Democrats abound, if you choose to look at them.

Rickabone is a Democratic voter and self-professed socialists. Democrats ELECTED a Socialist, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, to represent them in the Democratic caucus in Congress.

I don't know what you were trying to prove with this absurd lie, but you have hurt your position.

You claim that you don't know what economic freedom is.

I think you're lying.

You just don't want to acknowledge that economic freedom is equally important and indeed essential for protecting social freedoms. Any divisions drawn between freedom in an economic sphere and freedom in a social sphere are purely cosmetic, artificial divisions meant to downplay the importance of economic freedom. Your right to spend your dollar as you choose, and to earn as many dollars as you are personally capable of is an essential freedom.

You have arbitrarily decided that freedom ends where you draw the line between social and economic issues. I believe that maximizing freedom in all forms should be the shaping force behind the creation of our policies, and you do not.

 

[Epicurus]

I think the reason most don't know or think I am a libertarian is because I have some very serious left leaning social beliefs. I also am a supporter of things like Affirmative Action and oppose things like privatiazation of the schools and school vouchers. I think that the government should stay out of peoples private lives, both personal and financial, supporter of a flat tax but not well versed enough in economics to give you too many specifics. Believe in a woman's right to choose and an individuals right to own a gun. THink drugs should be legalized and Queers (not meant as an insult at all) should be allowed to marry, kids should be allowed to pray in school but should not be led by anyone, 10 commandments belong in churches and not courthouses. Wars are sometimes necessary but Iraq is not one of those. The warrant requirement is absolute, and so is the freedom of thought. I am not a property rights over civil liberties libertarian, and believe there is no such thing as an absolutely free market because there is no perfect competition due the the lack of limitless resourses. I could go on and on. Conservatives think I am too liberal and liberals think I am too conservative so I must be doing something right.

Soc is the moral conscience of JPP libertarians. He is never afraid to show us when we have allowed ourselves to be blinded by ideology and political convenience. He reminds us daily that while our biggest point of debate on JPP might be economic issues, respect for human rights and dignity are equally important elements that any true libertarian should be concerned about.

 

[Timshel]

The supposed break downs in the market are more often found to be the government intruding to protect certain classes. Take pollution. The government stepped in and protected polluters from lawsuits because the industries were deemed to be crucial to social welfare and concerns over property rights violations had to be held subordinate to the collective good. Read Rothbard's Libertarian Manifesto on the environment for a history.

 

[blackascoal]

I'm not a socialist, and I don't know a single democrat who is a socialist. I've never even heard a single Democratic candidate talk about going as far as transforming us into a carbon copy of Sweden or Norway, which are allegedly socialist countries according to many or some libertarian sympathizers.

FDR certainly wasn't a socialist. His stated goal was to save capitalism from the siren song of 1930s socialism, or fascism..... By smoothing off the hard edges of lassaize faire capitialism, to make it more tolerable for the working woman or man. It seemed to work. The 50 years after the new deal witnessed the greatest economic expansion of any country in world history. And it marked an era of increasing social and economic equality, and the rise of a large middle class.

I'm not sure what restricting economic freedoms means. That's a buzzword that get thrown around a lot. I can only assume it pertains to taxes and regulation. I have no emotional investment in ill-defined, generalities like "taxes" or "regulation. My view is that we need a revenue-based public service, and regulation of commerce, environment, and safety that is adequate to serve the needs of a functioning economy, while preserving and protecting the public interest.

I am a socialist and not a democrat .. but I've never advocated nor have I ever heard of anyone advocating a Swedish model, a Cuban model, a Venezuelan model, or anything but a better America.

I'm in the Einstein, very American pro-world pro-human mode of socialism.

Why Socialism?
By Albert Einstein
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Einstein.htm

 

[Epicurus]

I am a socialist and not a democrat .. but I've never advocated nor have I ever heard of anyone advocating a Swedish model, a Cuban model, a Venezuelan model, or anything but a better America.

I'm in the Einstein, very American pro-world pro-human mode of socialism.

Why Socialism?
By Albert Einstein
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Einstein.htm

Cypress is so dishonest. What did he close his eyes and put his hands over his ears when Bernie Sanders was elected?

He's either an intentional fabricator or blithely unaware of the current membership and platform of his own party.

 

[Cypress]

Before I argue your points I would like to take issue with your balatant lie about not knowing any socialist Democrats. There are examples of socialist Democrats abound, if you choose to look at them.

Rickabone is a Democratic voter and self-professed socialists. Democrats ELECTED a Socialist, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, to represent them in the Democratic caucus in Congress.

I don't know what you were trying to prove with this absurd lie, but you have hurt your position.

You claim that you don't know what economic freedom is.

I think you're lying.

You just don't want to acknowledge that economic freedom is equally important and indeed essential for protecting social freedoms. Any divisions drawn between freedom in an economic sphere and freedom in a social sphere are purely cosmetic, artificial divisions meant to downplay the importance of economic freedom. Your right to spend your dollar as you choose, and to earn as many dollars as you are personally capable of is an essential freedom.

You have arbitrarily decided that freedom ends where you draw the line between social and economic issues. I believe that maximizing freedom in all forms should be the shaping force behind the creation of our policies, and you do not.

I said I don't have any idea what you mean by "restricting economic freedoms". Its a buzzword. It has no meaning, unless defined. A "free economy" means different things to different people.

To a swede, it may mean one thing.

