What are libertarians?

[Pogo]

So have I missed any insightful discussion here?

Not for a long time I'm afraid. But it can always restart.

 

[Bfgrn]

There you go, you found a new buddy...Rikurzhen is a white supremacist. I am sure someone of your character would rather associate with a white supremacist over an evil 'liberal'

I've never seen him post anything even remotely racist. I suppose you have some evidence to support this accusation?

BTW, Lincoln was a white supremecist.

Why don't you ask Rikurzhen.

THIS Abe Lincoln?

In 1863, the black activist Frederick Douglass visited the White House to discuss the treatment of black Union soldiers. ''I was never more quickly or more completely put at ease in the presence of a great man than in that of Abraham Lincoln,'' wrote Douglass, who praised the president's ''entire freedom from popular prejudice against the colored race.'' Lincoln was the first prominent white American ''who in no single instance reminded me of the difference between himself and myself, of the difference of color.'' ref

Yes, that Abe Lincoln. The same one who said the following:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

Here is a good read...

Was Lincoln a Racist?
The Great Emancipator was far more complicated than the mythical hero we have come to revere.

By: Henry Louis Gates Jr.
Posted: Feb. 12 2009 9:57 AM

page 3
Three days before he was shot, Lincoln stood on the second floor of the White House and made a speech to a crowd assembled outside celebrating the recent Union victory over the Confederacy. With his troops and Frederick Douglass very much in mind, Lincoln told the cheering crowd, which had demanded that he come to the window to address them, that he had decided to recommend that his 200,000 black troops and “the very intelligent Negroes” be given the right to vote.

Standing in the crowd was John Wilkes Booth. Hearing those words, Booth turned to a man next to him and said, “That means ****** citizenship. Now, by God! I'll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever make.” Three days later, during the third act of Our American Cousin, Booth followed through with his promise.

It is important that we hear Lincoln’s words through the echo of the rhetoric of the modern civil rights movement, especially the “I Have a Dream” speech of Martin Luther King Jr. It is easy to forget that when Lincoln made a public address, he was speaking primarily—certainly until his Second Inaugural Address—to all-white or predominantly white audiences, who most certainly were ambivalent about blacks and black rights, if not slavery. When Lincoln talked about wrestling with the better angels of our nature, he knew whereof he spoke: about his audience and, just as important, about himself.

It should not surprise us that Lincoln was no exception to his times; what is exceptional about Abraham Lincoln is that, perhaps because of temperament or because of the shape-shifting contingencies of command during an agonizingly costly war, he wrestled with his often contradictory feelings and ambivalences and vacillations about slavery, race and colonization, and did so quite publicly and often quite eloquently.

So, was Lincoln a racist? He certainly embraced anti-black attitudes and phobias in his early years and throughout his debates with Douglas in the 1858 Senate race (the seat that would become Barack Obama’s), which he lost. By the end of the Civil War, Lincoln was on an upward arc, perhaps heading toward becoming the man he has since been mythologized as being: the Great Emancipator, the man who freed—and loved—the slaves. But his journey was certainly not complete on the day that he died. Abraham Lincoln wrestled with race until the end. And, as Du Bois pointed out, his struggle ultimately made him a more interesting and noble man than the mythical hero we have come to revere.

 

[Pogo]

I wonder where this thread was before it degenerated into the standard USMB playground of back-and-forth name calling and personal insults. Libertarianism used to be an interesting mental exercise.

Meh.

.

It still would be if more here, mostly those on the left though there are some exceptions, were capable of discussing the concept instead of making everything personal. But then I have long accused most on the left of being incapable of focusing on and discussing a concept. They will invariably accuse those they disagree with or who they do not wish to disbelieve or accuse or blame somebody in history or throw in whatever non sequitur, red herrings, straw men, and ad hominem because that is the only way they know to discuss/debate. They don't care how badly the thread is derailed or disrupted. They know no other way.

Perhaps that is why they are leftists? Because they are incapable of understanding a theory or concept? I don't know. But it sucks.

Kaz offered us an excellent topic and it was almost immediately derailed by those who refused to understand or consider the concept but who wanted to make it a dual of definitions or semantics or return to the blame game which is all that they know. It is sad.

I wish there were more who were trained in or capable of critical thought who could discuss concepts. It would make the board so much more interesting and satisfying. Libertarianism is a fascinating subject to me. But I've pretty well given up on being able to discuss it here.

