Why aren't more people Libertarian?

[Paulie]

I think I pointed out on the other thread that the economic policies have been tried and the opinion of if they failed or not depends if you are a multinational conglomerate or a worker in one of their sweatshops. To my knowledge the social and legal aspects are still either a pipe dream or the symptom of a weak government allowing the lawless warlord elements to rule in fact a la Somalia.

In this information age I'd like to see it given another shot.

It happens every time some troubled nation reforms after a dictator and the WTO and the World Bank comes in to settle the inevitable mountain of debt incurred by the outgoing prick. The debt is usually forgiven but the price is a fairly common set of economic and political concessions that do not include any but the bare minimum social programs and voucher education or barriers to trade and exploitation of labor and resources. It's great if you want cheap labor or to strip mine or clear cut entire regions of a third world shit hole, not so much for the poor saps that live there.

Usually a result of our intervention, not to mention the result of international governing bodies that shouldn't exist in the first place.

 

[Oddball]

We already know why authoritarian central planner chumps like Fake Malarkey and Occupooped aren't libertarians....They're afraid somebody might make too much money or have too much fun.

 

[Paulie]

I think I pointed out on the other thread that the economic policies have been tried and the opinion of if they failed or not depends if you are a multinational conglomerate or a worker in one of their sweatshops. To my knowledge the social and legal aspects are still either a pipe dream or the symptom of a weak government allowing the lawless warlord elements to rule in fact a la Somalia.

In this information age I'd like to see it given another shot.

It happens every time some troubled nation reforms after a dictator and the WTO and the World Bank comes in to settle the inevitable mountain of debt incurred by the outgoing prick. The debt is usually forgiven but the price is a fairly common set of economic and political concessions that do not include any but the bare minimum social programs and voucher education or barriers to trade and exploitation of labor and resources. It's great if you want cheap labor or to strip mine or clear cut entire regions of a third world shit hole, not so much for the poor saps that live there.

But I meant here though. I'm not really concerned with how foreign countries fair with whatever kind of "libertarianism" they're apparently utilizing.

 

[occupied]

In this information age I'd like to see it given another shot.

It happens every time some troubled nation reforms after a dictator and the WTO and the World Bank comes in to settle the inevitable mountain of debt incurred by the outgoing prick. The debt is usually forgiven but the price is a fairly common set of economic and political concessions that do not include any but the bare minimum social programs and voucher education or barriers to trade and exploitation of labor and resources. It's great if you want cheap labor or to strip mine or clear cut entire regions of a third world shit hole, not so much for the poor saps that live there.

Usually a result of our intervention, not to mention the result of international governing bodies that shouldn't exist in the first place.

I didn't figure you would like them even though they are the missionaries of free market capitalism. They totally reject the idea of "the commons", the concept that indigenous peoples or long time residents have some claim to the wealth beneath their feet in mineral wealth or forest resources and should not just be sold or exploited by the colonial bastard who's name is on the deed. How do you stand on that? It seems to me a libertarian could come down on either side of that argument.

 

[beagle9]

1) The idea that libertarians are self centered is ridiculous. In a libertarian society any right that is secured for an individuals would be secured for ALL individuals regardless of race, sex or creed . For example; No one would allow economic slavery to corporate interests because they then could fall victim to such, No one would allow companies to pollute their water supply, No one would allow a strip club to be set up next to their kids school. So these arguments are ridiculous and irrelevant to the national stage anyway since they handled at the local level. States would and should have the power to set laws that would require zoning and environmental protections. The issue is whether the federal government should do it and the answer is an emphatic NO!

2) A monopoly that raises it's prices beyond the customers ability to pay will fail since it will be decreasing the barriers to market entry. The price point will have to remain affordable and the quality remain high in order to maintain their place on top and if they can do that they deserve to stay on top because that is what it's all about.


I am of the Minarchist branch of the philosophy which says that we should have the minimum amount of government necessary to secure the rights of everyone. In other words some government is necessary but the debate should be on what is absolutely necessary and what is superfluous. If it's necessary then taxation may be justified but when you waste tax dollars on the superfluous then that is theft.

