The three main goals of libertarianism

[RKMBrown]

And as government continues to take over our healthcare system, you're going to start to regret it. As I've pointed out, that is fundamentally different than other programs other than Social Security/Medicare as it makes EVERY citizen dependent on government for their basic needs.

I'm tired of this argument though, had enough of them in the last election. Libertarians way too often see what they want to. Sadly the inability to tell the party that is useless and pathetic from the one that is a malignant cancer on our liberty just seems to go with that.

No I wont. I don't think of time in 4year increments I think of time in lifetime increments. You want my vote? Easy fix, put up a constitutional conservative and you will have my vote. Keep putting up bigoted 70year old candidates who believe in compassionate conservatism aka socialist style authoritarian war hawk religious right conservatism. and you will never get my vote. Never, I have principles that I won't cross. So there it is, you have a choice, possibly win an election by putting up socialists like Cristie, or possibly win an election by putting up a constitutional conservative like Johnson, Reagan, Rubio, Rand Paul, etc.

Anyway, the election is over and I'm sure we're both tired of this argument. So let's let it go. No disrespect intended at all in that, and I look forward to continue to posting with you, most often on the same side.

No dis-respect taken or intended. I understand the frustration. I understand the desire to compromise to make progress. When it comes to voting I won't compromise from picking the best candidate and voting for him, irregardless of whether that vote is likely to be a waste, and irregardless of whether my lack of voting for the two media selected candidates is seen as a vote for the other side of the two headed democrat/republican party. Another way to fix it is to fix the election system so I can vote 1) Libertarian Candidate 2) Republican Candidate 3) Democrat Candidate 4) Green Candidate .... leaving out facism and communism candidates at the end or off my list.

 

[JoeNormal]

OMG!! You mean the Japanese were more competitive in making things like flat screen TVs so they out performed the competition!!??? CALL THE FUCKIN' PRESS!

That's how competition works, Joe.

Holy fucking shit, you cannot possibly be as goddamned stupid as you come across.

Note to people who want Libertarianism to take hold:

I was at one time enough of a libertarian to stiffle my gag reflex for long enough to register as a repulican so I could vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. Didn't seem to help. It's not that Paul's platform had no holes in it but I thought that a man of integrity pulling in the opposite direction of where we were headed seemed like a good thing at the time.

Since then, I've met what appears to be the Libertarian mainstream both in person and on web sites such as this. The level of pure fantasy and willful ignorance to the real threats that large entities such as multinational corporations pose makes it clear that I'm not really a Libertarian.

If you want to see your movement progress beyond a footnote in history, you should fix that.

Please explain how you propose we manage everything that everyone says that is contrary to reasoned thought. Should we start with your rage post, or with the response that threw you into a rage?

Well, I'm sure there is no such thing as 'Libertarian central' where points of this ideology are solidified. So I suppose that it falls upon the individual members of that ideology to do what they can to make it seem like a realistic alternative to the oligarchy that currently controls everything.

And if this were the only thread in which points were either ignored or addressed via talking points, I probably wouldn't have been so prickly.

 

[RKMBrown]

.

Since then, I've met what appears to be the Libertarian mainstream both in person and on web sites such as this. The level of pure fantasy and willful ignorance to the real threats that large entities such as multinational corporations pose makes it clear that I'm not really a Libertarian.

If you want to see your movement progress beyond a footnote in history, you should fix that.

The Libertarian Party may never win an election and that is too bad. The ONLY thing they market is INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.

But if you have parasitic tendencies and believes that government owes you a living then we can not help.

If you believe that government should dictate to companies and force them to pay their employees a certain amount or sell for a centrally designated price then stay where you are.

.

Here's a little bit about me. I've been gainfully employed for 36 years - 25 as a professional. In that time, I've collected a grand total of 2 weeks of unemployment, zero social security and I've leaned on the system in terms of benefits for my kids very gently. I'm for military non-intervention and resent corporate welfare and sustained handouts for society's leaches. You'd think I'd be prime Libertarian material, wouldn't you?