To one of those libertarian kooks, who took over that island off of Tonga, it may mean something else.

I can't address you questions or assertions, if they're couched in ill-defined buzzwords.

 

[Battleborne]

LMAO...........

I'm not a socialist, and I don't know a single democrat who is a socialist. I've never even heard a single Democratic candidate talk about going as far as transforming us into a carbon copy of Sweden or Norway, which are allegedly socialist countries according to many or some libertarian sympathizers.

FDR certainly wasn't a socialist. His stated goal was to save capitalism from the siren song of 1930s socialism, or fascism..... By smoothing off the hard edges of lassaize faire capitialism, to make it more tolerable for the working woman or man. It seemed to work. The 50 years after the new deal witnessed the greatest economic expansion of any country in world history. And it marked an era of increasing social and economic equality, and the rise of a large middle class.

I'm not sure what restricting economic freedoms means. That's a buzzword that get thrown around a lot. I can only assume it pertains to taxes and regulation. I have no emotional investment in ill-defined, generalities like "taxes" or "regulation. My view is that we need a revenue-based public service, and regulation of commerce, environment, and safety that is adequate to serve the needs of a functioning economy, while preserving and protecting the public interest.

Such denial...from the far far side of left...see my post on your babe Hillary...she is a card carrying(in essence) Commie...from the get go...go have a cup of tea/coffee or Vodka with your bud Putin!

 

[Epicurus]

I said I don't have any idea what you mean by "restricting economic freedoms". Its a buzzword. It has no meaning, unless defined. A "free economy" means different things to different people.

To a swede, it may mean one thing.

To one of those libertarian kooks, who took over that island off of Tonga, it may mean something else.

I can't address you questions or assertions, if they're couched in ill-defined buzzwords.

Is "civil rights" a buzzword?

By your logic it may mean one thing to one person and one to another, therefore rendering it useless as a concept.

Stop being an intentional fucking idiot.

 

[Cypress]

Cypress is so dishonest. What did he close his eyes and put his hands over his ears when Bernie Sanders was elected?

He's either an intentional fabricator or blithely unaware of the current membership and platform of his own party.

Is Bernie Sanders a democrat? No, he's not.

And if you imagine that the variety of "socialism" represented by Sanders, has anything to do with soviet, cuban, or north korean socialism, then you don't know much about him.

Warren, we're done if you have to resort to accusing people of being liars.

Grow up

 

[Cypress]

Is "civil rights" a buzzword?

By your logic it may mean one thing to one person and one to another, therefore rendering it useless as a concept.

Stop being an intentional fucking idiot.

Is "civil rights" a buzzword?

Yes. Alberto Gonzalez and George Bush both claim to be as big a defender of civil liberties, as Russ Fiengold or Ted Kennedy.

Lets talk about warrantless wiretapping, domestic spying, habeus corpus, and guantanomo bay, rather than everyone from Dick Chency, to Ralph Nader sitting around claiming that they defend "civil liberties"

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Is Bernie Sanders a democrat? No, he's not.

And if you imagine that the variety of "socialism" represented by Sanders, has anything to do with soviet, cuban, or north korean socialism, then you don't know much about him.

Warren, we're done if you have to resort to accusing people of being liars.

Grow up

There's more self-declared socialists in congress than just Sanders. Sanders does caucus with the Democrats, and he's the only socialist in the senate. Granted, socialists are vastly underrepresented in congress compared to their numbers in the population (much like libertarians), but I doubt Warren minds that. And none of the socialists are even as radical as their European kin, and even the European socialists don't believe the government should own everything.

 

[Epicurus]

Is Bernie Sanders a democrat? No, he's not.

And if you imagine that the variety of "socialism" represented by Sanders, has anything to do with soviet, cuban, or north korean socialism, then you don't know much about him.

Warren, we're done if you have to resort to accusing people of being liars.

Grow up

Dude you're the one who is trying to deny that a self-identified Socialist votes and caucuses with your party in Congress.

I don't believe for a second that you didn't know that fact. Take it as a compliment if you want. You're smarter than that shit.

"I DON'T KNOW A SINGLE DEMOCRAT WHO IS A SOCIALIST!!111"

 

[Socrtease]

Soc is the moral conscience of JPP libertarians. He is never afraid to show us when we have allowed ourselves to be blinded by ideology and political convenience. He reminds us daily that while our biggest point of debate on JPP might be economic issues, respect for human rights and dignity are equally important elements that any true libertarian should be concerned about.

Wow Warren thanks. I don't know how many other feel that way but I appreciate that you see me that way. I try.

 

[Battleborne]

LOL..............

Dude you're the one who is trying to deny that a self-identified Socialist votes and caucuses with your party in Congress.

I don't believe for a second that you didn't know that fact. Take it as a compliment if you want. You're smarter than that shit.

"I DON'T KNOW A SINGLE DEMOCRAT WHO IS A SOCIALIST!!111"

You are a bright kid...however just be blunt...it works wonders...Darla and Cippie are Communists...wether they admit it or not...the old 'mis-information' game at it's best!...old school stuff really!

 

[Cypress]

Dude you're the one who is trying to deny that a self-identified Socialist votes and caucuses with your party in Congress.

"

Please show me the thread, where I denied that Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) caucuses with the dems.

When you can't find it, please return and apologize for your slurs.

I said no Democratic party members in congress, or in the Democratic party generally, advocate socialism...socialism as is defined in every encylopedia you can lay your hands on.