Do Libertarians Stand By Their Convictions?

Our Kenny the libertarian says:

But then makes himself scarce when asked abuot what he means by that. How would he punish people that violate rules? How would any libertarian deal with somebody that violates rules. Give them a detention and keep them in the classroom during recess time?

As usual, the libertarian opens his cakehole and starts spewing the Rand Paul crap before thinking how he's going to back up his gum flapping.

Gee, I sure hope those libertarians don't get mad and start ignoring everybody who asks them questions. It was so scary, OOOOoooooooooooo, when Ted and Kenny discussed the idea. OOOOOooooooo!

 

Libretardians only care about one thing: Hereditary Class Supremacy. I compare their utopia to a group lost in the desert, running out of food. One man dies. Do the others give all his food to his son? Or do they distribute it evenly to all the survivors? If they do that, everybody survives, not just Junior.

This would only be a strawman to those who believe that the economic structure is nothing like that. Right Wing cults believe it is strong, fair, and productive. People who are not dumbed down by overwhelming ruling-class propaganda see how fragile, unfair, wasteful, and doomed it is. We can have the most widespread prosperity in the world if we eliminate all birth privileges, including those in government, such as Bush, Jr., Gore, Jr., Daley, Jr., and Paul, Jr.

 

I think Ted and Kenny are ignoring us now. That's so awful. But in any case Kenny finally admitted that he wants to get rid of all stop signs. And Ted's just angry again as all libertarians are. It's an authority problem with them because there's nothing else that would make a sane person a libertarian.

Libertarian for his future is quite sane though and that's why it's for his future. Not now because he's still getting his head around his own politics.

 

On Mixed Daily Jokes, I illustrated how LibFoFu's working his way through school means he didn't have the time or energy to learn very much.except shortcuts and faking it. His illiterate grammar and quicksand logic proves that if people aren't paid while they are in college, they aren't worth anything.

 

Whatever, but I'm having some difficulty with that one. He talks and acts like a 17 year old but claims to be an adult. Possible but not probable except in some cases of living a very sheltered mommy's boy life?

 

For the sake of simply wanting to know than truly caring, where does your beliefs lay? You talk about every faction in this world, in yet, I've yet to see one thing from you that says what you want to see. So, put bluntly, what is your utopia?

 

I'm not opposed to the idea of jail time for serious crimes. I get that some people are jerks and do stupid things. My idea is that either you work to provide restitution to the party injured, or you go to jail. It's worked in lots of other countries. Of course there are other ideas, like exiling people from the country or community or something like that. Jail should honestly be a last resort, even most conservatives would admit that jails do a better job of making better criminals than making good citizens.

I didn't know that either of the Pauls didn't like jails. Why not try to understand a position before you dismiss it as something stupid.

You don't even understand the basics of the libertarian idea.

First off, in a libertarian state, there is in fact a state. It can pass laws, but it can't pass any laws it wants -- there's a list of rights that any human living within that state gets by default. Free Speech, Free Religion, Freedom to control your own body, freedom from being spied upon. There are others, but I think you get the idea. The state serves only to prevent people from violating other people's rights. It cannot impose economic order or moral order on a society. It cannot shape society into its own image. It cannot decide that some activity that adults consent to is "icky", nor can it prevent you from doing something stupid to yourself.

Secondly, as I said before, a lot of the opposition comes from the notion that ONLY the state can act on behalf of the society. That's not true. Workers who needed leverage for better wages could form a trade guild to gain some measure of control over the supply of a given type of labor in the market. For example, if cashiers all formed the "Checker's guild" and provided a superior checker, someone well trained, that guild could negotiate a contract for its members. the members get a higher wage, or more benefits, the businesses get better checkers -- everyone wins. Social clubs could solve all kinds of social ills. the very first medical hospitals (ancient greece) were actually temples to the greek god of healing. Later Catholics built hospitals all over the place. the first schools were much the same -- run by private individuals or charitable groups. In many cases, the statist solution only really came into its own in the last century. There were no public schools in the US until the early part of the 20th century, but people still learned to read -- in fact the literacy rate was almost 100% in the world before the public school. Point being that individuals can easily form a group of like minded people to solve a problem. You don't need to make the government solve the problem, people can do it on their own in many cases.

