Why aren't more people Libertarian?

[bripat9643]

First you claimed not read anything about eliminating "police." Then you quoted the text that mentions eliminating the police. Occupied clearly stated he believes libertarians want to make fraud legal. Regulators are not cops. They are third parties imposing their rules on market participants whether the later find those rules useful or not.

Regulators have never prevented a monopoly and they never will. In fact, government regulations often enforce monopolies. Monopolies simply can't exist in a market where capital is free to enter. Competition cannot be prevented except by law.

Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Morgan would tell you that you are full of shit.

They would tell you exactly the opposite.

 

[occupied]

Contumacious is fascinated by the dark sides of Hitler and his buds.

But you have no problem with abandoning he citizenry to the questionable mercies of unprincipled bureaucrats opportunists as you suggest, insider fraudsters for example.

May I remind you that Adolf Hitler was an elected bureaucrat . Does the number 6,000,000 murders upset you?

Has Microsoft or Bill Gates ever been accused of killing anyone?!?!?!?!?

.

Jeeze, you are even nuttier than the other ones, are you actually tying financial regulation to Hitler?

He seems to be fascinated with the fantastic financial possibilities of stock traders being able to steal and skim even more from the market without penalty, must be a stock broker.

 

[Rocko]

Every example of insider tradding is stealing. Even Martha Stewart wasn't a victimless crime.

Martha Stewart was the only victim. Who was harmed by what she did?

I forgot what trade she did, but I believe she sold a stock because she insider knowledge that company was going to report bad news. Her sell transaction effected the price of that stock, which effected other investors. She was involved with a highly liquid stock, and the trade wasn't a big trade, but every transaction has an effect. She was basically stealing from other investors in that stock.

 

[occupied]

Every example of insider tradding is stealing. Even Martha Stewart wasn't a victimless crime.

Martha Stewart was the only victim. Who was harmed by what she did?

I forgot what trade she did, but I believe she sold a stock because she insider knowledge that company was going to report bad news. Her sell transaction effect the price of that stock, which effected other investors. She was involved with a highly liquid stock, and the trade wasn't a big trade, but every transaction has an effect. She was basically stealing from other investors in that stock.

In the amoral world of these plutocratic suck-ups she did nothing wrong, robbing people with a fountain pen is not theft to them. I guess cheating in a casino is just fine also since it is the exact same thing.

 

[Rocko]

Martha Stewart was the only victim. Who was harmed by what she did?

I forgot what trade she did, but I believe she sold a stock because she insider knowledge that company was going to report bad news. Her sell transaction effect the price of that stock, which effected other investors. She was involved with a highly liquid stock, and the trade wasn't a big trade, but every transaction has an effect. She was basically stealing from other investors in that stock.

In the amoral world of these plutocratic suck-ups she did nothing wrong, robbing people with a fountain pen is not theft to them. I guess cheating in a casino is just fine also since it is the exact same thing.

In my opinion insider trading is much worse. Stealing from the casino, the only victim is the casino.

 

[Mac1958]

.

The posts on this thread are illustrative of the damage the Libertarians have done to themselves.

Instead of advocating smart, efficient, effective limited government, they've pushed WAY too far. Instead of advocating moderation on social issues, they've pushed WAY too far. Sure, it gets them a little attention, but is this really the kind of attention they want?

Efficient, effective government and moderation on social issues would win a ton of votes. Absolutism will not.

.

I don't think this thread is evidence of anything libertarians have done wrong. All I'm seeing is demagoguery, straw men, and nonsense from people who don't understand libertarianism, or are simply interested in smearing it. Either way, that says nothing about us.

Well, the party can't seem to muster 2% of the popular vote. If that's okay with Libertarians, if their only reason for existing is to make a point, if they're content with that level of "success", that's fine, that's where we will leave them, no problem there at all.

If the Libertarians, on the other hand, were interested in becoming a serious national party and representing the people who believe in limited & efficient government mixed with relatively liberal social practices, then it seems pretty clear that they're doing a pretty lousy freakin' job.