A monopoly that has shut down affectively it's competitors, has not these things to worry about, and this has been a major problem in todays market place, where as monopolies have control (corporate rows), and they are using that control against us (bleeding us dry and worse exploiting the world doing it), while we are limted in our choices (i.e. need to try and get back to a 3 level purchasing teer), but we can't all because of this problem now. So how do you safegaurd the citizens from these things in which have come about in these latter days & times, and how do we de-corrupt our government for whom they have placed into their back pockets now ?

 

[LibertyForAll]

You are not a libertarian, for who would agree on the penalties of violators? A democratic meeting of the whole population? You are sillier than democrats gone wild.

None of you guys offer a consistent philosophy that is different than what we have. You just say it is different.

The libertarian philosophy fails on its ignorance concerning human nature. Individuals will prey on one another if given the opportunity. Our history as mankind has demonstrated that immutable fact.

Government must retain the right to authorized violence, and it must retain the right to define what level of individual violence is permissible in self dense.

I guess this says it all about your position. Let me say this though about your first point. Libertarianism isn't the absence of law, that's anarchy. Libertarians reject aggression so there would be no authorized use of violence. Aggressors would forfeit the right to exemption from violence from their victim. Aggressors would also be subject to the agreed upon penalties for their crimes.

Individuals prey on one another now and we are far from a libertarian ideal. There wouldn't be any less restriction on personal aggression in a libertarian society and the punishment could be more severe and much swifter.

The legislature of elected representatives of course. Libertarians are constitutionalists because the constitution in its purist form was the best protection against tyranny. You say I am not a libertarian because I don't fit your preconceived notions of what a libertarian is. Our views don't necessarily change we are all rooted in the same ideas. All I want for now is progress towards more liberty not radical change overnight.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It happens every time some troubled nation reforms after a dictator and the WTO and the World Bank comes in to settle the inevitable mountain of debt incurred by the outgoing prick. The debt is usually forgiven but the price is a fairly common set of economic and political concessions that do not include any but the bare minimum social programs and voucher education or barriers to trade and exploitation of labor and resources. It's great if you want cheap labor or to strip mine or clear cut entire regions of a third world shit hole, not so much for the poor saps that live there.

Usually a result of our intervention, not to mention the result of international governing bodies that shouldn't exist in the first place.

I didn't figure you would like them even though they are the missionaries of free market capitalism. They totally reject the idea of "the commons", the concept that indigenous peoples or long time residents have some claim to the wealth beneath their feet in mineral wealth or forest resources and should not just be sold or exploited by the colonial bastard who's name is on the deed. How do you stand on that? It seems to me a libertarian could come down on either side of that argument.

The world Bank and the WTO are missionaries of free market capitalism?

 

[Paulie]

Usually a result of our intervention, not to mention the result of international governing bodies that shouldn't exist in the first place.

I didn't figure you would like them even though they are the missionaries of free market capitalism. They totally reject the idea of "the commons", the concept that indigenous peoples or long time residents have some claim to the wealth beneath their feet in mineral wealth or forest resources and should not just be sold or exploited by the colonial bastard who's name is on the deed. How do you stand on that? It seems to me a libertarian could come down on either side of that argument.

The world Bank and the WTO are missionaries of free market capitalism?

Yeah I wasn't really sure about that one either.

 

[occupied]

I didn't figure you would like them even though they are the missionaries of free market capitalism. They totally reject the idea of "the commons", the concept that indigenous peoples or long time residents have some claim to the wealth beneath their feet in mineral wealth or forest resources and should not just be sold or exploited by the colonial bastard who's name is on the deed. How do you stand on that? It seems to me a libertarian could come down on either side of that argument.

The world Bank and the WTO are missionaries of free market capitalism?

Yeah I wasn't really sure about that one either.

Looks like you are unaware of what they do for international trade in the developing world, by the time they are done the people there barely have any say over who rapes the hell out their resources or exploits their workers and social reforms earns them sanctions, nice huh. You didn't think those people stay in line and socialism free because they love the west did you?

 

[Paulie]

The world Bank and the WTO are missionaries of free market capitalism?

Yeah I wasn't really sure about that one either.

Looks like you are unaware of what they do for international trade in the developing world, by the time they are done the people there barely have any say over who rapes the hell out their resources or exploits their workers and social reforms earns them sanctions, nice huh. You didn't think those people stay in line and socialism free because they love the west did you?

