I'm What Libertarians Call a "Statist". I Don't See Evidence I Should Be Otherwise

[dblack]

If there are regulations, how can it be libertarianism? Where do you draw the line? Every time some new regulation is promulgated, libertarians complain. What's the magic secret behind libertarian regulations?

Good for you. At least your asking the right questions.

The links others have posted are a start, but it's not that complicated. The primary difference between what libertarians see as legitimate government and what we derisively refer to as the 'regulatory state' lies in the purpose of the laws in question. From a libertarian perspective, the purpose of law is to protect our freedom, not tell us what to do with it. We want government that makes it possible for us get along and enjoy the benefits of society, but leaves us free to pursue our own vision of the good life, whatever that might be.

Dealt with after a bad act, correct.

Absolutely, yes. "Guilty until proven innocent" is no way to run a government.

We're not talking guilt, it's called prior restraint. No wonder libertarianism can't get any traction in the real world, you don't even talk the same language and assume everything will be hunkt-dory just because you say so.

Well, "prior restraint" is a term that usually applies to the narrower concept of freedom of speech issues, but I suppose it can be applied more generally as well. And it does have its place. When the consequences are overwhelmingly severe, and irreversible, it's often the only sane option. I don't, for example, have a problem with laws limiting the right of my neighbor to keep an arsenal of nuclear weapons for 'personal protection'.

But this kind of 'preventative law' is problematic, and definitely lies in opposition to the libertarian ideal. The thing is, we take diversity and tolerance seriously. And we'd rather live in a world where there is a higher risk of someone else doing something we don't like than to be dictated to by those who claim to know how we should live our lives.

In order to preserve this kind of freedom, it's essential that people are allowed to decide for themselves how to behave and are then - after the fact - held accountable for their decisions. That's what responsibility is all about. The regulatory approach is the opposite of responsibility. It replaces our personal decisions with the authority of the state and we're no longer accountable for the results. We're simply following orders.

 

[IndependntLogic]

My advice to you is quit making these threads about libertarians, because you don't have the first fucking clue what we're really about.

Hmmm. You're rather hysterical, aren't you? My apologies for bringing up point which you know, kinda kick your little movement outta the park and such.

1. You wouldn't tell people what to eat is a dodge.

It's not a dodge at all. It's a recognition of what you, and most statists, stubbornly refuse to acknowledge. Regulations on businesses telling them what they can and can't sell - equally regulate consumers, telling them what the can and can't buy.

I'm not sayingt that's a stupid load of crap, I'm just saying I don't necessarily WANT the freedom to buy food that is tainted with salmonella or e.coli. Yup, I'm sure a statist in that regard!

Many (not all!) Libertarians seem to love to label or project opinions / beliefs on anyone disagreeing with them. If you disagree with them on a law, suddenly you hate the Constitution because they are all Constitutional lawyers and actually used to drink beer with Sam Adams (as opposed to drinking Sam Adams beer). If you feel that some regulation is necessary to keep companies in check (think Yankee reactor or Three Mile Island or tainted food or whatever), then they claim you want to suck the teet of a nanny state because obviously, not wanting e. coli in your food means you're unemployed. If 100 USDA agents can catch 60% of bad food and 200 USDA agents can catch 69% of food, the solution is to eliminate the USDA altogether. WTF???

Now I am not referring to ALL Libertarians. But certainly a LOT of them. Thus the topic of this thread. I have lived in countries that did NOT have a strong centralized government or social programs. Guess what? Nowhere in history and nowhere in the world, does this end up resulting in companies voluntarily spending more than necessary to protect the envornment, take care of workers (supposedly to attract the best), stop harmful products from getting to market if they find out too late after investing, putting in safeguards etc...
What you get is a two class society, an environment which is downright hazardous (but only in poor areas), poor working conditions and the occasional product that kills people. The Ukraine was an example of this. Also Peru.
Mexico is a better one. In Mexico, the states have all the power. They can literally over-ride the Federal government in many ways. The result? The local government is purchased by PEMEX or whatever cartel offers the most money. Peachy.
Yeah. I'm a statist. but it's only because there is nothing to support the position that a weak central government ever results in a place I'd like to live.

