What are libertarians?

[kaz]

You are in the FAR, FAR, FAR right wing splinter group of John Bircher H.L. Hunt. So YES, you ARE a right winger.

Quit reading here. You're a brainiac who thinks someone who wants to slash the military budget by half and make it defensive focused and legalize drugs, gambling and prostitution is "far, far, far right wing." Hey guy, I get why you only want to debate Republicans since you are too stupid to do anything but memorize and repeat talking points and the only ones you have are DNC ones about Republicans. But since you don't want to debate my views, I'll just insult you. So are you still in your village, or did you leave it without an idiot?

 

[kaz]

We went over this before. You want to claim that you are a 'moderate'. NO ONE who wants to end Social Security and Medicare is a 'moderate. You are in the FAR, FAR, FAR right wing splinter group of John Bircher H.L. Hunt. So YES, you ARE a right winger.



"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Hey Mr. libertarian...do you support the ACLU?

Every libertarian wants to end Social Security, and so do millions of other people under the age of 40. Your belief that only billionaires want to get rid of it couldn't be more idiotic. Why would they even care? How much of their wealth does the FICA tax consume? It's not even noticeable to them.

Damn straight. I'm 51. I'd give up everything I've paid in a heartbeat for no check when I retire if I could just stop paying now.

 

[kaz]

SO, you would let old people fend for themselves. THAT IS social Darwinism.

You and you libturd friends might be willing to let your mothers starve if they had no pension to live on, but most people would be willing to take care of their parents in their old age. That's typically how things were done before the age of Roosevelt and the kleptocracy he ushered in. Foisting your personal responsibilities onto others is the hallmark of liberalism.

LOL, not his helping his family himself isn't even an option. If he doesn't get you to pay for it, then that's leaving them on their own. At least he's honest about that.

 

[bripat9643]

SO, you would let old people fend for themselves. THAT IS social Darwinism.

You and you libturd friends might be willing to let your mothers starve if they had no pension to live on, but most people would be willing to take care of their parents in their old age. That's typically how things were done before the age of Roosevelt and the kleptocracy he ushered in. Foisting your personal responsibilities onto others is the hallmark of liberalism.

LOL, not his helping his family himself isn't even an option. If he doesn't get you to pay for it, then that's leaving them on their own. At least he's honest about that.

Yep, liberals admit all the time that they wouldn't lift a finger to help the poor f the government didn't provide them with welfare, medical care and housing.

 

[kaz]

SO, you would let old people fend for themselves. THAT IS social Darwinism.

You and you libturd friends might be willing to let your mothers starve if they had no pension to live on, but most people would be willing to take care of their parents in their old age. That's typically how things were done before the age of Roosevelt and the kleptocracy he ushered in. Foisting your personal responsibilities onto others is the hallmark of liberalism.

LOL, not his helping his family himself isn't even an option. If he doesn't get you to pay for it, then that's leaving them on their own. At least he's honest about that.

Yep, liberals admit all the time that they wouldn't lift a finger to help the poor f the government didn't provide them with welfare, medical care and housing.

The biggest opposition to social security was churches. They said charity was their job, not government's. The liberal view that charity is government's job, not theirs, obviously won out. Then when they plunder "the wealthy" and "corporations" they blame the victim to justify it all. Liberals really are just morons, there is no sense to it.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Once on twitter we were asked to define libertarians in four words. I did more than that. I defined them all in four words

Libertarian in four words: Make my pot legal

Liberal in four words: Tax his legal pot.

Conservative in four words: You are both stoners

Brevity is the soul of wit!

 

[bripat9643]

The ultimate irony is you love to attach liberals to sinister figures like Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Yet those dictators' belief in social Darwinism, survival of the fittest, was the very foundation of their evil.

You should study some history. These leaders weren't social darwinists, and they certainly weren't libertarians. They were, to a man, committed to the idea that strong centralized government was necessary to control people, to make people 'better', to drive them to social perfection. You know, kinda like you do.

