Libertarian Anarchist

[Paulie]

Gotta go occupied but I hope I've addressed your points with specificity, logic and reason...and without a personal attack. Even if you continue to be skeptical, I think we demonstrated a reasonable level of consistency in libertarian ideas. I wish you the best in your quest for knowledge.

You at least gave it an effort and I thank you but I am no closer to accepting that this voodoo is not potentially fraught with unintended consequences.

We would argue that widespread dependance on government is a pretty significant unintended consequence of financial assistance.

And who knows, maybe it was intended.

 

[occupied]

Gotta go occupied but I hope I've addressed your points with specificity, logic and reason...and without a personal attack. Even if you continue to be skeptical, I think we demonstrated a reasonable level of consistency in libertarian ideas. I wish you the best in your quest for knowledge.

You at least gave it an effort and I thank you but I am no closer to accepting that this voodoo is not potentially fraught with unintended consequences.

We would argue that widespread dependance on government is a pretty significant unintended consequence of financial assistance.

And who knows, maybe it was intended.

I see cause and effect as a chain that reaches back to the discovery of fire and the development of thumbs. The growth of the welfare state is a consequence of stagnant wages and rising scarcity of decent upwardly mobile jobs which is the result of.... a lot of other things, I feel it is better to attack the disease of poverty by honestly addressing the causes rather than throw out the medicine because it tastes yucky, and no I do not accept the theory that dependence breeds dependence except as a consequence of the almost disappearance of upward mobility in our society.

 

[OKTexas]

I've read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers... True Story.

Did the Founders Practice what you Beleive they Intended?...

And I'm Relatively Certain that they didn't Agree with one another on many Issues...

Correct?



peace...

Yep, they had disagreements, hence the 3/5ths of a person for slaves, to deny the south of representation, some didn't want them counted at all for the same reason. They came together, put something together they thought would work and wrote it down. Hamilton wanted a very powerful central government, he lost the debate and the debate was verified by the first congress and the states with the passage and ratification of the bill of rights. Then more than a hundred years later SCOTUS ignored the intent of the Constitution and the 10th admendment and gave Hamilton his victory.

So in Practice, say the first 20 years after the Constitution... How did the Founders do with whatever you Believe their "Intent" was?...



peace...

Domestically things went pretty well, I'm not say there were no bumps in the road, but at least since most of the supreme court had first had knowledge of original intent they stopped allot of things that could have happened.

 

[konradv]

The thing is that they actually know this. They just say it as a justification to dismiss what you're saying.

It's not that you're not sincere, I'm sure you are. The problem comes in the neglecting to think out the results of ones philosophy. The Marxists had the same problem. Eventually a well meaning ideology gets hi-jacked by opportunists. Believing either philosophy requires the belief that human nature can be changed. I don't see it coming anytime soon.

 

[occupied]

The thing is that they actually know this. They just say it as a justification to dismiss what you're saying.

It's not that you're not sincere, I'm sure you are. The problem comes in the neglecting to think out the results of ones philosophy. The Marxists had the same problem. Eventually a well meaning ideology gets hi-jacked by opportunists. Believing either philosophy requires the belief that human nature can be changed. I don't see it coming anytime soon.

True that, what killed communism more than anything was the cult of personality that was required to run what Marx envisioned as a stateless society. Libertarianism would require the same strong, nearly unaccountable leaders to get it off the ground but leaders being what they are it would never evolve into a situation where the chief executive gave back his emergency powers to the people, it's human nature to be authoritarian, fact of life. The republican form of government seems to work best when it protects the weak from the strong because the strong are just not that ethical or nice as a group and cannot be trusted at all.

 

[OKTexas]

The thing is that they actually know this. They just say it as a justification to dismiss what you're saying.

It's not that you're not sincere, I'm sure you are. The problem comes in the neglecting to think out the results of ones philosophy. The Marxists had the same problem. Eventually a well meaning ideology gets hi-jacked by opportunists. Believing either philosophy requires the belief that human nature can be changed. I don't see it coming anytime soon.