Take the freaking blinders off Foxy. I came in and got attacked by the OP and slathered with bullshit lies from both him/her and Fingerboy. I challenged both of them to back it up and both of them cowarded-out.

"The left" my ass. Open your partisan eyes.

Your very first post (#118) was ad hominem re Kaz and complained that the poll didn't fit the OP. You did not then nor have you since directly addressed the concept of what libertarianism is or is not. You have not addressed the concept since , and my experience with you is that you are unlikely to ever do so. That is my experience with most leftists..

Bullshit, Foxy.

I don't know if 118 was my first post or not but here it is, in full:

Libertarians are right-wing hippies.

So we're Republicans who smoke pot. Actually, I haven't smoked pot in over 30 years, so why am I still a libertarian?

And that's the only difference you know between us and Republicans? Pot? You do know almost nothing about everything.

Now how did you pull "pot" out of "hippies"?

Ah -- no true blanket generalinonsequitur time.

Weird thread. I staunchly resist other people putting labels on me -- here you are literally asking for it. Plus, your title asks for what "libertarians" are, but then your poll asks what YOU are. No true nonsequitorial blanket goalpost moving time.

That's it. Find me the ad hom.

WELL?

Everything was hunky-dory, over several pages we toyed with logical fallacies and parallel questions of government overreach such as FDA examples, all was civil. Then Kaz went:

Ignorance time, you are stating as fact conclusions on discussions you have obviously not read. ...
If you asked me, I would have been glad to direct you to the quote. But that you chose to go the two year old route and just call me a liar over something you obviously don't know what you are talking about, I'll not bother doing that.

Followed by:

Let's go to the video tape:


LOL, you're a tool. And an idiot calling me a liar when you obviously don't know. How do you know what other liberals said in conversations with me? You're reading every post written to me? You're obviously not because there have been many, many discussions where liberals are assigning Marxist principles to the founding fathers.

("calling me a liar" is another strawman- didn't yet exist) -- followed by:

That would make sense if I said they called themselves Marxists or studied Marx. I didn't, so you are pounding a non-point. But wow, you're really traumatized by this. Is there a childhood trajedy you suffered from someone using today's terms to describe the views of people in the past?
....
LOL, what a dolt...

Followed by...

Taking statements that are not literal and don't say they are literal and treating them as they are literal is just brain dead, little boy. Grow up.

Hey Pogo, I'm so hungry I could eat a horse. I could eat an elephant! LOL, dimwit.

NONE of which were answered in kind. I might add I had to wait in line while while many other ad homs were dispensed, not that I either minded or expected any more. And also noted that Kaz was out of town and it wouldn't be fair to continue on that point in his/her absence.

I stopped harvesting posts at that point. Shall I go on?

All right then don't try to feed me this BULLSHIT when the record clearly says otherwise. And don't ever think I won't fact check. Especially when I already know I'm being bullshat. And don't EVER think I'm going to take a false accusation lying down.

As I said -- partisan blinders. Emphasis on "blind".

Pogo, stop lying. Before your post, kaz was debating Disir, g5 and Derideo_Te, you came in and chose to prod kaz by flaming his thread. No, you were not attacked, you chose to pick a fight with him. Stop playing the victim when in fact you were the aggressor. There were no posts from you prior to that one that he could have attacked you for. I sat there for 30 minutes looking for a post of yours he may have attacked, but I didn't find anything. Calling Foxfyre blind is like telling a bird it is unable to fly. Seriously? If you think I'm sticking up for kaz, go see for yourself. You accuse others of not having a backbone, how about you show one of your own, sir.
'

Saying so doesn't make it revisionist history TK. I documented mine. Whatcha got?

We're waiting.

I'm not a mod, so I didn't revise anything. None of the posts have been changed or deleted. Are you so childish that you have to taunt me? One hundred and seventeen posts (117) went by before you responded. I'm not 'saying so', I read each of the posts. You've been called on a lie, Pogo. If you want me to, I can link to each page where you did not reply, nor kaz to you. In fact, you chose to jump into the fray. We could go on for the next 2 1/2 hours about how you didn't say what you said when you actually said it, but I have no patience for it.

So you have nothing and cannot back it up. I already know that because I not only went back and read them all, I was there when it went down.

