How Evil is Libertarianism anyway?

[Synthaholic]

Keep in mind that Jim Crow was government, the opposite of libertarian

Government is 'the people'.

Amazing how libertarians can't seem to understand this simple truth.

Government is "the people".

I'm one of "the people."

Why didn't my kid's government school let me in to walk around?

Why didn't my local police department let me in to hang around?

Why can't I get one of those fancy police cars I see on my local highway?

This is too retarded to respond to.

Do all libertarians believe you should be able to just walk into the White House?

You didn't understand his question. Not understanding just doesn't stop you from posting, does it?

I understand crazy. I see it on this board all the time.

 

[kaz]

Dumbest solution I have ever heard

The real problem is that conservatives do not want the transgendered to use either bathroom. They would just as soon beat the shit out of them

We're talking about libertarianism not conservatism, so who cares what conservatives want?

And what is dumb about allowing the owner of something to determine how that thing is used?

I live in North Carolina. That's exactly what that law does, it prevents local governments from forcing businesses to say how customers use their private bathrooms. It doesn't force them to not allow transgender access to the bathroom of their choice, it stops local governments from forcing local businesses how to provide access to the bathrooms. It's a correct law regardless of whether you think they should do

You're close to losing next year's NBA All-Star game.

Since you profess people doing what they want, I'm sure you have no objections to all the corporate and individual boycotts of your state, right?

OMG, not the all-star game!

Let's see, do I want:

Option A) Businesses to decide the rules for the use of their own restrooms

Option B) The "all star game"

Yes, you do live in an Entertainment Tonight world. I'll take Option A, please. But I don't crave slavery like you do

It's not only the NBA.

Here's the list of all the people and companies boycotting the state so far:

Ringo Starr

Bryan Adams

Deutsche Bank

PayPal

Bruce Springsteen

Michael Moore

xHamster

Joel McHale

General Electric

the Dow Chemical Company

Pepsi

Hyatt

Hewlett Packard

Choice Hotels International

Whole Foods

Levis Strauss & Co.

Lionsgate

Now, a lot of them won't make an economic difference by themselves but they have influence.

North Carolina has their huge "Research Triangle". I heard an interview yesterday on NPR with an executive of Monsanto, which is fighting this law in Missouri, not because they're a Liberal corporation but because they already have stiff competition recruiting top chemists, etc. to move to Missouri and this law is going to further hurt their efforts.

North Carolina doesn't have a lot going for it other than it's universities unless you live on the coast. Businesses aren't clamoring to relocate there. This is going to hurt that further, and without those business taxes who do you think will have to make up the difference? You.

Far more publicity than substance. But no threats justify the tyranny of government dictating to businesses who can use their restrooms. For me, that is the issue. If NC required businesses to not allow "transgenders" to use the other restroom I'd be just as opposed. It's none of your business, just like it's none of the business of anyone in your list

 

[kaz]

The most successful libertarian government was the most successful government ever, the United States of America.

Easy question, what in the Constitution isn't libertarian?

 

[Synthaholic]

If a person buys out a company that has the patent on a life saving drug then runs the price up by a factor of 50, is that wrong by Libertarian values? - Unrealistic scenario. The drug would have to be still under patent, and if the profit maximizing price was 50 times lower, they'd be losing more sales than making new profits

You should actually consume some news sometime, instead of just inside your bubble:


Martin Shkreli (/ˈskrɛli/;[3] born in 1983)[4] is an American entrepreneur and pharmaceutical executive. He is co-founder of the hedge fund MSMB Capital Management, co-founder and former chief executive officer (CEO) of thebiotechnology firm Retrophin, and founder and former CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals. In September 2015, Shkreli received widespread criticism when Turing obtained the manufacturing license for the antiparasitic drugDaraprim and raised its price by 5,556 percent (from US$13.5 to US$750 per tablet) leading him to be referred to by media as the "most hated man in America".[5]

 

[Centinel]

They're enforced with violence, stupid.

One can't be arrested without violence? I wonder how many good shots Bernard Madoff got in before being violently hauled off to jail?

If they're not enforced with violence, then they are nothing more than suggestions.