I just see a gaping hole in Libertarian ideology and unless all that talk about personal liberty is just wishful thinking or "if only...", I think the movement could gain some traction if a few things were addressed in a realistic way.

IOW you are a constitutional conservative like the founders. Many libertarians are with you. However, as with all other parties no two people think alike. Many folks in a party are radicals. Libertarian radicals appear to like to enrage everyone who does not rage with them against all government intervention. These libertarians do not agree with the libertarians that formed this country. They are not constitutional conservatives, they are what some would call anarchists who are against just about everything we use governments for. Just as authoritarian runs the gamut of socialism to conservatism, so too libertarian runs the gamut of anarchy to constitutional liberty prescribed by our original Constitution.

 

[JoeNormal]

The Libertarian Party may never win an election and that is too bad. The ONLY thing they market is INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.

But if you have parasitic tendencies and believes that government owes you a living then we can not help.

If you believe that government should dictate to companies and force them to pay their employees a certain amount or sell for a centrally designated price then stay where you are.

.

Here's a little bit about me. I've been gainfully employed for 36 years - 25 as a professional. In that time, I've collected a grand total of 2 weeks of unemployment, zero social security and I've leaned on the system in terms of benefits for my kids very gently. I'm for military non-intervention and resent corporate welfare and sustained handouts for society's leaches. You'd think I'd be prime Libertarian material, wouldn't you?

I just see a gaping hole in Libertarian ideology and unless all that talk about personal liberty is just wishful thinking or "if only...", I think the movement could gain some traction if a few things were addressed in a realistic way.

IOW you are a constitutional conservative like the founders. Many libertarians are with you. However, as with all other parties no two people think alike. Many folks in a party are radicals. Libertarian radicals appear to like to enrage everyone who does not rage with them against all government intervention. These libertarians do not agree with the libertarians that formed this country. They are not constitutional conservatives, they are what some would call anarchists who are against just about everything we use governments for. Just as authoritarian runs the gamut of socialism to conservatism, so too libertarian runs the gamut of anarchy to constitutional liberty prescribed by our original Constitution.

Good points.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Your three examples of corporate take over in leu of a government to "stop" it, were all addressed based on the merit of the examples.

Monsanto - govt. granted monopoly in patents of life form - govt. direct involvement in soldifiying their gains

The japanese - I pointed out that it was competition, only to have RKMBrown come in adn even further solidy it as a two-fold failure. The govt., our govt. granted a failing nations govt. money to press into the sector - govt. involvement.

So on the one hand, had they legitimately gained competitive edge, that's not along the lines of running at a lose for however long it takes to kill competition. On the other hand, they were granted money from our govt. to their govt. in order to press the industry along further to make the goods cheaper - govt. involvement.

Had they not had that "borrowed" money from govt., Japan wouldn't have had the means to press the sector in that fashion. Ever heard of the japanese miracle or the lost decade?


So, if you'd like, I'll let you go ahead and show how corporations will take over via example in leu of government interference.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The Libertarian Party may never win an election and that is too bad. The ONLY thing they market is INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.

But if you have parasitic tendencies and believes that government owes you a living then we can not help.

If you believe that government should dictate to companies and force them to pay their employees a certain amount or sell for a centrally designated price then stay where you are.

.

Here's a little bit about me. I've been gainfully employed for 36 years - 25 as a professional. In that time, I've collected a grand total of 2 weeks of unemployment, zero social security and I've leaned on the system in terms of benefits for my kids very gently. I'm for military non-intervention and resent corporate welfare and sustained handouts for society's leaches. You'd think I'd be prime Libertarian material, wouldn't you?

I just see a gaping hole in Libertarian ideology and unless all that talk about personal liberty is just wishful thinking or "if only...", I think the movement could gain some traction if a few things were addressed in a realistic way.

IOW you are a constitutional conservative like the founders. Many libertarians are with you. However, as with all other parties no two people think alike. Many folks in a party are radicals. Libertarian radicals appear to like to enrage everyone who does not rage with them against all government intervention. These libertarians do not agree with the libertarians that formed this country. They are not constitutional conservatives, they are what some would call anarchists who are against just about everything we use governments for. Just as authoritarian runs the gamut of socialism to conservatism, so too libertarian runs the gamut of anarchy to constitutional liberty prescribed by our original Constitution.