So like I said, there are a lot of Libertarian ideals I think are great. This isn't one. If there are some Libertarians who can post on the topic (as opposed to the label-slingers and opinion-projectors), I'd be interested to hear of any example I may have missed where a weak contral government has actually worked well for the general population.

Give us an Example of where Overly Powerful Government ever worked well for the General Population?

with all things Balance is the Key. To Little Government bad, to much government bad.

My advice to you is quit making these threads about libertarians, because you don't have the first fucking clue what we're really about.

Never stopped him before.

LOL! The universe is in order! For those of you who aren't familiar with him, Oddball is my personal court jester. He never posts about issues or topics (IQ) but rather, obssesses and posts only about me! He is entertainment for me

If there are regulations, how can it be libertarianism? Where do you draw the line? Every time some new regulation is promulgated, libertarians complain. What's the magic secret behind libertarian regulations?

Good for you. At least your asking the right questions.

The links others have posted are a start, but it's not that complicated. The primary difference between what libertarians see as legitimate government and what we derisively refer to as the 'regulatory state' lies in the purpose of the laws in question. From a libertarian perspective, the purpose of law is to protect our freedom, not tell us what to do with it. We want government that makes it possible for us get along and enjoy the benefits of society, but leaves us free to pursue our own vision of the good life, whatever that might be.

Absolutely, yes. "Guilty until proven innocent" is no way to run a government.

We're not talking guilt, it's called prior restraint. No wonder libertarianism can't get any traction in the real world, you don't even talk the same language and assume everything will be hunkt-dory just because you say so.

Well all that talk of freedom without restraint is nice. And honestly, if only all companies and people in power would just act nicely all the time, I'm sure it would work. The only downside to Libertarianism is that doesn't and has never worked. Anywhere. Other than that it's fine.

Well, "prior restraint" is a term that usually applies to the narrower concept of freedom of speech issues, but I suppose it can be applied more generally as well. And it does have its place. When the consequences are overwhelmingly severe, and irreversible, it's often the only sane option. I don't, for example, have a problem with laws limiting the right of my neighbor to keep an arsenal of nuclear weapons for 'personal protection'.

But this kind of 'preventative law' is problematic, and definitely lies in opposition to the libertarian ideal. The thing is, we take diversity and tolerance seriously. And we'd rather live in a world where there is a higher risk of someone else doing something we don't like than to be dictated to by those who claim to know how we should live our lives.

In order to preserve this kind of freedom, it's essential that people are allowed to decide for themselves how to behave and are then - after the fact - held accountable for their decisions. That's what responsibility is all about. The regulatory approach is the opposite of responsibility. It replaces our personal decisions with the authority of the state and we're no longer accountable for the results. We're simply following orders.

Lovely.
1. You're also for tort reform, right?
2. So your remedy is that after my family has been killed by a product, it's okay because we can sue! oh but um, not for very much because that would impede on the freedoms and liberties of the righteous and all that.

Again, the only downside is that it has never worked anywhere and doesn't work anywhere. Also, the only countries that are even close to being mostly Libertarian, are terrible places to live. But you guys always have an excuse for that.

 

[dblack]

Lovely.
1. You're also for tort reform, right?

Not as a going concern, no. I'm fairly suspicious of tort reform. I especially don't want to see arbitrary limits put on damage awards.

2. So your remedy is that aftermy family has been killed by a product, it's okay because we can sue! oh but um, not for very much because that would impede on the freedoms and liberties of the righteous and all that.

Where products or actions represent a clear and present threat, I have no problem with laws regulating them. I don't want to preserve our "freedom" to drive through residential neighborhoods at high speeds, for example - even if no one is hurt.

I know you really want to push this to ridiculous extremes but that's not what it's about. We're not anarchists and we don't want chaos. We just don't want to see the government ordering people around, making decisions for them in the name of convenience, or to satisfy the insecurities of people who want the state to promise them a zero-risk existence.

People who want iron-clad promises of safety and security are free to seek them out. They can choose not to patronize businesses or service providers who don't meet their standards of safety, reliability, etc... But they shouldn't have the power to force their notions of what is, and is not, acceptable risk on others.

 

[dblack]

Again, the only downside is that it has never worked anywhere and doesn't work anywhere.

It's hard to respond without knowing what you mean by "it". You don't seem to have a clear understanding of what libertarian government is about. To wit:

Also, the only countries that are even close to being mostly Libertarian, are terrible places to live.