In fact too many times the government solutions come with a hidden problem. Which is that once the government starts solving a problem it creates a vested interest for itself to keep that problem around. The welfare office has lots of people whose livelihood depends on having people on welfare. So if welfare actually started getting people off welfare, people would get laid off. But the other problem is that you simply cannot tailor an iindividual program for millions of people on welfare. So you set rules that are the same for the guy on welfare for being lazy and the guy on drugs and the depressed guy and the guy with a broken leg. the rules are usually fair and easy to game. If the requirement is to "apply for a job" then it's easy enough to not get hired. And since you can't check for the individual progress, it's easy for someone to game the system and sit on the dole forever. A charity would notice that the guy is filling out his application and mentioning a BA in Herbology from Hogwarts. It's local, and the guy is not a number. So the caseworker pulls him aside and tells him not to do that again or he's out. And the nonsense would stop.

 

Septimine, you wrote:

That's as far as I needed to read before I realized that your post was nothing but the usual libertarian babbling. Something made you think that I said either of the Paul's or both had something about jails but I can't quite imagine what? As for understanding the basics of libertarianism, your problem is that I know too much and am able to separate the meaningless babble from the truth. The truth being, there is no particular agenda but there's lots of whining done by the supposed libertarians about their loss of some supposed rights. None of it contains the least amount of substance worth considering and it's mostly centered around them being unable to accept authority of any kind.

And again, as is the usual, you don't talk about specific complaints but try to talk about 'icky' things that government does that you seem to be resentful of. Having to stop at stop signs being the chief complaint that we've been able to identify with so far.

 

As far as psychological development goes, there is no difference between a college student and a slacker who lives with his parents and doesn't have a full-time job until he is 22. The ruling class knows how such an experience cripples people, which is why they impose this indentured-servitude education on us while at the same time exempting their own children from having to go through that. If we have to do it on our own, so must their spoiled sheltered brats. Or else we should not respect their property rights.

 

You're being selective again. An Heirhead is a welfare moocher. Profits are taxes, so the employees have to take a pay cut to finance such moochers. This claim about something being "his Daddy's money" is just a claim. You are taking advantage of the fact that people are successfully and totally brainwashed to believe that parents have a natural right to interfere with the competitive fairness of the next generation. It is absurd and destructive, truly the worst cancer civilization has ever come up with. But historians are financed by the hereditary ruling class, so they won't write a word criticizing this 600 lb gorilla destroying the historical theater that they are paid to analyze only in certain ways. Even Ralph Nader, after showing how many destructive corporations were infected with nepotism, makes no comment attacking this cancer and emphasizes only the usual Limousine Liberal red herrings.

I don't believe you support unions at all; it's just one of those lies Libertardians tell to sucker people into supporting Class Supremacy. But it is true that if we had more unions, the minimum wage would be far higher than it is now. Since the Capitaliban have established legalized ownership of everything, how did they do that? Through a government recognizing and protecting their property rights. So unions should likewise be mandatory. In fact, why not get rid of the government-enforced stock market altogether and have only employees be allowed to own shares. Basically, the scam you are trying to pull is that you won't admit that the government is the only thing enforcing your supremacy but you won't let the rest of us use the government to enforce our own desire for power. It's just like the stock market. Anyone can buy a share, but those few who can afford to buy thousands of shares are the only ones with any real power. You really want a government where our vote doesn't have any real power comparable to government-protected "private" power and campaign finance. You pretend to be against that, but only if you can keep government laissez-faire. If you can't, you claim it is freedom of speech. But that "speech" makes our speech a whisper.

 

These secret authoritarians desire the unrestricted force of wealth. When money talks, freedom takes a walk.

 

Your hate of people with money slays me. Sure, a lot of them make it in sleazy ways (including government bailouts and subsidies), but as long as they're not doing anything illegal I understand why they do it. Your tirade against those with money really boils down to nothing more than "You have more than I do and it's not fair!". Suck it up and make more money.