I was once a constitutionalist. What i found out is that no matter how much we want to keep the State in check, they will always find ways to molest the constitution for their purposes of power and control. There is no magic bullet or feiry dust that will keep the State rent seekers from overstepping their bounds and doing it regularly. When you couple this together with the reality that representational government is a myth, you have to walk a few extra steps down the path of anarchy. I'm what many would call Rothbardian. I would happily accept constitutional government in the USA. However, in reality, this is where that constitution has led us to, so i must continue quesitoning its validity in the realms of the State. And that's where I'm far more an advocate of a voluntaryist society or anarcho-capitalist.

Libertarianims holds many of the same principles as both anarcho-capitalists and voluntaryists. The reality is, none of these forms of peaceful self governance will ever happen. The State is nothing better than when Kings ruled by divine right. it's simply morphed to be more palatable to the everyday citizen through the theater of the ballot box and respresentation. Which far more often than not, doesn't even represent 50% of the citizens, let alone 100%.

So, I'm libertarian in that i agree with the main principles of the constitution. But the reality of where it has taken us, leaves me no choice but to seriously quesiton its validity in keeping the "necessary evil" of governmetn in check.

 

[RKMBrown]

Holy fucking shit, you cannot possibly be as goddamned stupid as you come across.

Note to people who want Libertarianism to take hold:

I was at one time enough of a libertarian to stiffle my gag reflex for long enough to register as a repulican so I could vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. Didn't seem to help. It's not that Paul's platform had no holes in it but I thought that a man of integrity pulling in the opposite direction of where we were headed seemed like a good thing at the time.

Since then, I've met what appears to be the Libertarian mainstream both in person and on web sites such as this. The level of pure fantasy and willful ignorance to the real threats that large entities such as multinational corporations pose makes it clear that I'm not really a Libertarian.

If you want to see your movement progress beyond a footnote in history, you should fix that.

Please explain how you propose we manage everything that everyone says that is contrary to reasoned thought. Should we start with your rage post, or with the response that threw you into a rage?

Well, I'm sure there is no such thing as 'Libertarian central' where points of this ideology are solidified. So I suppose that it falls upon the individual members of that ideology to do what they can to make it seem like a realistic alternative to the oligarchy that currently controls everything.

And if this were the only thread in which points were either ignored or addressed via talking points, I probably wouldn't have been so prickly.

Do I think the libertarian party is a realistic alternative? Hell no. We need a consitutional conservative party, that is free of the crazy baggage brought by the anarchist libertarians. Only then will we get to a realistic alternative to the authoritarian republican party. In the alternative we can continue to elect tea party constitutional conservative candidates and reform the pubs that way.

We need to change the debate away from which government solutions we want, to a debate of liberty vs. having a government solution for everything that eliminates liberty, responsibility, self determination, and success.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The three main goals of libertarianism


1) Decrease wages salaries and benefits for the poor and middle class as much as possible. Lower wages salaries and benefits for those who labor means those who own can profit more.

Smaller less expensive government would mean people have MORE left in their paychecks not less.

2) Decrease taxes on the wealthy as much as possible. No explanation needed.

Tax everyone and every dollar of income at the same rate. 100% impartial 100% fair.

3) Remove all regulations that make it harder for the wealthy to herd the poor like cattle - and remove all regulations that make it possible for a healthy middle class to exist. Regulation is the enemy of profit and profit is the only thing that matters.

The only herding going on is by the fucking government.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Please explain how you propose we manage everything that everyone says that is contrary to reasoned thought. Should we start with your rage post, or with the response that threw you into a rage?

Well, I'm sure there is no such thing as 'Libertarian central' where points of this ideology are solidified. So I suppose that it falls upon the individual members of that ideology to do what they can to make it seem like a realistic alternative to the oligarchy that currently controls everything.

And if this were the only thread in which points were either ignored or addressed via talking points, I probably wouldn't have been so prickly.

