Is a libertarian is essentially a slow conservative?

No you said that Libertarianism existed back then not that it borrowed concepts from previous writers. Using your logic then both the Republicans and Democrats go back to the ancient Romans because we believe in a representative democracy. Saying that someone borrowed ideas from previous writers and philosophers does NOT mean that the existed back then.

And yes, American political parties are vastly different than other countries. Right and left in the US are completely different things than they are in Europe with only a few overlaps such as nationalism versus globalism.

Most Republicans are Christian and hold Christian values does that mean that Republicans were founded by Jesus? Do you see how asinine your reasoning is now? You are literally saying that John Locke founded the Libertarian movement, he didn't he just inspired it.

And if you are going to try and wiggle out just remember that classical liberalism was around long before Libertarianism but your side completely destroyed the idea of liberalism being about freedom and choice, the one exception being abortion.

 

You've been caught out I'm afraid. Anyone stating "Libertarianism was founded in the 1970s" is talking guff. You were good enough to admit that when you decided the 1950s was the relevant decade.

All I'm seeing is that your sources aren't very good. But isn't that the nature of American Libertarianism? An innate conservatism based on weak insights and bad economics.

 

And legislating social issues is dumb. If you don’t like a behavior, so long as that behavior doesn’t violate individual rights, then just don’t engage in it. It’s not your place to have the government enforce your morality at gunpoint.

 

Trump massively increased taxes on every American consumer.

 

Really? Liberals killed the church? I’d love to see your evidence for there being no churches in America.

 

the recession ended in 2009. Obama turned the republican caused recession into a full blown recovery with record high stock market and UE under 5%.

 

From a Smithian view, corporations can be seen as a kind of “socialism for the rich”. They are a way to privatize profits while socializing losses and avoiding personal responsibility when the venture goes under.

 

Ironic PROJECTION of your own EGREGIOUS shortcomings duly noted!

I did NOT post that TX had the worst water pollution!

Here is what I actually posted;

http://politicalforum.com/index.php...ow-conservative.547395/page-3#post-1069993343

Your abysmal lack of reading comprehension is NOT my problem.

That you wallowed in the scum filled gutter of puerile insults says volumes.

All told you have effectively DISQUALIFIED yourself from any further meaningful interaction as far as I am concerned.

Have a nice day!

 

I'd go with his decomposition of self-interest. Essentially corporations reduce the importance of ethical constraints on selfishness. We then get more corruption and a blurring of public and private sectors to the detriment of the public good.

 

This libertarian believes that federal government has no business being involved in social issues at all. It should do what the constitution says it should do - protect the country, deal with other countries, resolve interstate issues. I also think it is appropriate for it to manage a common currency. Everything else belongs in the states, the private sector or the trash can. If you want governmental social activites you should want them at the state and local level, certainly not in federal government.

 

I agree.

 

States and local governments have no more business violating individual rights than the federal government does.

 

yes, coercion or violence increases as you move from libertarianism, to conservativism, fascism, liberalism, socialism, communism, monarchy, and dictatorship.

 

corporations are selfless. they survive under Republican capitalism only by selflessly pleasing workers and customers more than any other corporation in the world. I have taught you this before.

 

You're talking nonsense, showing no understanding over how Smith is applied to corporate ethics. It's for that reason that I bid you farewell.

 

wrong of course 10,000 a month go bankrupt with no socialized losses whatsoever. Your handles tricked you during recent housing crisis when some banks were indeed bailed out but only because they were too big to fail. Is it clear now?

 

ever see a conservatives who has to run from a debate? What does that teach you?

 

So how many private corporation owners get their personal finances cleaned out by having their corporation declare bankruptcy?

 

Lets be straight, Obama was worst in American History( anti-business socialist- remember East/West Germany) ; only president in US history not to have one year of 3% growth.

 

well for example when Merryl Lynch went bust or Bear Stearns all stock holders lost 99% of their investment.

 

How many of them had their houses taken away by creditors?

 

just make that up or can you show us where Smith did this??????

 

you only lose what you invest in a corporation. Without that we would have no corporations, no jobs, and no products, we'd all be dead or living at a 19th Century standard of living.

 

Corporations as they exist now didn’t exist in Smith’s day, but he would view an artificially created legal entity that lets rich owners pawn their losses off on society with no personal responsibility as abhorrent to a free market.

 

what a joke you just said Smith was pre-corporate!!!