The most libertarian place I know of is the US - so I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. Does it seem like a terrible place to you?

 

[Liability]

Many (not all!) Libertarians seem to love to label or project opinions / beliefs on anyone disagreeing with them. If you disagree with them on a law, suddenly you hate the Constitution because they are all Constitutional lawyers and actually used to drink beer with Sam Adams (as opposed to drinking Sam Adams beer). If you feel that some regulation is necessary to keep companies in check (think Yankee reactor or Three Mile Island or tainted food or whatever), then they claim you want to suck the teet of a nanny state because obviously, not wanting e. coli in your food means you're unemployed. If 100 USDA agents can catch 60% of bad food and 200 USDA agents can catch 69% of food, the solution is to eliminate the USDA altogether. WTF???

Now I am not referring to ALL Libertarians. But certainly a LOT of them. Thus the topic of this thread. I have lived in countries that did NOT have a strong centralized government or social programs. Guess what? Nowhere in history and nowhere in the world, does this end up resulting in companies voluntarily spending more than necessary to protect the envornment, take care of workers (supposedly to attract the best), stop harmful products from getting to market if they find out too late after investing, putting in safeguards etc...
What you get is a two class society, an environment which is downright hazardous (but only in poor areas), poor working conditions and the occasional product that kills people. The Ukraine was an example of this. Also Peru.
Mexico is a better one. In Mexico, the states have all the power. They can literally over-ride the Federal government in many ways. The result? The local government is purchased by PEMEX or whatever cartel offers the most money. Peachy.
Yeah. I'm a statist. but it's only because there is nothing to support the position that a weak central government ever results in a place I'd like to live.

So like I said, there are a lot of Libertarian ideals I think are great. This isn't one. If there are some Libertarians who can post on the topic (as opposed to the label-slingers and opinion-projectors), I'd be interested to hear of any example I may have missed where a weak contral government has actually worked well for the general population.

Fun rant. Divorced from reality, but still, fun.

If you don't know what a statist is, then perhaps you'd be better served by asking for an authoritative definition rather than accepting the label blindly.

And, oh, by the way: folks other than Libertarians use the term "statist," also.

 

[The T]

Many (not all!) Libertarians seem to love to label or project opinions / beliefs on anyone disagreeing with them. If you disagree with them on a law, suddenly you hate the Constitution because they are all Constitutional lawyers and actually used to drink beer with Sam Adams (as opposed to drinking Sam Adams beer). If you feel that some regulation is necessary to keep companies in check (think Yankee reactor or Three Mile Island or tainted food or whatever), then they claim you want to suck the teet of a nanny state because obviously, not wanting e. coli in your food means you're unemployed. If 100 USDA agents can catch 60% of bad food and 200 USDA agents can catch 69% of food, the solution is to eliminate the USDA altogether. WTF???

Now I am not referring to ALL Libertarians. But certainly a LOT of them. Thus the topic of this thread. I have lived in countries that did NOT have a strong centralized government or social programs. Guess what? Nowhere in history and nowhere in the world, does this end up resulting in companies voluntarily spending more than necessary to protect the envornment, take care of workers (supposedly to attract the best), stop harmful products from getting to market if they find out too late after investing, putting in safeguards etc...
What you get is a two class society, an environment which is downright hazardous (but only in poor areas), poor working conditions and the occasional product that kills people. The Ukraine was an example of this. Also Peru.
Mexico is a better one. In Mexico, the states have all the power. They can literally over-ride the Federal government in many ways. The result? The local government is purchased by PEMEX or whatever cartel offers the most money. Peachy.
Yeah. I'm a statist. but it's only because there is nothing to support the position that a weak central government ever results in a place I'd like to live.

So like I said, there are a lot of Libertarian ideals I think are great. This isn't one. If there are some Libertarians who can post on the topic (as opposed to the label-slingers and opinion-projectors), I'd be interested to hear of any example I may have missed where a weak contral government has actually worked well for the general population.

Fun rant. Divorced from reality, but still, fun.

If you don't know what a statist is, then perhaps you'd be better served by asking for an authoritative definition rather than accepting the label blindly.

And, oh, by the way: folks other than Libertarians use the term "statist," also.

True this.