Do I think the libertarian party is a realistic alternative? Hell no. We need a consitutional conservative party, that is free of the crazy baggage brought by the anarchist libertarians. Only then will we get to a realistic alternative to the authoritarian republican party. In the alternative we can continue to elect tea party constitutional conservative candidates and reform the pubs that way.

You'll never restore the constitution to its original principles. Just look at how far over the lines it has crossed through SCOTUS rulings. All those Tea Party people get in and find themselves entrenched the same as other rent seekers with special interests and its off to the same races that it was before they arrived.

it's a day dream to think we're going back to when the constitution actually meant something.

 

[bripat9643]

I was once a constitutionalist. What i found out is that no matter how much we want to keep the State in check, they will always find ways to molest the constitution for their purposes of power and control. There is no magic bullet or feiry dust that will keep the State rent seekers from overstepping their bounds and doing it regularly. When you couple this together with the reality that representational government is a myth, you have to walk a few extra steps down the path of anarchy. I'm what many would call Rothbardian. I would happily accept constitutional government in the USA. However, in reality, this is where that constitution has led us to, so i must continue quesitoning its validity in the realms of the State. And that's where I'm far more an advocate of a voluntaryist society or anarcho-capitalist.

Libertarianims holds many of the same principles as both anarcho-capitalists and voluntaryists. The reality is, none of these forms of peaceful self governance will ever happen. The State is nothing better than when Kings ruled by divine right. it's simply morphed to be more palatable to the everyday citizen through the theater of the ballot box and respresentation. Which far more often than not, doesn't even represent 50% of the citizens, let alone 100%.

So, I'm libertarian in that i agree with the main principles of the constitution. But the reality of where it has taken us, leaves me no choice but to seriously quesiton its validity in keeping the "necessary evil" of governmetn in check.

I agree 100%. If limited government could work, I would be for it. However, history has shown the limited government is never more than a purely temporary phenomenon. It quickly metastasizes into the leviathan. The only way to cure a cancer is to excise it from the body. That's what needs to happen with government.

 

[RKMBrown]

Here's a little bit about me. I've been gainfully employed for 36 years - 25 as a professional. In that time, I've collected a grand total of 2 weeks of unemployment, zero social security and I've leaned on the system in terms of benefits for my kids very gently. I'm for military non-intervention and resent corporate welfare and sustained handouts for society's leaches. You'd think I'd be prime Libertarian material, wouldn't you?

I just see a gaping hole in Libertarian ideology and unless all that talk about personal liberty is just wishful thinking or "if only...", I think the movement could gain some traction if a few things were addressed in a realistic way.

IOW you are a constitutional conservative like the founders. Many libertarians are with you. However, as with all other parties no two people think alike. Many folks in a party are radicals. Libertarian radicals appear to like to enrage everyone who does not rage with them against all government intervention. These libertarians do not agree with the libertarians that formed this country. They are not constitutional conservatives, they are what some would call anarchists who are against just about everything we use governments for. Just as authoritarian runs the gamut of socialism to conservatism, so too libertarian runs the gamut of anarchy to constitutional liberty prescribed by our original Constitution.

I was once a constitutionalist. What i found out is that no matter how much we want to keep the State in check, they will always find ways to molest the constitution for their purposes of power and control. There is no magic bullet or feiry dust that will keep the State rent seekers from overstepping their bounds and doing it regularly. When you couple this together with the reality that representational government is a myth, you have to walk a few extra steps down the path of anarchy. I'm what many would call Rothbardian. I would happily accept constitutional government in the USA. However, in reality, this is where that constitution has led us to, so i must continue quesitoning its validity in the realms of the State. And that's where I'm far more an advocate of a voluntaryist society or anarcho-capitalist.

Libertarianims holds many of the same principles as both anarcho-capitalists and voluntaryists. The reality is, none of these forms of peaceful self governance will ever happen. The State is nothing better than when Kings ruled by divine right. it's simply morphed to be more palatable to the everyday citizen through the theater of the ballot box and respresentation. Which far more often than not, doesn't even represent 50% of the citizens, let alone 100%.