They have a pretty clear option: They can remain a punchline, living up to their reputation as simplistic, hopeless theorists, or they can ease their way in by shit-canning the absolutism and tapping into the massive dissatisfaction Americans have with both major parties.

It may be too late anyway; the Libertarian brand has been screwed by its absolutists, even worse than the GOP. We'll probably have to find another alternate party that believes in limited & efficient government mixed with relatively liberal social practices, only one that isn't packed with simplistic absolutists.

It'll be a while, if ever. What a wasted opportunity.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

They would say that "bripat is a useful idiot."

First you claimed not read anything about eliminating "police." Then you quoted the text that mentions eliminating the police. Occupied clearly stated he believes libertarians want to make fraud legal. Regulators are not cops. They are third parties imposing their rules on market participants whether the later find those rules useful or not.

Regulators have never prevented a monopoly and they never will. In fact, government regulations often enforce monopolies. Monopolies simply can't exist in a market where capital is free to enter. Competition cannot be prevented except by law.

Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Morgan would tell you that you are full of shit.

They would tell you exactly the opposite.

 

[konradv]

If I had inside information that I could cash in on big with a trade, I'd do it.

And anyone here who says they wouldn't is lying.

Yeah, so? How does that constitute fraud?

It goes against the notion that capitalism is ruled by the "invisible hand " of the marketplace, when in the instance of insider trading it's more like the "hidden hand".

 

[ba1614]

It's because progressives can't wipe their own ass without a demo from big brother.

 

[Contumacious]

Sure they do, so does any kind of government policy, but nothing compares with the consequences of abandoning the citizenry to the questionable mercies of unprincipled opportunists as you suggest, insider fraudsters for example.

But you have no problem with abandoning he citizenry to the questionable mercies of unprincipled bureaucrats opportunists as you suggest, insider fraudsters for example.

May I remind you that Adolf Hitler was an elected bureaucrat . Does the number 6,000,000 murders upset you?

Has Microsoft or Bill Gates ever been accused of killing anyone?!?!?!?!?

.

Jeeze, you are even nuttier than the other ones, are you actually tying financial regulation to Hitler?

financial regulation is fascistic = Germany was fascistic = if a =b and b=c then a = c.

.

.

 

[Contumacious]

Contumacious is fascinated by the dark sides of Hitler and his buds.

Jeeze, you are even nuttier than the other ones, are you actually tying financial regulation to Hitler?

He seems to be fascinated with the fantastic financial possibilities of stock traders being able to steal and skim even more from the market without penalty, must be a stock broker.

Yo Vern, the social security was adopted in order to create and account for each taxpayer who when he reached a certain age could commence to receive payments during his/her old age.

Now we find that SSN do not mean anything, individual accounts were never created, the bastards commingled social security funds with general funds and the same is depleted.

Who should be penalized?!?!?!?!?

.

 

[Contumacious]

Contumacious is fascinated by the dark sides of Hitler and his buds.

But you have no problem with abandoning he citizenry to the questionable mercies of unprincipled bureaucrats opportunists as you suggest, insider fraudsters for example.

May I remind you that Adolf Hitler was an elected bureaucrat . Does the number 6,000,000 murders upset you?

Has Microsoft or Bill Gates ever been accused of killing anyone?!?!?!?!?

.

Jeeze, you are even nuttier than the other ones, are you actually tying financial regulation to Hitler?

No fascination.

As a former military men , my policy is to know the enemy.

.

 

[Oddball]

.

The posts on this thread are illustrative of the damage the Libertarians have done to themselves.

Instead of advocating smart, efficient, effective limited government, they've pushed WAY too far. Instead of advocating moderation on social issues, they've pushed WAY too far. Sure, it gets them a little attention, but is this really the kind of attention they want?

Efficient, effective government and moderation on social issues would win a ton of votes. Absolutism will not.

.