I think the OP is bothered that he and his pals and those he supports have been adequately labeld for what they are...i would only add the label DRONE.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

My advice to you is quit making these threads about libertarians, because you don't have the first fucking clue what we're really about.

I liked the part where he mocked libertarians at first, but then claimed only libertarians interested in a real discussion should respond.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Lovely.
1. You're also for tort reform, right?

Not as a going concern, no. I'm fairly suspicious of tort reform. I especially don't want to see arbitrary limits put on damage awards.

2. So your remedy is that aftermy family has been killed by a product, it's okay because we can sue! oh but um, not for very much because that would impede on the freedoms and liberties of the righteous and all that.

Where products or actions represent a clear and present threat, I have no problem with laws regulating them. I don't want to preserve our "freedom" to drive through residential neighborhoods at high speeds, for example - even if no one is hurt.

I know you really want to push this to ridiculous extremes but that's not what it's about. We're not anarchists and we don't want chaos. We just don't want to see the government ordering people around, making decisions for them in the name of convenience, or to satisfy the insecurities of people who want the state to promise them a zero-risk existence.

People who want iron-clad promises of safety and security are free to seek them out. They can choose not to patronize businesses or service providers who don't meet their standards of safety, reliability, etc... But they shouldn't have the power to force their notions of what is, and is not, acceptable risk on others.

Okay this is a really solid post so thanks. Not going 80 through a residential zone. A bit of reason. But many Libertarians say that requiring food to be regulated is impinging upon their liberty - which you allude to in your last paragraph. let me ask you a few questions:
1. How exactly are you going to know if lettuce at your local market is tainted? Or milk? Or beef?
2. Let's suppose a company spent hundreds of millions on a drug. Then, after it went to market, they found out there was a little problem. How exactly would you find out if a drug your doctor prescribed, killed 0.5% of all users?
3. Or is it that you believe the corporate exec whose $1M / year job is on the line, would never hesistate to jeopardize profits and his positon, for the good of the public?

And seriously, attack my positions! That sets you miles above the whackjobs who are so weak, they just spew crap like "Oooh. I'm too stupid to address the topic so I'll write something about the poster!"
Whereas they are laughable weaklings, you actually bring game. I appreciate that.

 

[flacaltenn]

<<IndependentLogic>>

Nowhere in history and nowhere in the world, does this end up resulting in companies voluntarily spending more than necessary to protect the envornment, take care of workers (supposedly to attract the best), stop harmful products from getting to market if they find out too late after investing, putting in safeguards etc...
What you get is a two class society, an environment which is downright hazardous (but only in poor areas), poor working conditions and the occasional product that kills people. The Ukraine was an example of this. Also Peru.

You're under the false assumption that the Dept of Agriculture exists to PUNISH errant producers and keep you safe.. That's PART of their mission.. Their LARGER mission is PROMOTE agriculture and grow that portion of the economy. Hence advertising programs that Promote cheese or grain products here and overseas. So there's a conflict..

Ask yourself if organic consumers trust the FDA labeling or private source labeling as to what is ORGANIC? Do you trust the Forest Service and the BLM or the Nature Conservancy and Sierra Club to manage the forest and sensitive habitat? Would you rather eat an "all beef" hotdog as defined by the Ag Dept or Hebrew National (which we all know "Answers to a Higher Authority")..

When the dozen coal miners died at the Massey cave-in a few years back --- who got fired from the regulatory team that CLOSED that plant 10 times but allowed it to continue?

CLEARLY -- you have an over-estimated appreciation for diligience, wisdom and accountability in concentrating these checks and balances into a bloated, politically gamed central authority. A more RATIONAL view of govt (like libertarian thought) would take away the ability to pick market winners/losers and go into corporate collusion by limiting the scope of power that can be wielded by an unaccountable bureaucracy.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Lovely.
1. You're also for tort reform, right?

Not as a going concern, no. I'm fairly suspicious of tort reform. I especially don't want to see arbitrary limits put on damage awards.

2. So your remedy is that aftermy family has been killed by a product, it's okay because we can sue! oh but um, not for very much because that would impede on the freedoms and liberties of the righteous and all that.

Where products or actions represent a clear and present threat, I have no problem with laws regulating them. I don't want to preserve our "freedom" to drive through residential neighborhoods at high speeds, for example - even if no one is hurt.