YOU are the scum bag who wants to end Social Security, Medicare and social programs. What liberals have that scum bag social Darwinists like YOU don't have is compassion and empathy for other human beings. It is survival of the fittest and richest for scum like you. You right wing scum ALWAYS try to point to government vs. no government as the important factor. But we have SEEN and FELT how you right wing scum govern. Conservatives have NEVER, EVER given us less government. They have only used government to inflict MUCH MORE government intrusion into the lives of the poor and weaker members of our society and helped the rich and opulent who you WORSHIP swindle those same poor and weaker members of society.


The Social Weapon: Darwinism

The twentieth century was one of the darkest and most deadly in all of human history. Vast amounts of blood were spilled and people subjected to the most terrible fear and oppression. Such dictators as Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot inflicted genocide on millions. Hitler had those whom he regarded as “useless” exterminated in the gas chambers. Hundreds of thousands of people in many Western countries—from Great Britain to Germany, from the USA to Sweden—were compulsorily sterilized or left to die just for being sick, crippled or old. All over the world, people were oppressed and exploited because of ruthless competition. Racism became the ideology of certain states, and some races were not even regarded as human at all. Because of the conflicts and hot and cold wars between East and West, the peoples of communist and capitalist countries, and even brothers, became one another's enemies.

The main point not generally realized, however, is the nature of the ideological foundation that propelled the 20th century towards such disruption, chaos, war and conflict, and gave rise to such hatred and enmity. The groundwork of this ideological foundation was laid by the British economist Thomas Malthus. This twisted concept, widely accepted by people far removed from religious moral values, was further strengthened by another Briton, the sociologist Herbert Spencer, and disseminated by the theory of evolution put forward by yet another Englishman, Charles Darwin.

As dictated by the ideology they advocate, these three figures entirely ignored such religious moral virtues as cooperation, altruism, protecting the poor and weak, and regarding all human beings as equal. In contrast, they proposed the falsehood that life is a battlefield, that the oppression and even extermination of the poor and those races whom they regarded as “inferior” was justified; that as a result of that pitiless struggle, the “fittest” would survive and the rest would be eliminated—and that all this would lead to human “progress.”

With his theory of evolution, Darwin sought to apply this philosophy of selfishness to the natural sciences. Ignoring the examples of solidarity and cooperation created by God in nature, he maintained that all living things were engaged in a ruthless struggle for survival. On the basis of no scientific evidence whatsoever, he even claimed that this same ruthlessness applied to human societies. When his theory of evolution was applied to human society, social Darwinism appeared on the scene.

more

Are you actually claiming you oppose the theory of natural selection? It's not an ideology, nimrod. It's science. Malthus was also not an ideologue. He was a scientist who simply noted a natural phenomena. It's hardly surprising that liberals find the facts of biology distressing. Liberalism is just one never-ending assault on reality.

Natural selection is NOT a civil society, it is the law of the jungle.

Looting and mob rule is also not a "civil society."

No one has ever claimed that natural selection should be a guiding principle of society.

 

[Pogo]

And the other liar waddles back. Also emptyhanded.
Hard to tell 'em apart when they come in all bereft like that.

 

[Pogo]

Yes, the guns one was a hoot. You kept saying we don't know who is the criminal and honest citizens having guns is just escalation and then denied it even when I showed you the quotes over and over while you kept repeating that honest citizens having guns is dangerous. You are not a bright guy.

As for here, document what point? That you keep arguing with anarchists and then think you're debating small government libertarians? Do you even know the difference? We have yet to reach the bottom of your cavernous stupidity, maybe we just need to keep going down.

You're a fucking liar. As before, you are hereby challenged to document with quotes.

You won't, because it doesn't exist. Fucking lying hack.

You're the liar and you're stupid as shit. You said that shooting back is "escalation," like putting gasoline on a fire. I showed you the quote over and over and you didn't man up to it. Will you man up to it this time?