The question was not, and was never, who didn't respond to X number of posts. The question was who started the poo flinging. And this I have documented profusely. And yes, it is on the record.

Truth will out. No matter what.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So Pogo, do you see any of your responses here? It wasn't until page six that you replied. Do you deny this? Or will you assail me on my lack of evidence? Here's the evidence.

What are libertarians US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
What are libertarians Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
What are libertarians Page 3 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
What are libertarians Page 4 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
What are libertarians Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
What are libertarians Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[TemplarKormac]

I wonder where this thread was before it degenerated into the standard USMB playground of back-and-forth name calling and personal insults. Libertarianism used to be an interesting mental exercise.

Meh.

.

It still would be if more here, mostly those on the left though there are some exceptions, were capable of discussing the concept instead of making everything personal. But then I have long accused most on the left of being incapable of focusing on and discussing a concept. They will invariably accuse those they disagree with or who they do not wish to disbelieve or accuse or blame somebody in history or throw in whatever non sequitur, red herrings, straw men, and ad hominem because that is the only way they know to discuss/debate. They don't care how badly the thread is derailed or disrupted. They know no other way.

Perhaps that is why they are leftists? Because they are incapable of understanding a theory or concept? I don't know. But it sucks.

Kaz offered us an excellent topic and it was almost immediately derailed by those who refused to understand or consider the concept but who wanted to make it a dual of definitions or semantics or return to the blame game which is all that they know. It is sad.

I wish there were more who were trained in or capable of critical thought who could discuss concepts. It would make the board so much more interesting and satisfying. Libertarianism is a fascinating subject to me. But I've pretty well given up on being able to discuss it here.

Take the freaking blinders off Foxy. I came in and got attacked by the OP and slathered with bullshit lies from both him/her and Fingerboy. I challenged both of them to back it up and both of them cowarded-out.

"The left" my ass. Open your partisan eyes.

Your very first post (#118) was ad hominem re Kaz and complained that the poll didn't fit the OP. You did not then nor have you since directly addressed the concept of what libertarianism is or is not. You have not addressed the concept since , and my experience with you is that you are unlikely to ever do so. That is my experience with most leftists..

Bullshit, Foxy.

I don't know if 118 was my first post or not but here it is, in full:

Libertarians are right-wing hippies.

So we're Republicans who smoke pot. Actually, I haven't smoked pot in over 30 years, so why am I still a libertarian?

And that's the only difference you know between us and Republicans? Pot? You do know almost nothing about everything.

Now how did you pull "pot" out of "hippies"?

Ah -- no true blanket generalinonsequitur time.

Weird thread. I staunchly resist other people putting labels on me -- here you are literally asking for it. Plus, your title asks for what "libertarians" are, but then your poll asks what YOU are. No true nonsequitorial blanket goalpost moving time.

That's it. Find me the ad hom.

WELL?

Everything was hunky-dory, over several pages we toyed with logical fallacies and parallel questions of government overreach such as FDA examples, all was civil. Then Kaz went:

Ignorance time, you are stating as fact conclusions on discussions you have obviously not read. ...
If you asked me, I would have been glad to direct you to the quote. But that you chose to go the two year old route and just call me a liar over something you obviously don't know what you are talking about, I'll not bother doing that.

Followed by:

Let's go to the video tape:


LOL, you're a tool. And an idiot calling me a liar when you obviously don't know. How do you know what other liberals said in conversations with me? You're reading every post written to me? You're obviously not because there have been many, many discussions where liberals are assigning Marxist principles to the founding fathers.

("calling me a liar" is another strawman- didn't yet exist) -- followed by:

That would make sense if I said they called themselves Marxists or studied Marx. I didn't, so you are pounding a non-point. But wow, you're really traumatized by this. Is there a childhood trajedy you suffered from someone using today's terms to describe the views of people in the past?
....
LOL, what a dolt...

Followed by...

Taking statements that are not literal and don't say they are literal and treating them as they are literal is just brain dead, little boy. Grow up.

Hey Pogo, I'm so hungry I could eat a horse. I could eat an elephant! LOL, dimwit.

NONE of which were answered in kind. I might add I had to wait in line while while many other ad homs were dispensed, not that I either minded or expected any more. And also noted that Kaz was out of town and it wouldn't be fair to continue on that point in his/her absence.