I know you really want to push this to ridiculous extremes but that's not what it's about. We're not anarchists and we don't want chaos. We just don't want to see the government ordering people around, making decisions for them in the name of convenience, or to satisfy the insecurities of people who want the state to promise them a zero-risk existence.

People who want iron-clad promises of safety and security are free to seek them out. They can choose not to patronize businesses or service providers who don't meet their standards of safety, reliability, etc... But they shouldn't have the power to force their notions of what is, and is not, acceptable risk on others.

<<IndependentLogic>>

Nowhere in history and nowhere in the world, does this end up resulting in companies voluntarily spending more than necessary to protect the envornment, take care of workers (supposedly to attract the best), stop harmful products from getting to market if they find out too late after investing, putting in safeguards etc...
What you get is a two class society, an environment which is downright hazardous (but only in poor areas), poor working conditions and the occasional product that kills people. The Ukraine was an example of this. Also Peru.

You're under the false assumption that the Dept of Agriculture exists to PUNISH errant producers and keep you safe.. That's PART of their mission.. Their LARGER mission is PROMOTE agriculture and grow that portion of the economy. Hence advertising programs that Promote cheese or grain products here and overseas. So there's a conflict..

Ask yourself if organic consumers trust the FDA labeling or private source labeling as to what is ORGANIC? Do you trust the Forest Service and the BLM or the Nature Conservancy and Sierra Club to manage the forest and sensitive habitat? Would you rather eat an "all beef" hotdog as defined by the Ag Dept or Hebrew National (which we all know "Answers to a Higher Authority")..

When the dozen coal miners died at the Massey cave-in a few years back --- who got fired from the regulatory team that CLOSED that plant 10 times but allowed it to continue?

CLEARLY -- you have an over-estimated appreciation for diligience, wisdom and accountability in concentrating these checks and balances into a bloated, politically gamed central authority. A more RATIONAL view of govt (like libertarian thought) would take away the ability to pick market winners/losers and go into corporate collusion by limiting the scope of power that can be wielded by an unaccountable bureaucracy.

Okay this is another really solid post. So the thing that seems to cause a lot of misunderstanding between Libertarians and "Statists" is this:

I think we are over-regulated.
I think government agencies often over-step their bounds and purposes.
I think the government often does a horrible job.
I know for a fact, there are a lot of complete idiots working for the government because I have been to the DMV, dealt with the IRS and so on.

When SOME Libertarians encounter people with differing views, they OFTEN project false opinions on them. It's almost as if they believe that anyone disagreeing with them must want a "total nanny state" and the other whackjob prattle that people like my personal Court Jester use.

So here's what I see as the reality. Libertarianism is a fine philosophy and as optimistic in its' views as Communism. And if only everyone would do what they were supposed to do, according to the theory, it would work splendidly! the problem is that everyone doesn't always do what they're supposed to do.
So we're left with the choices offered in the real world.
Do we tolerate an often inept, corrupt and over-reaching government / regulations, in order to enjoy the unique freedoms that Americans get to enjoy?
Do we tolerate the actions of often corrupt executives, criminals and others who fill the power vacuum left behind by an absence of a strong centralied government, regulatory agencies and the ability to enforce?
In every instance, everywhere that I've lived or heard of, when that power vaccum is left behind, the result is the complete elimination of the Middle Class, working conditions that are horrible, unchecked damage to the environment and so on.
I have yet to see a Libertarian come up with solid examples where this has not been the case. If you have some, I would genuinely appreciate hearing about them but usually, the claim is that "conditions aren't right" for Libertarianism to work properly. Guess what? They never will be.

The other thing I often hear is about how "oppressed" Libertarians feel they are. yet when i ask them how they personally, are oppressed right now, they draw a blank. If you have comments on that as well, they are also welcome.

 

[Paulie]

Many (not all!) Libertarians seem to love to label or project opinions / beliefs on anyone disagreeing with them. If you disagree with them on a law, suddenly you hate the Constitution because they are all Constitutional lawyers and actually used to drink beer with Sam Adams (as opposed to drinking Sam Adams beer). If you feel that some regulation is necessary to keep companies in check (think Yankee reactor or Three Mile Island or tainted food or whatever), then they claim you want to suck the teet of a nanny state because obviously, not wanting e. coli in your food means you're unemployed. If 100 USDA agents can catch 60% of bad food and 200 USDA agents can catch 69% of food, the solution is to eliminate the USDA altogether. WTF???