The people having barely any say over their own resources is what you would consider free market capitalism?

 

[occupied]

Yeah I wasn't really sure about that one either.

Looks like you are unaware of what they do for international trade in the developing world, by the time they are done the people there barely have any say over who rapes the hell out their resources or exploits their workers and social reforms earns them sanctions, nice huh. You didn't think those people stay in line and socialism free because they love the west did you?

The people having barely any say over their own resources is what you would consider free market capitalism?

Don't you? It's the holy Milton Friedman model of opening a new market, The people are supposed to eventually be in better shape and the landlords actually are in the long run but in the short term the regular people are subjected to terrible economic hardships that make them leave their land and move to the cities making it so much easier to buy local cooperation and mineral rights for peanuts. Any barriers to international investment and trade just prolongs the pain.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You are not a libertarian, for who would agree on the penalties of violators? A democratic meeting of the whole population? You are sillier than democrats gone wild.

None of you guys offer a consistent philosophy that is different than what we have. You just say it is different.

I guess this says it all about your position. Let me say this though about your first point. Libertarianism isn't the absence of law, that's anarchy. Libertarians reject aggression so there would be no authorized use of violence. Aggressors would forfeit the right to exemption from violence from their victim. Aggressors would also be subject to the agreed upon penalties for their crimes.

Individuals prey on one another now and we are far from a libertarian ideal. There wouldn't be any less restriction on personal aggression in a libertarian society and the punishment could be more severe and much swifter.

The legislature of elected representatives of course. Libertarians are constitutionalists because the constitution in its purist form was the best protection against tyranny. You say I am not a libertarian because I don't fit your preconceived notions of what a libertarian is. Our views don't necessarily change we are all rooted in the same ideas. All I want for now is progress towards more liberty not radical change overnight.

There is no such thing as a ‘constitutionalist,’ of course you may call yourself any made-up thing you wish.

Indeed, there is no ‘living’ Constitution, there is no such thing as ‘originalism’ or ‘strict constructionism.’ There is only the Constitution and its case law, the Constitution exists only in the context of that case law.

And to the OP, that’s likely why many don’t embrace libertarianism, because of the movement’s rejection of Constitutional case law in its entirety. Not only do libertarians reject the Founding Document’s jurisprudence, but they reject both the courts’ authority to subject laws, policies, and acts of government to judicial review and the courts’ interpretive authority with regard to determining what the Constitution means.

It is thus impossible to engage in any type of meaningful ‘debate’ with libertarians on the subject, since they refuse to even speak the language of the law.

 

[Paulie]

Looks like you are unaware of what they do for international trade in the developing world, by the time they are done the people there barely have any say over who rapes the hell out their resources or exploits their workers and social reforms earns them sanctions, nice huh. You didn't think those people stay in line and socialism free because they love the west did you?

The people having barely any say over their own resources is what you would consider free market capitalism?

Don't you? It's the holy Milton Friedman model of opening a new market, The people are supposed to eventually be in better shape and the landlords actually are in the long run but in the short term the regular people are subjected to terrible economic hardships that make them leave their land and move to the cities making it so much easier to buy local cooperation and mineral rights for peanuts. Any barriers to international investment and trade just prolongs the pain.

We're not Friedmanites.

At least none of the REAL libertarians on here, anyway.

 

[bripat9643]

And you can't even name one failure. Who's the real failure here, TM?

Don't you love how they go from "its never been tried before in history" to "its a big failure"?

I think I pointed out on the other thread that the economic policies have been tried and the opinion of if they failed or not depends if you are a multinational conglomerate or a worker in one of their sweatshops. To my knowledge the social and legal aspects are still either a pipe dream or the symptom of a weak government allowing the lawless warlord elements to rule in fact a la Somalia.

There's the problem: You said "to your knowledge," and you obviously don't know jack shit.

 

[Paulie]

You are not a libertarian, for who would agree on the penalties of violators? A democratic meeting of the whole population? You are sillier than democrats gone wild.

None of you guys offer a consistent philosophy that is different than what we have. You just say it is different.