I don't think this thread is evidence of anything libertarians have done wrong. All I'm seeing is demagoguery, straw men, and nonsense from people who don't understand libertarianism, or are simply interested in smearing it. Either way, that says nothing about us.

All classic examples of the PANGie (People Are No Good) mindset..."People", that is, except for those who don't understand libertarianism, are frightened to death of it and seek to smear it...Those are the only good, upright, righteous and moral people left on the planet...People who, curiously, completely exempt themselves from all the less favorable attributes of human nature, which they project upon everyone else in their rants of fear, ignorance and unvarnished hatred.

 

[konradv]

Yo Vern, the social security was adopted in order to create and account for each taxpayer who when he reached a certain age could commence to receive payments during his/her old age.

Now we find that SSN do not mean anything, individual accounts were never created, the bastards commingled social security funds with general funds and the same is depleted.

Who should be penalized?!?!?!?!?

I don't see anything about individual accounts in the original law. It only mentions an account(singular) from which payments are to be made.

Social Security Act of 1935

 

[Oddball]

Martha Stewart was the only victim. Who was harmed by what she did?

I forgot what trade she did, but I believe she sold a stock because she insider knowledge that company was going to report bad news. Her sell transaction effect the price of that stock, which effected other investors. She was involved with a highly liquid stock, and the trade wasn't a big trade, but every transaction has an effect. She was basically stealing from other investors in that stock.

In the amoral world of these plutocratic suck-ups she did nothing wrong, robbing people with a fountain pen is not theft to them. I guess cheating in a casino is just fine also since it is the exact same thing.

But as long as those doing the robbing with a fountain pen carry the title of "Congressman" or "Senator" -particularly if they have that (D) by their name- then the robbery and plutocracy are just jake with dour little hand-wringers like you.

 

[bripat9643]

If I had inside information that I could cash in on big with a trade, I'd do it.

And anyone here who says they wouldn't is lying.

Yeah, so? How does that constitute fraud?

It goes against the notion that capitalism is ruled by the "invisible hand " of the marketplace, when in the instance of insider trading it's more like the "hidden hand".

You still haven't shown how it constitutes fraud. Who was lied to?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The amoral world is that of the libertarians, who whine about living in a We the People constitutional republic with minority protections.

These people wish to live their little fantasy lives independent of the social compact into which they were born and in which they have benefited significantly.

Their complaints are insignificant and dismissed without much regret.

 

[longknife]

Because libertarianism just like communism is a philosophy for criminals.

Did it take a lot of effort to dream up that tripe?

 

[JakeStarkey]

longknife would be make a fine communist as well, because he lets the elites think for him.

 

[konradv]

.

The posts on this thread are illustrative of the damage the Libertarians have done to themselves.

Instead of advocating smart, efficient, effective limited government, they've pushed WAY too far. Instead of advocating moderation on social issues, they've pushed WAY too far. Sure, it gets them a little attention, but is this really the kind of attention they want?

Efficient, effective government and moderation on social issues would win a ton of votes. Absolutism will not.

I don't think this thread is evidence of anything libertarians have done wrong. All I'm seeing is demagoguery, straw men, and nonsense from people who don't understand libertarianism, or are simply interested in smearing it. Either way, that says nothing about us.

All classic examples of the PANGie (People Are No Good) mindset..."People", that is, except for those who don't understand libertarianism, are frightened to death of it and seek to smear it...Those are the only good, upright, righteous and moral people left on the planet...People who, curiously, completely exempt themselves from all the less favorable attributes of human nature, which they project upon everyone else in their rants of fear, ignorance and unvarnished hatred.

I don't doubt that most libertarians are sincere, but then again so were most Marxists. The problem comes when opportunists take over and pervert the philosophy. I no more trust that individual freedom as outlined by libertarians will come to any better end, than the proletarian paradise of the Marxists did. "Isms" inevitably get co-opted and what starts out as the road to freedom becomes a chain gang serving the few. I don't trust anyone that says they have a fool-proof plan, no matter how sincere they are.