Now I am not referring to ALL Libertarians. But certainly a LOT of them. Thus the topic of this thread. I have lived in countries that did NOT have a strong centralized government or social programs. Guess what? Nowhere in history and nowhere in the world, does this end up resulting in companies voluntarily spending more than necessary to protect the envornment, take care of workers (supposedly to attract the best), stop harmful products from getting to market if they find out too late after investing, putting in safeguards etc...
What you get is a two class society, an environment which is downright hazardous (but only in poor areas), poor working conditions and the occasional product that kills people. The Ukraine was an example of this. Also Peru.
Mexico is a better one. In Mexico, the states have all the power. They can literally over-ride the Federal government in many ways. The result? The local government is purchased by PEMEX or whatever cartel offers the most money. Peachy.
Yeah. I'm a statist. but it's only because there is nothing to support the position that a weak central government ever results in a place I'd like to live.

So like I said, there are a lot of Libertarian ideals I think are great. This isn't one. If there are some Libertarians who can post on the topic (as opposed to the label-slingers and opinion-projectors), I'd be interested to hear of any example I may have missed where a weak contral government has actually worked well for the general population.

Here we go AGAIN with some idiot claiming libertarians want no regulations at all.

If there are regulations, how can it be libertarianism? Where do you draw the line? Every time some new regulation is promulgated, libertarians complain. What's the magic secret behind libertarian regulations?

When you understand the difference between libertarianism and anarchism, come talk to me.

 

[konradv]

If there are regulations, how can it be libertarianism? Where do you draw the line? Every time some new regulation is promulgated, libertarians complain. What's the magic secret behind libertarian regulations?

When you understand the difference between libertarianism and anarchism, come talk to me.

If we're getting it wrong, explain it to us. Otherwise you're just wasting our time. I'm not really sure you know the difference.

 

[IndependntLogic]

If there are regulations, how can it be libertarianism? Where do you draw the line? Every time some new regulation is promulgated, libertarians complain. What's the magic secret behind libertarian regulations?

When you understand the difference between libertarianism and anarchism, come talk to me.

If we're getting it wrong, explain it to us. Otherwise you're just wasting our time. I'm not really sure you know the difference.

Wait, you want Paulie to actually address topics? LOL! he will post about YOU but you know, those topic things, not so much.

Watch. Paulie: Please provide an example of a country anywhere at any time, where Libertarianism resulted in a beneficial environment for the general population (including minorities!).

Beep Beep! hear that? Roadrunner hittin' the highway baby.

But he DOES have the greatest avatar of all time....

 

[Oddball]

Lovely.
1. You're also for tort reform, right?

Not as a going concern, no. I'm fairly suspicious of tort reform. I especially don't want to see arbitrary limits put on damage awards.



Where products or actions represent a clear and present threat, I have no problem with laws regulating them. I don't want to preserve our "freedom" to drive through residential neighborhoods at high speeds, for example - even if no one is hurt.

I know you really want to push this to ridiculous extremes but that's not what it's about. We're not anarchists and we don't want chaos. We just don't want to see the government ordering people around, making decisions for them in the name of convenience, or to satisfy the insecurities of people who want the state to promise them a zero-risk existence.

People who want iron-clad promises of safety and security are free to seek them out. They can choose not to patronize businesses or service providers who don't meet their standards of safety, reliability, etc... But they shouldn't have the power to force their notions of what is, and is not, acceptable risk on others.

<<IndependentLogic>>

Nowhere in history and nowhere in the world, does this end up resulting in companies voluntarily spending more than necessary to protect the envornment, take care of workers (supposedly to attract the best), stop harmful products from getting to market if they find out too late after investing, putting in safeguards etc...
What you get is a two class society, an environment which is downright hazardous (but only in poor areas), poor working conditions and the occasional product that kills people. The Ukraine was an example of this. Also Peru.

You're under the false assumption that the Dept of Agriculture exists to PUNISH errant producers and keep you safe.. That's PART of their mission.. Their LARGER mission is PROMOTE agriculture and grow that portion of the economy. Hence advertising programs that Promote cheese or grain products here and overseas. So there's a conflict..