 

[Synthaholic]

The society of 'Little House on the Prairie' was not anarchy.

More like Sharia.

 

[Centinel]

You think there's economic opportunity awaiting everyone, everywhere. It's just not so.

If one business discriminates, it opens up the opportunity for another business so swoop in and snatch up those who have been discriminated against.

In theory, yes. Go to a small Alabama town and search for the people in a position financially to open a competing business.

Good luck!

What particular business are you talking about?

 

[JimBowie1958]

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"

Only the constitution and the laws made in pursuance are the law of the land.

And the law of the land doesn't say that congress has the power to regulate everything a person does that might impact interstate commerce.

That is hysterical. Case law is also the law of the land moron, and a part of the implementation of the Constitution and the law.

It is pathetic that you cant grasp this simple point.

 

[kaz]

Keep in mind that Jim Crow was government, the opposite of libertarian

Government is 'the people'.

Amazing how libertarians can't seem to understand this simple truth.

Government is "the people".

I'm one of "the people."

Why didn't my kid's government school let me in to walk around?

Why didn't my local police department let me in to hang around?

Why can't I get one of those fancy police cars I see on my local highway?

This is too retarded to respond to.

Do all libertarians believe you should be able to just walk into the White House?

You didn't understand his question. Not understanding just doesn't stop you from posting, does it?

I understand crazy. I see it on this board all the time.

Hell you post it on the board all the time. Loving government and trusting politicians and bureaucrats is crazy as shit

 

[Contumacious]

When you go to your local baker, explain how that's "interstate commerce"

Or, better yet, commerce among the several states. (Remember, the constitution doesn't say "interstate commerce".)

What do you think is the difference? They appear to be synonyms to me

The object of the prepositional phrase is "the several states", not "the people of the several states". Big difference.

The point of that power was to allow congress to regulate commerce among the states. For example, to make laws against state tariffs or quotas.

And that was the ONLY reason the Commerce clause was adopted. In order to prevent, for example, NY from from levying a tariff on California wines.

All other case law which claims that the commerce clause allows congress to regulate firearms, marihuana cultivation and other purely INTRASTATE COMMERCE, are bald face USURPATIONS

 

[JimBowie1958]

I'm going to ignore you now for these libertarian discussions because you insist on using the wrong words no matter how many times I explain the difference to you. Go back to school and learn to write your native language.

Lol, as if you have any authority to define what Libertarianism is more than Ayn Rand already has.

 

[kaz]

If a person buys out a company that has the patent on a life saving drug then runs the price up by a factor of 50, is that wrong by Libertarian values? - Unrealistic scenario. The drug would have to be still under patent, and if the profit maximizing price was 50 times lower, they'd be losing more sales than making new profits

You should actually consume some news sometime, instead of just inside your bubble:


Martin Shkreli (/ˈskrɛli/;[3] born in 1983)[4] is an American entrepreneur and pharmaceutical executive. He is co-founder of the hedge fund MSMB Capital Management, co-founder and former chief executive officer (CEO) of thebiotechnology firm Retrophin, and founder and former CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals. In September 2015, Shkreli received widespread criticism when Turing obtained the manufacturing license for the antiparasitic drugDaraprim and raised its price by 5,556 percent (from US$13.5 to US$750 per tablet) leading him to be referred to by media as the "most hated man in America".[5]

My bubble is management, exactly what we're discussing. You should do some reading on pricing to maximize profits that you won't understand

 

[Synthaholic]

This is too retarded to respond to.

Do all libertarians believe you should be able to just walk into the White House?

You said that the government is the people. I'm one of the people, no? So I'm the government.

Boom! Down goes Synthaholic! Down goes Synthaholic!

Watching you own her is a pleasure Centinel!

^^^ Another dope who doesn't understand representative democracy.

Interesting that the libertarians are looking to own people...

 

[Synthaholic]

This is too retarded to respond to.

Do all libertarians believe you should be able to just walk into the White House?

You said that the government is the people. I'm one of the people, no? So I'm the government.

Boom! Down goes Synthaholic! Down goes Synthaholic!

Watching you own her is a pleasure Centinel!