The legislature of elected representatives of course. Libertarians are constitutionalists because the constitution in its purist form was the best protection against tyranny. You say I am not a libertarian because I don't fit your preconceived notions of what a libertarian is. Our views don't necessarily change we are all rooted in the same ideas. All I want for now is progress towards more liberty not radical change overnight.

There is no such thing as a ‘constitutionalist,’ of course you may call yourself any made-up thing you wish.

Indeed, there is no ‘living’ Constitution, there is no such thing as ‘originalism’ or ‘strict constructionism.’ There is only the Constitution and its case law, the Constitution exists only in the context of that case law.

And to the OP, that’s likely why many don’t embrace libertarianism, because of the movement’s rejection of Constitutional case law in its entirety. Not only do libertarians reject the Founding Document’s jurisprudence, but they reject both the courts’ authority to subject laws, policies, and acts of government to judicial review and the courts’ interpretive authority with regard to determining what the Constitution means.

It is thus impossible to engage in any type of meaningful ‘debate’ with libertarians on the subject, since they refuse to even speak the language of the law.

Since there's no authorization given to the SCOTUS in the constitution for "judicial review", we don't recognize your "case law".

But thanks for stopping by anyway

 

[bripat9643]

It happens every time some troubled nation reforms after a dictator and the WTO and the World Bank comes in to settle the inevitable mountain of debt incurred by the outgoing prick. The debt is usually forgiven but the price is a fairly common set of economic and political concessions that do not include any but the bare minimum social programs and voucher education or barriers to trade and exploitation of labor and resources. It's great if you want cheap labor or to strip mine or clear cut entire regions of a third world shit hole, not so much for the poor saps that live there.

What complete horseshit. Everything you post is nothing but a stream of left-wing slogans. Your posts are entirely fact-free. There's no point in reading them or responding to them.

 

[Contumacious]

You are not a libertarian, for who would agree on the penalties of violators? A democratic meeting of the whole population? You are sillier than democrats gone wild.

None of you guys offer a consistent philosophy that is different than what we have. You just say it is different.

The legislature of elected representatives of course. Libertarians are constitutionalists because the constitution in its purist form was the best protection against tyranny. You say I am not a libertarian because I don't fit your preconceived notions of what a libertarian is. Our views don't necessarily change we are all rooted in the same ideas. All I want for now is progress towards more liberty not radical change overnight.

There is no such thing as a ‘constitutionalist,’ of course you may call yourself any made-up thing you wish.

Indeed, there is no ‘living’ Constitution, there is no such thing as ‘originalism’ or ‘strict constructionism.’ There is only the Constitution and its case law, the Constitution exists only in the context of that case law.

And to the OP, that’s likely why many don’t embrace libertarianism, because of the movement’s rejection of Constitutional case law in its entirety. Not only do libertarians reject the Founding Document’s jurisprudence, but they reject both the courts’ authority to subject laws, policies, and acts of government to judicial review and the courts’ interpretive authority with regard to determining what the Constitution means.

It is thus impossible to engage in any type of meaningful ‘debate’ with libertarians on the subject, since they refuse to even speak the language of the law.

Mr. Fucktard, sir:


Identify the CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISO which authorizes the Supreme Court, an entity created by the Constitution itself, to amend the Constitution (1787) via case law?!?!?!?!?!?!

.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

 

[bripat9643]

We already know why authoritarian central planner chumps like Fake Malarkey and Occupooped aren't libertarians....They're afraid somebody might make too much money or have too much fun.

It's funny to watch the terror some people exhibit at the prospect of freedom.

 

[occupied]

The people having barely any say over their own resources is what you would consider free market capitalism?

Don't you? It's the holy Milton Friedman model of opening a new market, The people are supposed to eventually be in better shape and the landlords actually are in the long run but in the short term the regular people are subjected to terrible economic hardships that make them leave their land and move to the cities making it so much easier to buy local cooperation and mineral rights for peanuts. Any barriers to international investment and trade just prolongs the pain.

We're not Friedmanites.

At least none of the REAL libertarians on here, anyway.

That's funny, his theories form the 20th century basis of so called Market Liberalism, typical you would disown them. He is where all your ideas on privatization, deregulation, lowering all artificial barriers to international trade, protectionism and labor organization came from. Want to tell me how you differ?