Ask yourself if organic consumers trust the FDA labeling or private source labeling as to what is ORGANIC? Do you trust the Forest Service and the BLM or the Nature Conservancy and Sierra Club to manage the forest and sensitive habitat? Would you rather eat an "all beef" hotdog as defined by the Ag Dept or Hebrew National (which we all know "Answers to a Higher Authority")..

When the dozen coal miners died at the Massey cave-in a few years back --- who got fired from the regulatory team that CLOSED that plant 10 times but allowed it to continue?

CLEARLY -- you have an over-estimated appreciation for diligience, wisdom and accountability in concentrating these checks and balances into a bloated, politically gamed central authority. A more RATIONAL view of govt (like libertarian thought) would take away the ability to pick market winners/losers and go into corporate collusion by limiting the scope of power that can be wielded by an unaccountable bureaucracy.

Okay this is another really solid post.

You could start by ceasing to pretend that anyone gives a flying fuck whether you believe their posts are "really solid" or not.

When SOME Libertarians encounter people with differing views, they OFTEN project false opinions on them. It's almost as if they believe that anyone disagreeing with them must want a "total nanny state" and the other whackjob prattle that people like my personal Court Jester use.

Pot, meet kettle.

So here's what I see as the reality. Libertarianism is a fine philosophy and as optimistic in its' views as Communism. And if only everyone would do what they were supposed to do, according to the theory, it would work splendidly! the problem is that everyone doesn't always do what they're supposed to do.

As though we needed any more proof that you know absolutely zero about libertarians and the philosophy.

So we're left with the choices offered in the real world.
Do we tolerate an often inept, corrupt and over-reaching government / regulations, in order to enjoy the unique freedoms that Americans get to enjoy?
Do we tolerate the actions of often corrupt executives, criminals and others who fill the power vacuum left behind by an absence of a strong centralied government, regulatory agencies and the ability to enforce?
In every instance, everywhere that I've lived or heard of, when that power vaccum is left behind, the result is the complete elimination of the Middle Class, working conditions that are horrible, unchecked damage to the environment and so on.
I have yet to see a Libertarian come up with solid examples where this has not been the case. If you have some, I would genuinely appreciate hearing about them but usually, the claim is that "conditions aren't right" for Libertarianism to work properly. Guess what? They never will be.

One of the problems with understanding libertarian philosophy is the either/or false dichotomies proffered by people too thick headed to learn about it and just let their prejudices flow instead.

The other thing I often hear is about how "oppressed" Libertarians feel they are. yet when i ask them how they personally, are oppressed right now, they draw a blank. If you have comments on that as well, they are also welcome.

Less drawing a blank that trying to find a place to start.

I'll leave you the short and sweet reading list, as well...Presuming that you aren't so pig-headed as to leave your obvious prejudice at the door, and learn about something before you try to pass yourself off as someone who knows all about libertarianism.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Libertarianism-One-Lesson-Americas-Future/dp/0975432648]Amazon.com: Libertarianism in One Lesson: Why Libertarianism Is the Best Hope for America's Future (9780975432648): David Bergland: Books[/ame]

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Healing-Our-World-Age-Aggression/dp/0963233661]Amazon.com: Healing Our World: In an Age of Aggression (9780963233660): Mary J. Ruwart, Frances Kendall, Leon Louw: Books[/ame]


Here's one that's for free:

The Law, by Frederic Bastiat

 

[Liability]

If there are regulations, how can it be libertarianism? Where do you draw the line? Every time some new regulation is promulgated, libertarians complain. What's the magic secret behind libertarian regulations?

When you understand the difference between libertarianism and anarchism, come talk to me.

If we're getting it wrong, explain it to us. Otherwise you're just wasting our time. I'm not really sure you know the difference.

Unholy fuck. Seriously?

Are you REALLY that ignorant or are you just pretending? I gotta go with "the latter."

I mean, I have pals who are libertarians. They sometimes scold me for not sharing their point of view. But still, I can't imagine that YOU actually don't grasp the obvious differences between anarchism and libertarianism.

 

[konradv]

When you understand the difference between libertarianism and anarchism, come talk to me.

If we're getting it wrong, explain it to us. Otherwise you're just wasting our time. I'm not really sure you know the difference.

Unholy fuck. Seriously?

Are you REALLY that ignorant or are you just pretending? I gotta go with "the latter."