Riiiiiight, because the answer to guns is.... more guns! Just as the answer to a building on fire is gasoline. What better antidote to a problem than more of what got us into the problem? Genius I tell ya.

And right back to clueless square one. Never fails. Gun fetishists are the greatest circular reasoners since religion. Which stands to reason -- it's the same thing.

That's my post, a good old cartoon.

So -------------- where does it say anything about "honest citizens having guns is dangerous"?

Read much?

Yes, in fact I read your posts and you don't. Also Skippy, I didn't put quote marks around it, you did.

Of course I did. That's me quoting your bullshit. You know the crapola you spew but can't show?

 

[Bfgrn]

The ultimate irony is you love to attach liberals to sinister figures like Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Yet those dictators' belief in social Darwinism, survival of the fittest, was the very foundation of their evil.

You should study some history. These leaders weren't social darwinists, and they certainly weren't libertarians. They were, to a man, committed to the idea that strong centralized government was necessary to control people, to make people 'better', to drive them to social perfection. You know, kinda like you do.

YOU are the scum bag who wants to end Social Security, Medicare and social programs. What liberals have that scum bag social Darwinists like YOU don't have is...

I'm not a social Darwinist. I actually think we have a moral responsibility, as a society, to care for those who fall through the cracks. I just don't think it's a proper concern of government.

Of course it is the proper concern of government. PLEASE explain how you would replace Social Security and Medicare? Explain HOW it would work and be managed? The DETAILS...

I wouldn't.

SO, you would let old people fend for themselves. THAT IS social Darwinism.

You and you libturd friends might be willing to let your mothers starve if they had no pension to live on, but most people would be willing to take care of their parents in their old age. That's typically how things were done before the age of Roosevelt and the kleptocracy he ushered in. Foisting your personal responsibilities onto others is the hallmark of liberalism.

How things REALLY worked before FDR ushered in THE MOST successful program in American history...

Social Security reduces the proportion of elderly people living in poverty from nearly one in two to fewer than one in eight, according to a new study released today of Census data. The study found that in 1997, nearly half of all elderly people — 47.6 percent — had incomes below the poverty line before receipt of Social Security benefits. After receiving Social Security benefits, only 11.9 percent remained poor.

As a result, the study said, Social Security raised out of poverty more than one in every three elderly Americans. The program lifted 11.4 million elderly people above the poverty line.

Without Social Security, the study found, 15.3 million elderly had incomes below the poverty line. After Social Security, only 3.8 million elderly did. Three-fourths of those elderly people who would have been poor without Social Security were lifted from poverty by it.

SO, you would let old people fend for themselves. THAT IS social Darwinism.

You and you libturd friends might be willing to let your mothers starve if they had no pension to live on, but most people would be willing to take care of their parents in their old age. That's typically how things were done before the age of Roosevelt and the kleptocracy he ushered in. Foisting your personal responsibilities onto others is the hallmark of liberalism.

LOL, not his helping his family himself isn't even an option. If he doesn't get you to pay for it, then that's leaving them on their own. At least he's honest about that.

Yep, liberals admit all the time that they wouldn't lift a finger to help the poor f the government didn't provide them with welfare, medical care and housing.

The biggest opposition to social security was churches. They said charity was their job, not government's. The liberal view that charity is government's job, not theirs, obviously won out. Then when they plunder "the wealthy" and "corporations" they blame the victim to justify it all. Liberals really are just morons, there is no sense to it.

Translation: babble of a right winger. Faux news couldn't have scripted it any better...

Hey Einstein, you 'claim' to have an ability for critical thinking...

You said: "government marriage really don't need to be done by government"

Beside infantile grammar, did you really think that one through? The truth is marriage doesn't need to be done by churches, but the government aspect is paramount. There are events called 'divorce', illness' and 'death'. There are things called 'property', DNR's and inheritance.

Guess that critical thinking took a long vacation, huh Einstein....

