That literally makes no sense. Racism isn't based on political ideologies, it's based on each person's perception.
Well, Libertarianism is often in logical, reasoned, well supported disagreement with Liberals... so....By the Liberal Definition of "Racism".... -
The Libertarian ranch holders and their families would soon become WAY collectivist, to protect their assets!
and collectivism doesn't work at all.. all the major famines of the 20th century were in part caused by the collectivization of agriculture http://www.smh.com.au/world/ten-worst-famines-of-the-20th-century-20110815-1iu2w.html in regards to your remarks about the individual need for money, a libertarian solution for that is the basic income guarantee http://reason.com/archives/2013/11/26/scrap-the-welfare-state-give-people-free http://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/libertarians-guaranteed-minimum-income http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=338663 nobel prize winning economists Maurice Allais, James Tobin, Milton Friedman, and Friedrich Hayek all expressed their support for a basic income guarantee
Interesting. So if I believe that the government should regulate corporations appropriately, I am a racist?
Government regulation is seen as socialism by many libertarians. Regulation is "the collective" (the people, through government) asserting undue authority over the "individual" (the businessman, the producer, the capitalist). Are you actually about to tell me that libertarians on PF DON'T argue this?!?!?
Just like being in a city, county or state run by western liberals. Except that instead of taking responsibility for their own relative political and economic situations, they blame people in other states or the feds.
by definition, regulation has nothing to do with collectivism... collectivism is essentially the opposite of individualism (and tarnishes every principle of self ownership). Socialism is only collectivism in the sense of the collectivization of property and agriculture practiced by the Soviet Union and other past socialist societies (not all self described socialists believe in collectivism) There is and never has been a successful instance of this policy of collectivization being successful in the first world
funny how someone who is supposedly anti-socialist, puts forward such a leftie proposal - basic income? come on, that is beyond a joke! who would bother working a grunt job if welfare was free??
modern technology could soon put paid to that little glitch.... - - - Updated - - - The Nobel prize sponsored by rightist liberal elites, means dick!
(*)(*)(*)(*) then go get some. I'm a self hating lonely drunk but I still have a career and own a house one my own. Just try, and not in the "oh no one likes my music let me pass out on your couch" way but actually do it. (*)(*)(*)(*) it what's the worst that happens, you' homeless under a bridge with a bottle? Just do it again, or don't, who gives a (*)(*)(*)(*)!
Similar to the word, concept of Progressive - I do not believe we have an agreement on what a Libertarian is about. When I first studied the Party decades ago it claimed pollution laws were wrong. When last I studied the Party, it spoke of air, water, etc. as common property and no one should foul it. I do not know what they say currently. What I do believe Libertarian stands for in the 21st Century is Anti Federalism. That the Federal government has with steady, unrelenting, with bipartisan support assumed more and more powers over us. Supported by career Federals on the Supreme Court. No State personnel appointed. Even now collect our electronic data, available for retrieval upon query in violation of the 4th. I also hear the Libertarian message standing for getting the money, the corporations, out of government. The later is definitely, "Progressive", so there is overlap regarding corralling the elite from too much power. Being anti Big Money serves the poor most. And how can it be racist to serve the poor who are . . . Moi No
I learned early on when I became a Libertarian that their are many different stripes and suprisingly they run the gammit from the public goods crowd to the "dog eat dog" group and everything in between. The only thing that they all seem to have in common is NAP and even then its interpreted differently. I myself tend to be a middle of the road type for example I support legalizing pot but I oppose legalizing all drugs. This is why myself and many Libertarians end up voting GOP because the Libertarian party hasn't really gotten its act together and because it is more fractured I don't know if it will. Thankfully the GOP has been shifting more Libertarian recently so it might be a moot point anyways.
Please do remember to remind other posters of this when the next "Republican = racists/conservative = racist" thread or subtopic comes up.
I will, but it doesn't mean it's okay to do it either. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
I think it would be more relevant to say that "if you're libertarian, you're not likely to be racist." The converse isn't necessarily true, because it assumes too much.