 

Giving orders again, revealing the Lizardtardians' hidden authoritarian nature. We outnumber your precious 1% by 99 to 1, so I understand why you are desperate to make us feel ashamed of ourselves. If we ever shake off your intimidating shouting and stand up against those sneaky cowards, we will determine whether they made their money legally. The rule of law is the law of the rulers. Under self-government, we will make new rules. And they will be assessed post facto. The Constitutional provision against that is just another proof that the Constitution was written by the 1% and for the 1%. No wonder they schemed it behind closed doors.

 

So you advocate mob rule? If the majority of America was still racist, you wouldn't support legal protection for blacks because the majority doesn't want it? The Constitution was written to protect YOU and you don't even appear to care, so long as YOU get what YOU want. It protects individuals against the government, and against majority opinion - it doesn't matter if every other person in the country agreed with you except one, you cannot infringe on his rights. And you didn't address my point which again shows this is nothing but selfishness: you want to take other people's money because you don't think it's 'fair' that they have more than you do. There's no reason for them to give up their money other than that YOU want it. That's not justification, that's robbery.

 

You're right, I don't recognize their right to the money they've taken. They don't earn money; they only make money, just like counterfeiters.
If we allowed the 1% to keep only the money they made honestly, they'd be the 1% at the bottom. We have to right to judge whether they really earned their money. Their money does not have their name on it, which makes it a social contract and not independent property.

It's not just a case of "They have it, so it belongs to them." They not only control the laws that let them make money by lying, cheating, bootlicking, inheriting, short-changing, price-gouging, monopolizing, freeloading, and flat-out stealing, but they control the legal system that lets them get away with breaking the insufficient laws against them. Third, they mostly don't get caught, or the fine is less than what they took. Fourth, they control the media and education that make a brainwashed victim think he deserved to get robbed.

 

How can a value judgement be bull(*)(*)(*)(*)? I don't expect Libertarianism to create the greatest economic benefit (although I think it's pretty damn good when it comes to economics), I expect it to get rid of a lot of coercion.

 

The most pertinent part of your post is in the fact that you recognize that it's not a matter of making laws to take away the 1%'s money, it's that laws have already been made to ensure they can keep nearly all they make. Along with laws that enrich them at the expense of the 99%.
Bit it's an argument that's well rebutted by those in power and so it will take more than you to bring the message home to those who have been duped into believing in the American way bullsh!t line. They need to be hurting a lot more and when they're hurthing they need to start understanding that turning to the tea party line of propaganda is doing what is exactly in their worst interest. Fu-- em, fu-- all of America and Americans, they pretty obviously need to learn the hard way. Relax, you won't change them, they have to want to change themselves. And right now they're more interested in getting Obama, in more ways than one!

 

Libertarians are all over the board because it's just a string of subjective opinions woven together. There's no facts, science, math, objectivity, etc... you just have to "believe" it. It's almost like a religion. But, since it is so broad and anyone who wants to be a libertarian can make up their own libertarian beliefs, you get all sorts of different viewpoints. Libertarians are the only people that think they are relevant in America. They aren't even relevant amongst conservatives. Just too crazy.

 

Yes, we know they're not relevant but we need to pay attention to them because they are always ready to spill their guts on their supposed agenda. There's something to learn from them inasmuch as they illustrate how people go off halfcocked when their other choices are too bad to accept. Rather than take a reasoned approach to fixing the problems they start imagining all sorts of gobbledegoop about doing their own thing. Totally unworkable because they always will need to infringe on the rights of others. Even though they persist in saying that they don't or won't. Children really, searching for answers as adolescents are known to do. Over active hormones causing an over active imagination.

 

Oh don't get me wrong. I meant they aren't relevant when it comes to the majority of peoples political opinions. But they are a danger to society and they can end up convincing themselves that devastating actions are a way to make their point known. Just like terrorists. But yes, Libertarians are nut jobs and should be considered dangerous.

