Why aren't more people Libertarian?

[Contumacious]

Libertarians cannot create a coherent belief system because they cannot agree on (1) the role of government and on (2) the role of protection of minority rights and (3) on the role of the use of force by government.

Yes they are a political junkpile of extreme positions without the conviction to actually attempt to implement them and lacking the simplest ability to create consensus.

That's because after 12 years at the government indoctrination centers people have conditioned to give up liberty for temporary security.

.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There it is, the centerpiece of libertarian dogma, forever misunderstood outsiders who get to play the victim of the two party system every single time the voters foolishly vote for more of the same never to be even slightly responsible for the terrible state of our political landscape. There are far harsher critics than I and like usual it's my fault for not understanding. I understand your politics better than you do, there is nothing noble about playing the perpetual too cool for the room political hipster.

Yes, it's your fault for not understanding, and then passing judgement while criticizing us for not being able to convince you or work with others. For not understanding, and then pretending to have some great understanding of the topic. Yes, those are your fault, and your problem. I'm more than willing to discuss libertarianism with anybody at any time, but when they start making ridiculous claims that they can't back up and continually dismiss what I'm trying to say then I start to lose interest.

Stop making ridiculous statements and maybe I will not be so skeptical. You are right I did reject this crap long ago because you guys tend to be all attack all the time on everything and are yet terribly pathetic on defending your belief system. I have to defend my beliefs every day of the week on this board and I know it's tough but it builds character and makes one constantly re-examine their opinions, have you ever done that? Are you afraid that you might be proven wrong if you actually choose a side in a discussion?

There you have it. You've already rejected libertarianism, whether it was for a good reason or not. Can't have a real discussion with somebody who's already ruled your positions out. As for defending my beliefs, I'll refer you to this post. http://www.usmessageboard.com/6380446-post53.html

You, on the other hand, have yet to make a single rational argument against libertarianism. Your first argument was that libertarians are just fakes, but you were only referring to Republican losers like Glenn Beck. So that has nothing to do with libertarianism at all. Then you tried to make an argument about the difference between American and European libertarianism, and, going off your first argument, the only person you were able to cite was Glenn Beck. So you obviously know nothing about American libertarianism, and for all your big talk about European libertarianism you were unable to name a single adherent of the ideology for us to discuss. Now your argument has devolved into projecting your own failures at making a rational argument onto us.

 

[bripat9643]

Politicians can be voted out. How do you get rid of a monopolist, if there's no strong authority to keep them in check? It's not like they don't have demonic qualities themselves.

Simple, you get some investors together and start producing whatever product the so-called "monopolist" is producing. Presto-chango, no more monopoly!

What "demonic qualities" did Rockefeller have, being smarter than his competitors?

Do some research. It's no secret he drove competitors into the ground by making deals with monopolists in other businesses that made it impossible to function normally.

Well, that is a secret because the know facts differ from what you claim. he drove competitors into the ground by producing kerosene that was cheaper and higher quality than his competitors. He did it by being more efficient than they were. I'm no aware of any so-called "monopolists" that Rockefeller did business with. There weren't any monopolist. The only "monopolists" that have ever existed in the country all had their monopolies enforced by the government.

They had two choices, sell out or go bankrupt.

That's true. That's the choice of every company that can't cut the competition in the free market. And when they did sell their companies to Rockefeller, they became very wealthy men.

It had nothing to do with delivering a better product, just acquiring power and cash.

Horseshit. The facts are that Standard oil sold better quality Kerosene at a cheaper price than it's competitors. That fact isn't disputed by anyone.

Sounds demonic to me.

It sounds like idiocy to me.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Libertarians cannot create a coherent belief system because they cannot agree on (1) the role of government and on (2) the role of protection of minority rights and (3) on the role of the use of force by government.

Yes they are a political junkpile of extreme positions without the conviction to actually attempt to implement them and the lacking the simplist ability to create consensus.

From what I've read in this tread, some do not even comprehend enough basic economic theory to define a monopoly.

This is especially concerning since the libertarian platform, which I have quoted, specifically supports unfettered free markets, which have, not in theory, but in reality, spawned market monopolies.

You were unwilling to engage in a discussion regarding monopolies, and merely attempted to justify running away by using this pathetic argument.