I stopped harvesting posts at that point. Shall I go on?

All right then don't try to feed me this BULLSHIT when the record clearly says otherwise. And don't ever think I won't fact check. Especially when I already know I'm being bullshat. And don't EVER think I'm going to take a false accusation lying down.

As I said -- partisan blinders. Emphasis on "blind".

Pogo, stop lying. Before your post, kaz was debating Disir, g5 and Derideo_Te, you came in and chose to prod kaz by flaming his thread. No, you were not attacked, you chose to pick a fight with him. Stop playing the victim when in fact you were the aggressor. There were no posts from you prior to that one that he could have attacked you for. I sat there for 30 minutes looking for a post of yours he may have attacked, but I didn't find anything. Calling Foxfyre blind is like telling a bird it is unable to fly. Seriously? If you think I'm sticking up for kaz, go see for yourself. You accuse others of not having a backbone, how about you show one of your own, sir.
'

Saying so doesn't make it revisionist history TK. I documented mine. Whatcha got?

We're waiting.

I'm not a mod, so I didn't revise anything. None of the posts have been changed or deleted. Are you so childish that you have to taunt me? One hundred and seventeen posts (117) went by before you responded. I'm not 'saying so', I read each of the posts. You've been called on a lie, Pogo. If you want me to, I can link to each page where you did not reply, nor kaz to you. In fact, you chose to jump into the fray. We could go on for the next 2 1/2 hours about how you didn't say what you said when you actually said it, but I have no patience for it.

So you have nothing and cannot back it up.

I already know that because I not only went back and read them all, I was there when it went down.

Truth will out. No matter what.

I have plenty. The truth was outed, the only thing you outed was your version of events. I just went back and read them all. What do you take me for, a fool? I have a partially eidetic and photographic memory, Pogo. I don't care if you were in Zimbabwe when it happened, you simply cannot admit your failure to address the topic, instead attacking the author. Don't bother, you aren't fooling anyone.

Now, if you will excuse me.

 

[Pogo]

So you have nothing and cannot back it up.

I already know that because I not only went back and read them all, I was there when it went down.

Truth will out. No matter what.

I have plenty. The truth was outed, the only thing you outed was your version of events. I just went back and read them all. What do you take me for, a fool? I have a partially eidetic and photographic memory, Pogo. I don't care if you were in Zimbabwe when it happened, you simply cannot admit your failure to address the topic, instead attacking the author. Don't bother, you aren't fooling anyone.

Now, if you will excuse me.

Quick exit huh? Wonder why.
It's really really really really really really simple. If you have a claim that I did something -- DOCUMENT IT.
If you can't ---- it does not exist.

You lose. Pick your battles next time.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Small-government libertarians, or minarchist libertarians, are people who believe that government does have a positive role in society, but that its role must be explicitly and vigorously constrained to a limited number of duties. They may support a strict and literal interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, or they may go even further and support a return to the Articles of Confederation, as I once did. However, I myself am no longer a minarchist because I do not believe that any government can be restrained in such a way for any sustained period of time. Regardless, I think that's a fair assessment of their position, and I don't take much issue with them since I generally agree with them on most things.

 

[FA_Q2]

.

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.

.

Your wrong here Mac. This is not a problem with libertarians but rather a problem with purists and those do not exist solely within the libertarian concept.

Those purists in all political stripes cause the same problems be it from democrats, republicans or libertarians.

Libertarian thought is quite workable as long as it is adapted with reality in the same manner that capitalism, republicanism or any other political/economic theory. NOTHING works in a 'pure' form.

I wonder at what you think is too loud though - from where I sit we are not nearly loud enough - not by a million miles. If we were there would be more than just the token speaker on the concept of freedom every once in a while while virtually every single government action works to the complete opposite end.

 

[Pogo]

So Pogo, do you see any of your responses here? It wasn't until page six that you replied. Do you deny this? Or will you assail me on my lack of evidence? Here's the evidence.

What are libertarians US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
What are libertarians Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
What are libertarians Page 3 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
What are libertarians Page 4 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
What are libertarians Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
What are libertarians Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I've explained to you before, page numbers are user-set here. What is "page 2" for you is not "page 2" for me. Your links take me to pages that have no relevance to anything. The first one goes to the OP. I already know where that is.