So, I'm libertarian in that i agree with the main principles of the constitution. But the reality of where it has taken us, leaves me no choice but to seriously quesiton its validity in keeping the "necessary evil" of governmetn in check.

IMO we should be a republic. Thus IMO all of our current issues go back to one guiding principle that was broken, and that was the 14th that purposefully ended the republic by over-ridding the the 10th amendment with the due-process clause. The republic ended with the forced signing of that clause at the point of the gun.

 

[bripat9643]

Well, I'm sure there is no such thing as 'Libertarian central' where points of this ideology are solidified. So I suppose that it falls upon the individual members of that ideology to do what they can to make it seem like a realistic alternative to the oligarchy that currently controls everything.

And if this were the only thread in which points were either ignored or addressed via talking points, I probably wouldn't have been so prickly.

Do I think the libertarian party is a realistic alternative? Hell no. We need a consitutional conservative party, that is free of the crazy baggage brought by the anarchist libertarians. Only then will we get to a realistic alternative to the authoritarian republican party. In the alternative we can continue to elect tea party constitutional conservative candidates and reform the pubs that way.

You'll never restore the constitution to its original principles. Just look at how far over the lines it has crossed through SCOTUS rulings. All those Tea Party people get in and find themselves entrenched the same as other rent seekers with special interests and its off to the same races that it was before they arrived.

it's a day dream to think we're going back to when the constitution actually meant something.

I think the only way it will ever happen is if a bunch of libertarians move to an island in the Caribbean and then overthrow the government. The Cayman Islands might be good location. It wouldn't take more than a few hundred thousand libertarians to relocate there to get the job done. Of course, the U.S. Federal government would immediately try to restore the previous government, so the new government would have to invest substantial amounts into weapons, especially anti-aircraft missiles.

It could get rather bloody.

 

[RKMBrown]

Well, I'm sure there is no such thing as 'Libertarian central' where points of this ideology are solidified. So I suppose that it falls upon the individual members of that ideology to do what they can to make it seem like a realistic alternative to the oligarchy that currently controls everything.

And if this were the only thread in which points were either ignored or addressed via talking points, I probably wouldn't have been so prickly.

Do I think the libertarian party is a realistic alternative? Hell no. We need a consitutional conservative party, that is free of the crazy baggage brought by the anarchist libertarians. Only then will we get to a realistic alternative to the authoritarian republican party. In the alternative we can continue to elect tea party constitutional conservative candidates and reform the pubs that way.

You'll never restore the constitution to its original principles. Just look at how far over the lines it has crossed through SCOTUS rulings. All those Tea Party people get in and find themselves entrenched the same as other rent seekers with special interests and its off to the same races that it was before they arrived.

it's a day dream to think we're going back to when the constitution actually meant something.

Perhaps. Which day dream do you think has a better chance, my dream of outlawing federal income tax and the part in the 14th that allows the government to take our property with due process, or your idea for a pseudo anarchist system you call an anarcho-capitalist system?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Do I think the libertarian party is a realistic alternative? Hell no. We need a consitutional conservative party, that is free of the crazy baggage brought by the anarchist libertarians. Only then will we get to a realistic alternative to the authoritarian republican party. In the alternative we can continue to elect tea party constitutional conservative candidates and reform the pubs that way.

You'll never restore the constitution to its original principles. Just look at how far over the lines it has crossed through SCOTUS rulings. All those Tea Party people get in and find themselves entrenched the same as other rent seekers with special interests and its off to the same races that it was before they arrived.

it's a day dream to think we're going back to when the constitution actually meant something.

Perhaps. Which day dream do you think has a better chance, my dream of outlawing federal income tax and the part in the 14th that allows the government to take our property with due process, or your idea for a pseudo anarchist system you call an anarcho-capitalist system?

Neither. Power will never be conceded voluntarily. This government will turn full blown totalitarian before it is said and done. At which time revolution will probably take place. Only to go another round on the record from liberty to tyranny.