 

[bripat9643]

From what I've read in this tread, some do not even comprehend enough basic economic theory to define a monopoly.

This is especially concerning since the libertarian platform, which I have quoted, specifically supports unfettered free markets, which have, not in theory, but in reality, spawned market monopolies.

They have? name one.

I think it's apparent that you and other critics of libertarianism don't understand what a monopoly is.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

From what I've read in this tread, some do not even comprehend enough basic economic theory to define a monopoly.

This is especially concerning since the libertarian platform, which I have quoted, specifically supports unfettered free markets, which have, not in theory, but in reality, spawned market monopolies.

They have? name one.

I think it's apparent that you and other critics of libertarianism don't understand what a monopoly is.

Earlier in the thread I attempted to engage him in a discussion of monopolies, and rather than do so he declared that I didn't understand what a monopoly was and ran away.

 

[Samson]

They would eliminate the FDA, the FAA, the USDA, all federal environmental and safety regulations, and many other useful government agencies.

Probably.

Do you know of any party willing to decrease the size (not eliminate) ANY of our "useful" government agency?

BWT if all these agencies are so useful, why not continue to grow them in size and number? Simply raise taxes to 80% of income, then install a useful government agency to take care of every citizen's smallest desire?

I know I'd appreciate a Department of Asswipe; and I'm certain a number of USMB members could find employment there.

 

[occupied]

Libertarians cannot create a coherent belief system because they cannot agree on (1) the role of government and on (2) the role of protection of minority rights and (3) on the role of the use of force by government.

Yes they are a political junkpile of extreme positions without the conviction to actually attempt to implement them and the lacking the simplist ability to create consensus.

From what I've read in this tread, some do not even comprehend enough basic economic theory to define a monopoly.

This is especially concerning since the libertarian platform, which I have quoted, specifically supports unfettered free markets, which have, not in theory, but in reality, spawned market monopolies.

Certainly, we all can easily guess what would happen to the markets and industry if all the cops clocked out and went home. Why they do not see their much wished for economic anarchy as a ready disaster of fraud and corruption continues to escape me. We have it pretty bad now in our weakly regulated system where the worst practices might earn a slap on the wrist, I cannot imagine the catastrophe if they were to abolish the various watchdogs.

 

[Samson]

Yes they are a political junkpile of extreme positions without the conviction to actually attempt to implement them and the lacking the simplist ability to create consensus.

From what I've read in this tread, some do not even comprehend enough basic economic theory to define a monopoly.

This is especially concerning since the libertarian platform, which I have quoted, specifically supports unfettered free markets, which have, not in theory, but in reality, spawned market monopolies.

You were unwilling to engage in a discussion regarding monopolies, and merely attempted to justify running away by using this pathetic argument.

I cannot engage with the hopelessly intellectually inferior.

And spoon feeding ECON 101 bores.

Perhaps you can pay someone to school you.



I would not count on it being a cheap education.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

From what I've read in this tread, some do not even comprehend enough basic economic theory to define a monopoly.

This is especially concerning since the libertarian platform, which I have quoted, specifically supports unfettered free markets, which have, not in theory, but in reality, spawned market monopolies.

You were unwilling to engage in a discussion regarding monopolies, and merely attempted to justify running away by using this pathetic argument.

I cannot engage with the hopelessly intellectually inferior.

And spoon feeding ECON 101 bores.

Perhaps you can pay someone to school you.



I would not count on it being a cheap education.

Justify it however you like.

 

[Samson]

Why they do not see their much wished for economic anarchy as a ready disaster of fraud and corruption continues to escape me.

Really?

Frankly, I'm astonished that you cannot easily see that they have an infantile grasp on what economics means.

 

[bripat9643]

Certainly, we all can easily guess what would happen to the markets and industry if all the cops clocked out and went home. Why they do not see their much wished for economic anarchy as a ready disaster of fraud and corruption continues to escape me. We have it pretty bad now in our weakly regulated system where the worst practices might earn a slap on the wrist, I cannot imagine the catastrophe if they were to abolish the various watchdogs.

if you can find a quote of a libertarian advocating the elimination of police, please post it. Also, if you can find any libertarian proposing to make fraud legal, please post that.