 

[bripat9643]

And the other liar waddles back. Also emptyhanded.
Hard to tell 'em apart when they come in all bereft like that.

You seem to believe we're at your beck and call to carry out whatever task you assign. This is the real world, Po-po. We don't take assignments from an internet Napoleon.

 

[kaz]

And the other liar waddles back. Also emptyhanded.
Hard to tell 'em apart when they come in all bereft like that.

And you're still empty pantsed

 

[kaz]

How things REALLY worked before FDR ushered in THE MOST successful program in American history...

Yes, comrade, redistributing more wealth than any other program in history makes it the "MOST successful." To a Marxist like you? Yes, it does.

People like getting checks of other people's money! They like it! Who saw that coming! LOL, you're a tool...

 

[dblack]

The ultimate irony is you love to attach liberals to sinister figures like Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Yet those dictators' belief in social Darwinism, survival of the fittest, was the very foundation of their evil.

You should study some history. These leaders weren't social darwinists, and they certainly weren't libertarians. They were, to a man, committed to the idea that strong centralized government was necessary to control people, to make people 'better', to drive them to social perfection. You know, kinda like you do.

YOU are the scum bag who wants to end Social Security, Medicare and social programs. What liberals have that scum bag social Darwinists like YOU don't have is...

I'm not a social Darwinist. I actually think we have a moral responsibility, as a society, to care for those who fall through the cracks. I just don't think it's a proper concern of government.

Of course it is the proper concern of government. PLEASE explain how you would replace Social Security and Medicare? Explain HOW it would work and be managed? The DETAILS...

I wouldn't.

SO, you would let old people fend for themselves. THAT IS social Darwinism.

So, no. That's not what I said. I just wouldn't "replace" a mandatory state-run welfare system. I'd get rid of it.

But I'd like to explore this idea that rejecting government welfare is the same as "letting" people die, or "fend for themselves" or whatever. How many people did you "let" die today? Seriously. Surely, someone in the world could have lived another day if you'd sold your car and given them the money for the health care they needed. Why didn't you do that???

 

[bripat9643]

How things REALLY worked before FDR ushered in THE MOST successful program in American history...

Social Security reduces the proportion of elderly people living in poverty from nearly one in two to fewer than one in eight, according to a new study released today of Census data. The study found that in 1997, nearly half of all elderly people — 47.6 percent — had incomes below the poverty line before receipt of Social Security benefits. After receiving Social Security benefits, only 11.9 percent remained poor.

As a result, the study said, Social Security raised out of poverty more than one in every three elderly Americans. The program lifted 11.4 million elderly people above the poverty line.

Without Social Security, the study found, 15.3 million elderly had incomes below the poverty line. After Social Security, only 3.8 million elderly did. Three-fourths of those elderly people who would have been poor without Social Security were lifted from poverty by it.

Your "study" is obviously a con. In the first place, without Social Security the elderly would have had 13% more income their entire lives to invest in a retirement program. Furthermore, they would have had a much greater incentive to do so since they knew they couldn't count on the taxpayers paying their bills.

Also, your claims about the poverty rate among the elderly before Social Security are pure fiction. The government didn't measure the poverty rate before 1958, so where did the authors of this "study" get there information on poverty rates among the elderly prior to Social Security?

Even if the poverty rate is lower now, that doesn't prove that Social Security is the reason. The defenders of OSHA claim it's a great success because since its creation the workplace accident rate has decreased by so many accidents per 100,000 people. What these apologists conveniently ignore is the fact that workplace accident rate decreased just as fast or faster before the creation of OSHA.

Therefore, the data you posted doesn't support your claim that Social Security has reduced poverty among the elderly. Your claim is nothing more than cheap propaganda for the dumb masses.

 

[bripat9643]

How things REALLY worked before FDR ushered in THE MOST successful program in American history...

Yes, comrade, redistributing more wealth than any other program in history makes it the "MOST successful." To a Marxist like you? Yes, it does.