True that, what killed communism more than anything was the cult of personality that was required to run what Marx envisioned as a stateless society. Libertarianism would require the same strong, nearly unaccountable leaders to get it off the ground but leaders being what they are it would never evolve into a situation where the chief executive gave back his emergency powers to the people, it's human nature to be authoritarian, fact of life. The republican form of government seems to work best when it protects the weak from the strong because the strong are just not that ethical or nice as a group and cannot be trusted at all.

There is nothing to say a republican form of government and libertarianism are incompatable, it just means a smaller, less intrusive government, versus the be all to everyone bloated piece of crap we have today.

 

[occupied]

It's not that you're not sincere, I'm sure you are. The problem comes in the neglecting to think out the results of ones philosophy. The Marxists had the same problem. Eventually a well meaning ideology gets hi-jacked by opportunists. Believing either philosophy requires the belief that human nature can be changed. I don't see it coming anytime soon.

True that, what killed communism more than anything was the cult of personality that was required to run what Marx envisioned as a stateless society. Libertarianism would require the same strong, nearly unaccountable leaders to get it off the ground but leaders being what they are it would never evolve into a situation where the chief executive gave back his emergency powers to the people, it's human nature to be authoritarian, fact of life. The republican form of government seems to work best when it protects the weak from the strong because the strong are just not that ethical or nice as a group and cannot be trusted at all.

There is nothing to say a republican form of government and libertarianism are incompatable, it just means a smaller, less intrusive government, versus the be all to everyone bloated piece of crap we have today.

It's not, but freedom is not a likely result of trying to convert. Take any person you can think of short of Jesus himself, and put him to stripping out all of the regulations and safety nets from our society because it would take a dictator with emergency powers to ignore the special interests, would you trust him to put back sufficient safeguards for liberty when the military is powerful, the billionaires are powerful and the people are momentarily undefended from the worst of their greed and avarice? Could you trust any politician in that situation? Not me, no sir, never on your life, tyranny would follow the biggest bribe in history.

 

[Paulie]

The thing is that they actually know this. They just say it as a justification to dismiss what you're saying.

It's not that you're not sincere, I'm sure you are. The problem comes in the neglecting to think out the results of ones philosophy. The Marxists had the same problem. Eventually a well meaning ideology gets hi-jacked by opportunists. Believing either philosophy requires the belief that human nature can be changed. I don't see it coming anytime soon.

If humans are imperfect and human nature is to tend towards greed, then what makes you think human-created regulations as the be all end all are going to be the saving grace?

Regulations as a barrier to market entry are a prime example of GREED, with big business lobbying for and receiving the regulations THEY want, to keep competition at bay.

At the end of the day, we have to trust HUMANS to make sure the regulations are fair and practical. But human nature tends towards greed, right? So you'll have to forgive me if I'm not as optimistic about that as you are.

 

[bripat9643]

libertarian philosophy is historically failed philosophy

You put "libertarian" where you meant "liberal/socialist," right?

 

[bripat9643]

Maybe you could provide her an example of where libertarianism has been successfully implemented.

That will shut her up

Here's your example: The USA prior to Woodrow "the archangel" Wilson.

 

[bripat9643]

the libertarians are austrians.

It is known as the short bus school of economics.

i gave you a link

Ludwig von Mises is the only economist who predicted the Great Depression, but they are "the short bus school of economics?"

 

[bripat9643]

Our founding fathers had no other choice. The nation was bankrupt ...

Then, as now.

We are now the wealthiest nation on earth.

We were not even in the top 20 then

ROFL! How do you know that?

The USA was actually quite wealthy right from the start.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The thing is that they actually know this. They just say it as a justification to dismiss what you're saying.