 

[bripat9643]

You'll never restore the constitution to its original principles. Just look at how far over the lines it has crossed through SCOTUS rulings. All those Tea Party people get in and find themselves entrenched the same as other rent seekers with special interests and its off to the same races that it was before they arrived.

it's a day dream to think we're going back to when the constitution actually meant something.

Perhaps. Which day dream do you think has a better chance, my dream of outlawing federal income tax and the part in the 14th that allows the government to take our property with due process, or your idea for a pseudo anarchist system you call an anarcho-capitalist system?

Neither. Power will never be conceded voluntarily. This government will turn full blown totalitarian before it is said and done. At which time revolution will probably take place. Only to go another round on the record from liberty to tyranny.

You're dreaming if you think that liberty will be the result of a revolution in this country. All the sleaziest elements would quickly move to co-opt the revolution and turn it into a "People's revolution."

 

[RKMBrown]

You'll never restore the constitution to its original principles. Just look at how far over the lines it has crossed through SCOTUS rulings. All those Tea Party people get in and find themselves entrenched the same as other rent seekers with special interests and its off to the same races that it was before they arrived.

it's a day dream to think we're going back to when the constitution actually meant something.

Perhaps. Which day dream do you think has a better chance, my dream of outlawing federal income tax and the part in the 14th that allows the government to take our property with due process, or your idea for a pseudo anarchist system you call an anarcho-capitalist system?

Neither. Power will never be conceded voluntarily. This government will turn full blown totalitarian before it is said and done. At which time revolution will probably take place. Only to go another round on the record from liberty to tyranny.

Maybe next time we'll get the voting system right so we can at least slow the cycle down.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Well, in that case it might be more like the way the soviet union went. Which is still rather authoritarian, but they learned about adopting free market principles at least in degree. It will only be when the State has completely exhausted all of the wealth and promises it makes that people will begin to wake up to the reality of Statism. Far too late, sure. Thats how we humans always seem to roll.

 

[Redfish]

Well, in that case it might be more like the way the soviet union went. Which is still rather authoritarian, but they learned about adopting free market principles at least in degree. It will only be when the State has completely exhausted all of the wealth and promises it makes that people will begin to wake up to the reality of Statism. Far too late, sure. Thats how we humans always seem to roll.

just look at Greece, Spain, Portugal, most of the rest of europe, Venezuela, Cuba. liberalism, statism, progressivism, marxism, or whatever you wish to call it, never works, never has, never will.

But our leftists think they are different---------but they aren't

 

[asterism]

Wait..what?

That's pretty much what they do..with the exception of "taking" a loss.

One way or another..it comes out in the wash.

And your "government involvement" is pretty cynical. One a company gets big enough, with enough money..that company gets the government involved.

Provide an example where this is "pretty much what they do".

I'll help him out...

Microsoft giving away web browsers to kill browser competition. Microsoft giving away utilities, such as anti-virus software, to kill utilities companies. Corporations, such as Microsoft, IBM, GE, etc. overpaying to buy up competing corporations to remove competitive market pressure from their larger suites of more expensive products.

Funny thing about that whole issue, was that supposedly one day Microsoft was going to force us to use their browser if they were allowed to pre-install it on a desktop. How'd that work out?

Microsoft didn't kill Netscape. Microsoft actually saved their greatest rival, Apple.

Which anti-virus company did Microsoft kill?

 

[RKMBrown]

Well, in that case it might be more like the way the soviet union went. Which is still rather authoritarian, but they learned about adopting free market principles at least in degree. It will only be when the State has completely exhausted all of the wealth and promises it makes that people will begin to wake up to the reality of Statism. Far too late, sure. Thats how we humans always seem to roll.

just look at Greece, Spain, Portugal, most of the rest of europe, Venezuela, Cuba. liberalism, statism, progressivism, marxism, or whatever you wish to call it, never works, never has, never will.

But our leftists think they are different---------but they aren't

They don't think we are any different... they just don't care what happens to the country, it's about what's good for them right now, to hell with the consequences. It's the opposite of teaching someone to fish instead of feeding him fish. These folks don't want to fish any more they want someone else to do the fishing to feed them.

I suppose with enough robots everyone can sit on their asses and do nothing.