People like getting checks of other people's money! They like it! Who saw that coming! LOL, you're a tool...

Liberals measure "success" by the number and size of the checks a program dispenses.

 

[kaz]

SO, you would let old people fend for themselves. THAT IS social Darwinism.

So, no. That's not what I said. I just wouldn't "replace" a mandatory state-run welfare system. I'd get rid of it.

But I'd like to explore this idea that rejecting government welfare is the same as "letting" people die, or "fend for themselves" or whatever. How many people did you "let" die today? Seriously. Surely, someone in the world could have lived another day if you'd sold your car and given them the money for the health care they needed. Why didn't you do that???

In fairness, he is actually too stupid to think of any solution other than government. If you accept the premise that it's government or nothing, he's right, you advocate nothing.

This is why I just have fun with liberals now, it's like the Walking Dead. They are stupid and evil, there's nothing more to get.

 

[JoeNormal]

.

Pure Libertarian ideas just aren't workable or reasonable at a macro level, and the influx of libertarianism into the GOP has caused the party quite a bit of damage by introducing so much libertarian absolutism into widespread political thought and debate.

That said, I used to like having them around as a reminder that we can't stray too far from the power and benefits of individualism. Right now, though, the reminder is a little too loud.

I call 'em "Randbots". Enslaved to a half-baked ideology too often removed from any sense of practicality -- e.g. as someone posted not far back, the idea of getting rid of FDA and FAA. Just let the planes crash into each other. An illustrative metaphor.

You're a moron, Pogo. Where is your proof that air traffic control can't be accomplished by a private corporation? In fact, the FAA was once considering selling off the air traffic control function to private corporations.

You are a congenital moron. Everything you post is based on premises lacking any visible means of support.

What a fucking moron. Yeah, I'm sure it would be just as successful as our prison-industrial complex.

 

[bripat9643]

.

Pure Libertarian ideas just aren't workable or reasonable at a macro level, and the influx of libertarianism into the GOP has caused the party quite a bit of damage by introducing so much libertarian absolutism into widespread political thought and debate.

That said, I used to like having them around as a reminder that we can't stray too far from the power and benefits of individualism. Right now, though, the reminder is a little too loud.

I call 'em "Randbots". Enslaved to a half-baked ideology too often removed from any sense of practicality -- e.g. as someone posted not far back, the idea of getting rid of FDA and FAA. Just let the planes crash into each other. An illustrative metaphor.

You're a moron, Pogo. Where is your proof that air traffic control can't be accomplished by a private corporation? In fact, the FAA was once considering selling off the air traffic control function to private corporations.

You are a congenital moron. Everything you post is based on premises lacking any visible means of support.

What a fucking moron. Yeah, I'm sure it would be just as successful as our prison-industrial complex.

A private air traffic control system wouldn't involve putting anyone in prison, so I hardly think think the analogy is valid. Furthermore, although I know turds like you complain constantly about private prisons, I haven't seen any evidence that they're a failure. Why would local governments pay private prisons to house their inmates if they weren't cost effective?

I have never seen an example of government doing a better job than private enterprise. That's the bottom line.

Government is incompetence institutionalized.

 

[kaz]

You're a moron, Pogo. Where is your proof that air traffic control can't be accomplished by a private corporation? In fact, the FAA was once considering selling off the air traffic control function to private corporations.

You are a congenital moron. Everything you post is based on premises lacking any visible means of support.

What a fucking moron. Yeah, I'm sure it would be just as successful as our prison-industrial complex.

For all the hoopla of the left, when the airlines owned airport security, it was as effective as when the Feds took it over. Another government program by the government loving W. Why could airlines not also own air traffic control? Airlines care about safety. Customers dying and plans crashing into each other is bad for business. The comparison of that to prisons is ridiculous.

And again, Bripat, is an anarchist, not a small government libertarian. He's welcome to post his views in the thread. You are not welcome to ignore my op post and act like arguing with an anarchist is as the same as arguing with a small government libertarian.