Synthaholic is a she????

No.

 

[Centinel]

This is too retarded to respond to.

Do all libertarians believe you should be able to just walk into the White House?

You said that the government is the people. I'm one of the people, no? So I'm the government.

Boom! Down goes Synthaholic! Down goes Synthaholic!

Watching you own her is a pleasure Centinel!

Synthaholic is a she????

No.

Thanks. I didn't think so.

 

[Synthaholic]

Coming from a person who not only never ran a business, but has never even worked for one.

It's comical sitting here listening to you pretend like you're in charge.

You own a business, you conform with the regulations of your community

If you had really owned your own business you would realize that

As usual, the U.S. Constitution proves you wrong. You want to convince the American people that private business is nothing more than extension of government - public space created to serve the people. But that's simply not the case. My private business on my private property entitles me to decide who I enter into business with and who I don't. The Constitution says so. And that trumps any local "regulations of my community". Believe me, you of all people I do not expect to understand this. But the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution proves what I said to be true.

The Constitution, viewed in the light of existing case law, says that everything you do impacts interstate commerce and can thus be regulated and restricted by the federal government.

When you go to your local baker, explain how that's "interstate commerce"

It's not. At all. And they know it. Just like Obamacare is not a "tax" and they know it. It's legislation creating a new department of the federal government and new powers where none exists.

But when the Constitution prevents you from exerting power and control over others, you have to intentionally misinterpret what the Constitution says to justify your illegal activity.

Is MLB a sport or a business? You seem to think things can only be one or the other.

 

[kaz]

I'm going to ignore you now for these libertarian discussions because you insist on using the wrong words no matter how many times I explain the difference to you. Go back to school and learn to write your native language.

Lol, as if you have any authority to define what Libertarianism is more than Ayn Rand already has.

I didn't create the English language, unlike you, I just learned to write it. Though that using capital letters signifies a proper noun is something I learned very early on. What grade did you drop out that you didn't even learn that? Or did you get by on social promotion?

 

[kaz]

This is too retarded to respond to.

Do all libertarians believe you should be able to just walk into the White House?

You said that the government is the people. I'm one of the people, no? So I'm the government.

Boom! Down goes Synthaholic! Down goes Synthaholic!

Watching you own her is a pleasure Centinel!

^^^ Another dope who doesn't understand representative democracy.

Interesting that the libertarians are looking to own people...

You're an idiot

 

[bripat9643]

Government never pays the owners what the property is worth. If you don't want to sell, the price is infinity.

That is such an old shibboleth, this idea that a thing is worth whatever its owner will part with it for.

So if we had a gold based currency, say 25 dollars/ounce of gold, and some dumbass wont sell his one ounce gold coin for an offer of a hundred dollars, then the value of that one ounce of gold would be 4 ounces of gold. 1 = 4? lolol

And suppose the person isnt so interested in money but only wants the cute young realtor asking to by his one acre of land to pay $1000 and go on a date with him, that price is $1000 and a date? How do you quantify the date?

Another time a guy agrees to sell his acre for $1000 and not having his legs broken. How does that price get written into the accounting ledger? $1000 and a not broken leg?

There does exist a range of reasonable price for items, and I dont care how many times pencil head dip shits like Friedman argues otherwise.

What a person is willing to accept in return for a property is a combination of sentiment, greed, a desire for fairness and also perceived value.

All Eminent Domain is obligated to pay is the market value.

If the property is not for sale, then the market value is infinity. BTW, market value is nothing more than a combination of sentiment, greed, a desire for fairness and perceived value, so you didn't prove your point. There is no objective price for anything.

 

[bripat9643]

This is too retarded to respond to.

Do all libertarians believe you should be able to just walk into the White House?

You said that the government is the people. I'm one of the people, no? So I'm the government.

Boom! Down goes Synthaholic! Down goes Synthaholic!

Watching you own her is a pleasure Centinel!

^^^ Another dope who doesn't understand representative democracy.

Interesting that the libertarians are looking to own people...

You're an idiot

He's also a coward. He put me on his ignore list because he got tired of getting a shellacking on a regular basis.