You think we currently have a "weakly regulated system," and you accuse libertarians of being out of touch?

 

[Samson]

You were unwilling to engage in a discussion regarding monopolies, and merely attempted to justify running away by using this pathetic argument.

I cannot engage with the hopelessly intellectually inferior.

And spoon feeding ECON 101 bores.

Perhaps you can pay someone to school you.



I would not count on it being a cheap education.

Justify it however you like.

Still cannot define monopoly?

The first step is admitting that you're ignorant, and I'm happy you've taken it.



The next step will be googling "monopoly"

Go ahead, make us proud!

 

[bripat9643]

Why they do not see their much wished for economic anarchy as a ready disaster of fraud and corruption continues to escape me.

Really?

Frankly, I'm astonished that you cannot easily see that they have an infantile grasp on what economics means.

ROLF! But turds like you never manage to prove it.

 

[Paulie]

Kevin, I wish to believe that, but when I read some of the so-called libertarian postings, I have the feeling some would be quite willing to force others to submit.

What are you being forced to submit to? We're looking to REPEAL laws, which gives you more freedom. That's submission to you?

 

[bripat9643]

I cannot engage with the hopelessly intellectually inferior.

And spoon feeding ECON 101 bores.

Perhaps you can pay someone to school you.



I would not count on it being a cheap education.

ROLF! The coward takes his ball and runs home to mommy!

I find it amusing the way libertarian critics never want to engage in a fair fight about their claims with actual libertarians. They always run away like scared little puppies.

 

[g5000]

They would eliminate the FDA, the FAA, the USDA, all federal environmental and safety regulations, and many other useful government agencies.

Probably.

Do you know of any party willing to decrease the size (not eliminate) ANY of our "useful" government agency?

BWT if all these agencies are so useful, why not continue to grow them in size and number? Simply raise taxes to 80% of income, then install a useful government agency to take care of every citizen's smallest desire?

I know I'd appreciate a Department of Asswipe; and I'm certain a number of USMB members could find employment there.

Your post is one giant fallacy of the excluded middle.

.

 

[bripat9643]

They have? name one.

I think it's apparent that you and other critics of libertarianism don't understand what a monopoly is.

Earlier in the thread I attempted to engage him in a discussion of monopolies, and rather than do so he declared that I didn't understand what a monopoly was and ran away.

It appears he's doing it again. He won't even respond to anything I post.

Talk about chickens.

 

[konradv]

Certainly, we all can easily guess what would happen to the markets and industry if all the cops clocked out and went home. Why they do not see their much wished for economic anarchy as a ready disaster of fraud and corruption continues to escape me. We have it pretty bad now in our weakly regulated system where the worst practices might earn a slap on the wrist, I cannot imagine the catastrophe if they were to abolish the various watchdogs.

if you can find a quote of a libertarian advocating the elimination of police, please post it. Also, if you can find any libertarian proposing to make fraud legal, please post that.

You think we currently have a "weakly regulated system," and you accuse libertarians of being out of touch?

Define fraud. Your fraud could be my sharp business practice. One of the major problems with libertarianism is lots of broad generalizations that sound good on the surface with few details. That's where the devil lies and is the same problem the Marxists had. In practice their theories just didn't work. If you could point to just one country where it's been tried and worked maybe we could give it a shot, but right now it just seems to be a shot in the dark.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I cannot engage with the hopelessly intellectually inferior.

And spoon feeding ECON 101 bores.

Perhaps you can pay someone to school you.



I would not count on it being a cheap education.

Justify it however you like.

Still cannot define monopoly?

The first step is admitting that you're ignorant, and I'm happy you've taken it.



The next step will be googling "monopoly"

Go ahead, make us proud!

"The monopoly problem mankind has to face today is not an outgrowth of the operation of the market economy. It is a product of purposive action on the part of governments. It is not one of the evils inherent in capitalism as the demagogues trumpet." - Ludwig von Mises

"The widespread view that the monopolist can fix prices at will, that—in common phrase—he can dictate prices, is as erroneous as the conclusion, derived from this view, that he has in his hands the power to do whatever he likes." - Mises

So, in other words, a monopoly is a state granted privilege that would not exist in a free market.