Again if you have a specific post (or posts) -- link to those posts or better yet quote them. "Page numbers" are meaningless.

 

[FA_Q2]

I believe capitalism is the best economic model, but there is no "magic", "invisible hand", "religion of laissez-faire" that makes ANY sense, UNLESS you totally ignore some key parts of civil libertarian beliefs. I will highlight them for you.

What is really funny here is that YOU are the one that actually belies in the fairytale hand guiding the market - you like to call it government.

 

[Pogo]

.

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.

.

Your wrong here Mac. This is not a problem with libertarians but rather a problem with purists and those do not exist solely within the libertarian concept.

Those purists in all political stripes cause the same problems be it from democrats, republicans or libertarians.

Libertarian thought is quite workable as long as it is adapted with reality in the same manner that capitalism, republicanism or any other political/economic theory. NOTHING works in a 'pure' form.

I wonder at what you think is too loud though - from where I sit we are not nearly loud enough - not by a million miles. If we were there would be more than just the token speaker on the concept of freedom every once in a while while virtually every single government action works to the complete opposite end.

Well said. I think you're both correct.

 

[FA_Q2]

I myself am no longer a minarchist because I do not believe that any government can be restrained in such a way for any sustained period of time.

I laways found this stance of yours interesting because, while it is factually correct, it makes no sense whatsoever.

Sure, government does not remain caged as it loves nothing more than to increase its own power BUT neither does anarchism. That, ALSO, does not remain as it naturally degrades into some form of government. The real question is NOT what permanent form of government (or lack thereof) can be established but rather what is the best form to try and hold onto for as long as possible.

In that I believe government is a clear necessity. Nothing is permanent. A good government or anarchy is not exempt from that simple natural fact.

edit: fixed broken tags

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I myself am no longer a minarchist because I do not believe that any government can be restrained in such a way for any sustained period of time.

I laways found this stance of yours interesting because, while it is factually correct, it makes no sense whatsoever.

Sure, government does not remain caged as it loves nothing more than to increase its own power BUT neither does anarchism. That, ALSO, does not remain as it naturally degrades into some form of government. The real question is NOT what permanent form of government (or lack thereof) can be established but rather what is the best form to try and hold onto for as long as possible.

In that I believe government is a clear necessity. Nothing is permanent. A good government or anarchy is not exempt from that simple natural fact.

Well your question rests on the assumption that that is my only reason for no longer being a minarchist, which is not unreasonable since that's the only reason I gave in the post you quoted. Regardless, I also reject the initiation of force in even a limited sense. The simple fact of the matter is that even a minarchist libertarian's dream government must still rest on the use of violence against their own citizens, and others should that government ever go to war. So even if we had the U.S. government explicitly outlined in the Articles of Confederation, the U.S. government would still tax Americans to fund itself. In other words, it would steal the property of Americans.

In response to your concerns, however, I would merely say that the argument that anarchism will inevitably lead to the creation of a state, so we might as well just create the state now isn't all that inspiring. However, my view is that society will inevitably evolve in their thought towards anarchism as the brutality of the state, even the much touted democratic state, perhaps the most blood-soaked form of government in history, becomes clearer and clearer. I don't see so much a violent revolution finally and permanently overthrowing the state, because I think if that's what was attempted it would simply fail, but assuming it did succeed I think your concerns would ultimately be validated. Using force to overthrow the state will inevitably lead to a new state, in my opinion. If, however, the state is simply allowed to die out as people stop supporting it then I see that as the ultimate good for society.

 

[Mac1958]

.

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.

.

Your wrong here Mac. This is not a problem with libertarians but rather a problem with purists and those do not exist solely within the libertarian concept.

Those purists in all political stripes cause the same problems be it from democrats, republicans or libertarians.

Libertarian thought is quite workable as long as it is adapted with reality in the same manner that capitalism, republicanism or any other political/economic theory. NOTHING works in a 'pure' form.

I wonder at what you think is too loud though - from where I sit we are not nearly loud enough - not by a million miles. If we were there would be more than just the token speaker on the concept of freedom every once in a while while virtually every single government action works to the complete opposite end.

I understand your point - three thoughts on this:

First, the Libertarians have always been fairly absolutist, at least as far back as I can remember. I liked Harry Browne and voted for him, not because I agreed with everything he said, just mostly because I like the idea of having libertarian thought sprinkled into the conversation.