 

I doubt that most are dangerous while they're still libertarians. They are still searching for answers as is the case of libforhistuture. When they finally come to the understanding that none of the answers are going to come out of what they think they believe, that's when they could become dangerous. Libertarian is just one of the first steps to becoming a hatefilled full fledged bagger. But only one of the approaches because some don't evolve from there. Some skip the libertarian step. Also, some libertarians will move on to perfectly rational politics when they get older. Present day America is spawning these creeps like flies right now. It will change significantly when their object of hate is finished. A black president is their biggest problem.

 

If they illegally obtained their wealth then it should be reclaimed. But if it was legal, you have no right to just take it because you disagree with the economic policies that allowed them to make it. What we need to do is create a firm separation between government and business so that a business cannot create (as they have done now) a self-serving system by manipulating/co-operating with the government. Then, they really would have to earn their money, in the face of all their competitors and with no backup from anyone if they screw up.

Push to change the system, change the law, elect different people. But most of those rich people, disagreeable as you may find their methods, obtained their money legally - if it's legal, there is no reason not to exploit it, capitalism is all about personal gain. Whether you find it "right" or "honest" is irrelevant - it's legal. Therefore, they should get to keep it.

I don't know about you but I'd feel quite prosecuted and pissed off if I started being taxed and levied moreso than everyone else simply because I made more money than them and they didn't like that - it'd be like seizing half a person's expensive fancy car collection because most people don't have nice cars and you don't actually need all those cars, so you'd give most of them to others who don't have nice cars. Who gives a (*)(*)(*)(*)? They belong to me, they are my property and I can have as many as I damn well please. Money IS independent property, it is a representation of material value that society has agreed upon and that everyone may use in lieu of actual property. Stop holding it to a different standard.

 

Someone who had left Poland just before Solidarnost got started said he had been disgusted with the Poles' cowardly resignation and apathy. In the 19th Century, the submissive Mexicans put up with 40 years of dictatorship, then suddenly burst out into an incredibly violent reaction to it (the equivalent of 18 million Americans dying in an uprising in our time).

There are also many examples of the ruling class collapsing because of its own inferiority and smug refusal to try to make itself worth anything. The strong aristocracies required their sons to go through a tough education and to be at the frontlines in every war. The typical American aristocrat is a lazy, irresponsible, ignorant draftdodger like Bush. Another sign that this class will soon collapse is that the strong aristocracies would have hid someone like him in the attic, not present him as a Presidential candidate.

 

Why should I let Bootlickers drag me down to their level? Around a plutocrats boots, there is only room enough for a few tongue-wagging flunkies. The rest get kicked in the face.

 

I can sympathize with your sentiments but I don't think Bush2 is a very good example. His time is past and the people accepted his crimes with hardly a murmur. Incredibly, the Iraq war was accepted and probably half of Americans are still not smart enough to understand that it was a crime at least equal to the crimes of the Nazis. You surely can't expect a meaningful revoloution to grow out of that!

The anger of the best of the good people has been turned around and redirected back at their own friends and allies by the powerful establishment in power. I'm not quite sure how that could have been accomplished with angry people such as the **********s but in fact it has been. Now they, the most vocal movement, need to be redirected back again toward something useful. I hope you understand what I mean when I say that their whole stupid libertarian, hard right agenda is nothing but a contradiction.

From where do you expect the beginnings of a reform movement to spring? You seem to be discounting the left as a bunch of patsies who are playing for Obama and you don't seem to accept my reasoning that Obama is not a part of the establishment. That is the only possibility I see where there are numbers sufficient to bring about change.

Fwiw, I see Obama as being far outside the establishment in his sympathies but his hands are tied because his own people won't support him. Perhaps, had he been a white man with as much smarts, he could have brought about the change you visualize by now. At least he would have had the huge racist leftist element on his side.

As for the future with Hillary Clinton, there's not even a glimmer of hope with her as she is as establishment as the right.

Where and What?

This forum has to be good for something other than reading the trash talk of a bunch of teenage racists and haters who are either praising pigs like David Duke or are having delusions of the KKK making a comeback.