I mean, I have pals who are libertarians. They sometimes scold me for not sharing their point of view. But still, I can't imagine that YOU actually don't grasp the obvious differences between anarchism and libertarianism.

Didn't say I didn't understand. I said Paulie didn't understand. Understand?

BTW, if they're so obvious, why don't you take a stab at it. So far, all I've seen are BS attack posts that try to hide the poster's ignorance of their own philosophy and its implications.

 

[Paulie]

If there are regulations, how can it be libertarianism? Where do you draw the line? Every time some new regulation is promulgated, libertarians complain. What's the magic secret behind libertarian regulations?

When you understand the difference between libertarianism and anarchism, come talk to me.

If we're getting it wrong, explain it to us. Otherwise you're just wasting our time. I'm not really sure you know the difference.

Here's the Cliff Notes version:

Libertarians recognize a need for government to protect the rights of the individual. The tools they need to do that include some regulations, as outlined in the enumerated powers in the constitution.

I'm not really in the mood to go into detail right now on exactly what is and isn't a good regulation, nor do I really have the time.

In conclusion, libertarians recognize government as necessary...anarchists prefer no government whatsoever.

You do realize the enormous difference there, correct?

 

[Oddball]

If we're getting it wrong, explain it to us. Otherwise you're just wasting our time. I'm not really sure you know the difference.

Unholy fuck. Seriously?

Are you REALLY that ignorant or are you just pretending? I gotta go with "the latter."

I mean, I have pals who are libertarians. They sometimes scold me for not sharing their point of view. But still, I can't imagine that YOU actually don't grasp the obvious differences between anarchism and libertarianism.

Didn't say I didn't understand. I said Paulie didn't understand. Understand?

BTW, if they're so obvious, why don't you take a stab at it. So far, all I've seen are BS attack posts that try to hide the poster's ignorance of their own philosophy and its implications.

Why don't you read a few books, so simply written that even you could understand them, rather than expect some posters on a message forum to post huge text walls explaining every nuance of the philosophy to you?

Are you really that cheap and lazy?

 

[flacaltenn]

The other thing I often hear is about how "oppressed" Libertarians feel they are. yet when i ask them how they personally, are oppressed right now, they draw a blank. If you have comments on that as well, they are also welcome.

I'll get to your philosophical issues in a minute. First -- what's bugging me is your partial understanding of "statist". It's NOT about hotdogs and rounding up accounting errors. THe term statist applies to allowing cretans like Bloomberg to slap food out of your hands, and determine how short a woman's skirt can be to hail a cab and not be called a hooker. Statist also applies to those that LOVE the concept of eminent domain confiscation, asset forfeiture, and assassination lists. At the rate you're going talking about how corrupt and lawless the free market is --- We'd never make it to the IMPORTANT PERSONAL LIBERTY stuff that makes up Libertarian thought. It's NOT all about economics and the market. Although folks who THINK they understand us don't know that we can OUT-LIBERAL anyone on social and personal liberty issues.. You think that's a bad thing? To oppose the idea that the state can micromanage your life and liberty? That would be statist of you.

We're NOT hyperchondriacs. There are REAL SERIOUS infringements to Liberties occuring all around you.. Or do you not care about innocent grannies getting shot in head during no-knock drug raids and your kid getting busted for bringing sunscreen to school?

 

[Liability]

If we're getting it wrong, explain it to us. Otherwise you're just wasting our time. I'm not really sure you know the difference.

Unholy fuck. Seriously?

Are you REALLY that ignorant or are you just pretending? I gotta go with "the latter."

I mean, I have pals who are libertarians. They sometimes scold me for not sharing their point of view. But still, I can't imagine that YOU actually don't grasp the obvious differences between anarchism and libertarianism.

Didn't say I didn't understand. I said Paulie didn't understand. Understand?

BTW, if they're so obvious, why don't you take a stab at it. So far, all I've seen are BS attack posts that try to hide the poster's ignorance of their own philosophy and its implications.

Why? You need more shit to quibble over?

If you do know the differences, then why ask?

Why not just state YOUR alleged "understanding?"

I'm not a libertarian, but I know several really smart ones who would then be happy to correct any and all of your misunderstandings.

And misunderstandings seem to be bountiful since you have conflated anarchism with libertarianism.