Second, Libertarians and Republicans are, or at least should be, two different sets of people. There as a time (Harry Browne's era) in which they were pro-choice and did not fold religion into their conversation. Once the Palin/Bachmann/Beck/Levin brigade took the movement over, that was no longer the case. Smashing these two parties together is just not a natural fit.

Finally, the libertarian element has most of the energy in the party, and their absolutist opinions are just not helping. End social security, Medicare, shut the IRS, close this agency, close that agency? Holy crap, that's just madness, and it was madness even before the country started moving left. People hear that crap and figure, "well, at least the Democrats haven't lost their freaking minds".

Just me - I liked it much better before the two parties weren't crammed together. Every time a Republican/Libertarian/Tea Partier screams "social security is a ponzi scheme!" and "get government out of my Medicare", the Democrats can just point and say "holy shit, LOOK at THAT!"

.

 

[bripat9643]

So have I missed any insightful discussion here?

Not a smidgeon.

 

[Bfgrn]

Do you know ANY parent who would want to be a burden on their children???

So using your creationist logic, in order to avoid being a burden on one's children it's much better to be a burden on strangers and harm them and their families.

What is it with you magical thinkers, does this become a habit, appealing to magic in order to justify your beliefs?

Absurd idiocy. ALL working people PAY INTO Social Security, and ALL benefit. There is NOTHING evil or wrong about Social Security.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Do you know ANY parent who would want to be a burden on their children???

So using your creationist logic, in order to avoid being a burden on one's children it's much better to be a burden on strangers and harm them and their families.

What is it with you magical thinkers, does this become a habit, appealing to magic in order to justify your beliefs?

Absurd idiocy. ALL working people PAY INTO Social Security, and ALL benefit. There is NOTHING evil or wrong about Social Security.

When you kid takes on a paper route and contributes the money to the household budget, your kid is now a full and equal financial partner in the family, right?

People contribute into SS & MC but they take out more than they contribute. That's a problem.

 

[Bfgrn]

Do you know ANY parent who would want to be a burden on their children???

So using your creationist logic, in order to avoid being a burden on one's children it's much better to be a burden on strangers and harm them and their families.

What is it with you magical thinkers, does this become a habit, appealing to magic in order to justify your beliefs?

Libertarianism is a philosophy that, among other things, subscribes to a doctrine that a free people, unencumbered by authoritarian restrictions, requirements and demands, will accomplish far more for their own benefit and for the general good than anything government will ever accomplish. And you nailed one of the basic rationales. When that authoritarian government makes requirements and demands re what the people are required to do for others, whatever the motives, the net result will include far more unintended negative consequences, and whatever good is accomplished will be inferior compared to what the private sector will accomplish if left free to do what they choose to do.

The pro-government crowd always assume that for whatever reason, even as those in government increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth, those elected or appointed to serve in government will be more wise, more noble, more compassionate, and more effective than will people acting of their own volition.

Why are you avoiding answering my question?

Critical thought? Seriously. Critical thought would include actually considering ALL the ramifications of actions proposed here. I know you have said on previous threads that you would end Social Security and Medicare.

Did you really use critical thought to consider how much pain, suffering and anxiety that would cause elderly folks? You said you would replace it with charity. Let's consider that for a moment...currently seniors receive a monthly SS check. These seniors know EXACTLY how much money they have coming in each month, so they can set up a budget. HOW would your 'charity only' society work? Would elderly Americans have to rise every morning not knowing if they can pay their bills, buy food and pay their utilities? Would you provide them a CUP so they could stand on a street corner and beg for money??

 

[bripat9643]

There you go, you found a new buddy...Rikurzhen is a white supremacist. I am sure someone of your character would rather associate with a white supremacist over an evil 'liberal'

I've never seen him post anything even remotely racist. I suppose you have some evidence to support this accusation?

BTW, Lincoln was a white supremecist.

Why don't you ask Rikurzhen.

THIS Abe Lincoln?

In 1863, the black activist Frederick Douglass visited the White House to discuss the treatment of black Union soldiers. ''I was never more quickly or more completely put at ease in the presence of a great man than in that of Abraham Lincoln,'' wrote Douglass, who praised the president's ''entire freedom from popular prejudice against the colored race.'' Lincoln was the first prominent white American ''who in no single instance reminded me of the difference between himself and myself, of the difference of color.'' ref

Yes, that Abe Lincoln. The same one who said the following:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

Here is a good read...