It's not that you're not sincere, I'm sure you are. The problem comes in the neglecting to think out the results of ones philosophy. The Marxists had the same problem. Eventually a well meaning ideology gets hi-jacked by opportunists. Believing either philosophy requires the belief that human nature can be changed. I don't see it coming anytime soon.

If humans are imperfect and human nature is to tend towards greed, then what makes you think human-created regulations as the be all end all are going to be the saving grace?

Regulations as a barrier to market entry are a prime example of GREED, with big business lobbying for and receiving the regulations THEY want, to keep competition at bay.

At the end of the day, we have to trust HUMANS to make sure the regulations are fair and practical. But human nature tends towards greed, right? So you'll have to forgive me if I'm not as optimistic about that as you are.

"If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action." - Ludwig von Mises

 

[bripat9643]

The austrian school of economics is Not veiwed very well by the rest of the economics field.

You mean it's not viewed well by a gang of paid propagandists sucking on the government tit?

Who would have ever thunk it?

 

[bripat9643]

when in history has libertarian philosophy been proven to work in real life?

Go get an example in history

It's proven every time it's tried.

The USA prior to the Archangel Woodrow Wilson.

 

[OKTexas]

True that, what killed communism more than anything was the cult of personality that was required to run what Marx envisioned as a stateless society. Libertarianism would require the same strong, nearly unaccountable leaders to get it off the ground but leaders being what they are it would never evolve into a situation where the chief executive gave back his emergency powers to the people, it's human nature to be authoritarian, fact of life. The republican form of government seems to work best when it protects the weak from the strong because the strong are just not that ethical or nice as a group and cannot be trusted at all.

There is nothing to say a republican form of government and libertarianism are incompatable, it just means a smaller, less intrusive government, versus the be all to everyone bloated piece of crap we have today.

It's not, but freedom is not a likely result of trying to convert. Take any person you can think of short of Jesus himself, and put him to stripping out all of the regulations and safety nets from our society because it would take a dictator with emergency powers to ignore the special interests, would you trust him to put back sufficient safeguards for liberty when the military is powerful, the billionaires are powerful and the people are momentarily undefended from the worst of their greed and avarice? Could you trust any politician in that situation? Not me, no sir, never on your life, tyranny would follow the biggest bribe in history.

You act as if the conversion would have to take place in a day, in order to maintaln a civil society, things would have to be phased out or in what ever the case. Things like social security may take 30-40 years to phase out so people can alter their long term plans, other programs shouldn't take that long. All it takes is adults establishing an end point and then do what is necessary to make it happen. We know what we're doing now won't work in the long term, besides the national debt we have some where around 100-150 trillion in unfunded liabilities and don't have the resources to meet them. The hard decisions will have to be made sooner or later, so do we start to fix it now or just kick the can down the road and let the kids worry about it?

 

[occupied]

There is nothing to say a republican form of government and libertarianism are incompatable, it just means a smaller, less intrusive government, versus the be all to everyone bloated piece of crap we have today.

It's not, but freedom is not a likely result of trying to convert. Take any person you can think of short of Jesus himself, and put him to stripping out all of the regulations and safety nets from our society because it would take a dictator with emergency powers to ignore the special interests, would you trust him to put back sufficient safeguards for liberty when the military is powerful, the billionaires are powerful and the people are momentarily undefended from the worst of their greed and avarice? Could you trust any politician in that situation? Not me, no sir, never on your life, tyranny would follow the biggest bribe in history.

You act as if the conversion would have to take place in a day, in order to maintaln a civil society, things would have to be phased out or in what ever the case. Things like social security may take 30-40 years to phase out so people can alter their long term plans, other programs shouldn't take that long. All it takes is adults establishing an end point and then do what is necessary to make it happen. We know what we're doing now won't work in the long term, besides the national debt we have some where around 100-150 trillion in unfunded liabilities and don't have the resources to meet them. The hard decisions will have to be made sooner or later, so do we start to fix it now or just kick the can down the road and let the kids worry about it?

Shit, Americans do not have that kind of patience and political will. We can't really even put plans in place that do not bear major fruition within four years but you think we can totally rewrite all our laws, regulations, alter several constitutional amendments and carry it off over the space of at least a couple of generations and not fuck that up? You people really are ignorant of human nature.

 

[OKTexas]

It's not, but freedom is not a likely result of trying to convert. Take any person you can think of short of Jesus himself, and put him to stripping out all of the regulations and safety nets from our society because it would take a dictator with emergency powers to ignore the special interests, would you trust him to put back sufficient safeguards for liberty when the military is powerful, the billionaires are powerful and the people are momentarily undefended from the worst of their greed and avarice? Could you trust any politician in that situation? Not me, no sir, never on your life, tyranny would follow the biggest bribe in history.

You act as if the conversion would have to take place in a day, in order to maintaln a civil society, things would have to be phased out or in what ever the case. Things like social security may take 30-40 years to phase out so people can alter their long term plans, other programs shouldn't take that long. All it takes is adults establishing an end point and then do what is necessary to make it happen. We know what we're doing now won't work in the long term, besides the national debt we have some where around 100-150 trillion in unfunded liabilities and don't have the resources to meet them. The hard decisions will have to be made sooner or later, so do we start to fix it now or just kick the can down the road and let the kids worry about it?

Shit, Americans do not have that kind of patience and political will. We can't really even put plans in place that do not bear major fruition within four years but you think we can totally rewrite all our laws, regulations, alter several constitutional amendments and carry it off over the space of at least a couple of generations and not fuck that up? You people really are ignorant of human nature.

The alternative, becoming Greece on steroids. I just hope I'm dead before it happens.

 

[occupied]

You act as if the conversion would have to take place in a day, in order to maintaln a civil society, things would have to be phased out or in what ever the case. Things like social security may take 30-40 years to phase out so people can alter their long term plans, other programs shouldn't take that long. All it takes is adults establishing an end point and then do what is necessary to make it happen. We know what we're doing now won't work in the long term, besides the national debt we have some where around 100-150 trillion in unfunded liabilities and don't have the resources to meet them. The hard decisions will have to be made sooner or later, so do we start to fix it now or just kick the can down the road and let the kids worry about it?

Shit, Americans do not have that kind of patience and political will. We can't really even put plans in place that do not bear major fruition within four years but you think we can totally rewrite all our laws, regulations, alter several constitutional amendments and carry it off over the space of at least a couple of generations and not fuck that up? You people really are ignorant of human nature.

The alternative, becoming Greece on steroids. I just hope I'm dead before it happens.

We will be the last country on earth to go the way of Greece, calm down, no need to freak out, you just suggested political reforms that would take longer than our lifetimes, mine anyway, you may be a pup still, but if nothing else you can rest assured that if we are in the shape of Greece then the rest of the world will be in the shape of Ethiopia. Cool heads bravely going slow and steady is the key, it's how conservatives used to feel about governance, nothing is to be gained by such unreasoning fear.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It's not that you're not sincere, I'm sure you are. The problem comes in the neglecting to think out the results of ones philosophy. The Marxists had the same problem. Eventually a well meaning ideology gets hi-jacked by opportunists. Believing either philosophy requires the belief that human nature can be changed. I don't see it coming anytime soon.

If humans are imperfect and human nature is to tend towards greed, then what makes you think human-created regulations as the be all end all are going to be the saving grace?

Regulations as a barrier to market entry are a prime example of GREED, with big business lobbying for and receiving the regulations THEY want, to keep competition at bay.

At the end of the day, we have to trust HUMANS to make sure the regulations are fair and practical. But human nature tends towards greed, right? So you'll have to forgive me if I'm not as optimistic about that as you are.

"If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action." - Ludwig von Mises

It's the very essence of liberty vs. the State.