Was Lincoln a Racist?
The Great Emancipator was far more complicated than the mythical hero we have come to revere.

By: Henry Louis Gates Jr.
Posted: Feb. 12 2009 9:57 AM

page 3
Three days before he was shot, Lincoln stood on the second floor of the White House and made a speech to a crowd assembled outside celebrating the recent Union victory over the Confederacy. With his troops and Frederick Douglass very much in mind, Lincoln told the cheering crowd, which had demanded that he come to the window to address them, that he had decided to recommend that his 200,000 black troops and “the very intelligent Negroes” be given the right to vote.

Standing in the crowd was John Wilkes Booth. Hearing those words, Booth turned to a man next to him and said, “That means ****** citizenship. Now, by God! I'll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever make.” Three days later, during the third act of Our American Cousin, Booth followed through with his promise.

It is important that we hear Lincoln’s words through the echo of the rhetoric of the modern civil rights movement, especially the “I Have a Dream” speech of Martin Luther King Jr. It is easy to forget that when Lincoln made a public address, he was speaking primarily—certainly until his Second Inaugural Address—to all-white or predominantly white audiences, who most certainly were ambivalent about blacks and black rights, if not slavery. When Lincoln talked about wrestling with the better angels of our nature, he knew whereof he spoke: about his audience and, just as important, about himself.

It should not surprise us that Lincoln was no exception to his times; what is exceptional about Abraham Lincoln is that, perhaps because of temperament or because of the shape-shifting contingencies of command during an agonizingly costly war, he wrestled with his often contradictory feelings and ambivalences and vacillations about slavery, race and colonization, and did so quite publicly and often quite eloquently.

So, was Lincoln a racist? He certainly embraced anti-black attitudes and phobias in his early years and throughout his debates with Douglas in the 1858 Senate race (the seat that would become Barack Obama’s), which he lost. By the end of the Civil War, Lincoln was on an upward arc, perhaps heading toward becoming the man he has since been mythologized as being: the Great Emancipator, the man who freed—and loved—the slaves. But his journey was certainly not complete on the day that he died. Abraham Lincoln wrestled with race until the end. And, as Du Bois pointed out, his struggle ultimately made him a more interesting and noble man than the mythical hero we have come to revere.

So even though he talked exactly like a white supremacist, Lincoln didn't really mean it? Is that what you're trying to say?

 

[Rikurzhen]

Do you know ANY parent who would want to be a burden on their children???

So using your creationist logic, in order to avoid being a burden on one's children it's much better to be a burden on strangers and harm them and their families.

What is it with you magical thinkers, does this become a habit, appealing to magic in order to justify your beliefs?

Libertarianism is a philosophy that, among other things, subscribes to a doctrine that a free people, unencumbered by authoritarian restrictions, requirements and demands, will accomplish far more for their own benefit and for the general good than anything government will ever accomplish. And you nailed one of the basic rationales. When that authoritarian government makes requirements and demands re what the people are required to do for others, whatever the motives, the net result will include far more unintended negative consequences, and whatever good is accomplished will be inferior compared to what the private sector will accomplish if left free to do what they choose to do.

The pro-government crowd always assume that for whatever reason, even as those in government increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth, those elected or appointed to serve in government will be more wise, more noble, more compassionate, and more effective than will people acting of their own volition.

Why are you avoiding answering my question?

Critical thought? Seriously. Critical thought would include actually considering ALL the ramifications of actions proposed here. I know you have said on previous threads that you would end Social Security and Medicare.

Did you really use critical thought to consider how much pain, suffering and anxiety that would cause elderly folks? You said you would replace it with charity. Let's consider that for a moment...currently seniors receive a monthly SS check. These seniors know EXACTLY how much money they have coming in each month, so they can set up a budget. HOW would your 'charity only' society work? Would elderly Americans have to rise every morning not knowing if they can pay their bills, buy food and pay their utilities? Would you provide them a CUP so they could stand on a street corner and beg for money??

Let's snap this discussion back to reality, shall we. It's hard for me to grasp why you favor taxing the poor in order to send the benefits to the rich.