Libertarian Anarchist

[eflatminor]

1960s poverty is not the same as 2012 poverty

Yeah in 1960 poor people didn't have cable, tvs and cell phones.

At the time of LBJs war on poverty they did not have electricity, running water, sanitation, shoes or medical care

It was a different class of poverty

Which has no bearing on the point at hand. By the government's own definition of poverty, the rate has increased AFTER spending all this money over nearly a half century. Your so called great society did more harm than good. Deal with it.

 

[Paulie]

1960s poverty is not the same as 2012 poverty

Yeah in 1960 poor people didn't have cable, tvs and cell phones.

At the time of LBJs war on poverty they did not have electricity, running water, sanitation, shoes or medical care

It was a different class of poverty

Yeah it was a situation where there were no frivolous pleasures to cling to to forget about what ailed them. If they wanted frivolous pleasures they had no choice but to go WORK for them.

 

[bucs90]

How do we know?

Can you point to a Libertarian society that is not anarchist?

The only thing I care to point you to is the ******* door.

Fact is that there are no examples of societies run by Libertarians. No society has been crazy enough to trust their country to Libertarians

Our closest example is Somalia

Or Afghanistan, where religious tribes and criminal gangs have 1,000X more power and authority than the government.

What libertarians and anarchists both dont realize, is that in the power vacuum of less government or nearly no government, SOMEONE is gonna take power.

The libertarian dream of near total freedom is a fantasy. Humans for thousands of years have controlled each other.

There is no possible way we can have a society without a government...where murder and rape are legal. And I know libertrians aren't asking for that.

BUT...a weak government simply makes way for religious, criminal powers to take control, even unofficially, of a society. After all, who is really in control in Mexico and Afghanistan? The govt? Or the gangs and religious tribes?

All humans will answer to some human authority, whether it be a government, religious power or criminal power. Unless you just float around in a boat in the middle of the ocean. Then Mother Nature and sharks will have power.

 

[Paulie]

The only thing I care to point you to is the ******* door.

Fact is that there are no examples of societies run by Libertarians. No society has been crazy enough to trust their country to Libertarians

Our closest example is Somalia

Or Afghanistan, where religious tribes and criminal gangs have 1,000X more power and authority than the government.

What libertarians and anarchists both dont realize, is that in the power vacuum of less government or nearly no government, SOMEONE is gonna take power.

The libertarian dream of near total freedom is a fantasy. Humans for thousands of years have controlled each other.

There is no possible way we can have a society without a government...where murder and rape are legal. And I know libertrians aren't asking for that.

BUT...a weak government simply makes way for religious, criminal powers to take control, even unofficially, of a society. After all, who is really in control in Mexico and Afghanistan? The govt? Or the gangs and religious tribes?

All humans will answer to some human authority, whether it be a government, religious power or criminal power. Unless you just float around in a boat in the middle of the ocean. Then Mother Nature and sharks will have power.

Without a government? You realize you're in a thread titled "Libertarian does not equal anarchism" right?

 

[dblack]

Somalia!!!!

 

[eflatminor]

The only thing I care to point you to is the ******* door.

Fact is that there are no examples of societies run by Libertarians. No society has been crazy enough to trust their country to Libertarians

Our closest example is Somalia

Or Afghanistan, where religious tribes and criminal gangs have 1,000X more power and authority than the government.

What libertarians and anarchists both dont realize, is that in the power vacuum of less government or nearly no government, SOMEONE is gonna take power.

The libertarian dream of near total freedom is a fantasy. Humans for thousands of years have controlled each other.

There is no possible way we can have a society without a government...where murder and rape are legal. And I know libertrians aren't asking for that.

BUT...a weak government simply makes way for religious, criminal powers to take control, even unofficially, of a society. After all, who is really in control in Mexico and Afghanistan? The govt? Or the gangs and religious tribes?

All humans will answer to some human authority, whether it be a government, religious power or criminal power. Unless you just float around in a boat in the middle of the ocean. Then Mother Nature and sharks will have power.

What I believe you're missing is that libertarians don't stand for a weak government or even "nearly no government". We, as did our founding fathers, stand for a STRONG federal government, just one that is limited in where it can meddle. This idea kept Americans free and made us the richest, most powerful nation in history. No central planners, whatever you want to call them, have produced superior results.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The only thing I care to point you to is the ******* door.

Fact is that there are no examples of societies run by Libertarians. No society has been crazy enough to trust their country to Libertarians

Our closest example is Somalia

Or Afghanistan, where religious tribes and criminal gangs have 1,000X more power and authority than the government.

What libertarians and anarchists both dont realize, is that in the power vacuum of less government or nearly no government, SOMEONE is gonna take power.

The libertarian dream of near total freedom is a fantasy. Humans for thousands of years have controlled each other.

There is no possible way we can have a society without a government...where murder and rape are legal. And I know libertrians aren't asking for that.

BUT...a weak government simply makes way for religious, criminal powers to take control, even unofficially, of a society. After all, who is really in control in Mexico and Afghanistan? The govt? Or the gangs and religious tribes?

All humans will answer to some human authority, whether it be a government, religious power or criminal power. Unless you just float around in a boat in the middle of the ocean. Then Mother Nature and sharks will have power.

You don't understand the libertarian stand at all.

No government, weak government etc have nothing to do with libertarian thinking.

In fact libertarians believe the government should be very strong when it comes to the task of protecting individual rights. A weak government cannot enforce laws that protect those rights.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Somalia!!!!

I wonder who builds the roads in Somalia.

 

[dblack]

Fact is that there are no examples of societies run by Libertarians. No society has been crazy enough to trust their country to Libertarians

Our closest example is Somalia

Or Afghanistan, where religious tribes and criminal gangs have 1,000X more power and authority than the government.

What libertarians and anarchists both dont realize, is that in the power vacuum of less government or nearly no government, SOMEONE is gonna take power.

The libertarian dream of near total freedom is a fantasy. Humans for thousands of years have controlled each other.

There is no possible way we can have a society without a government...where murder and rape are legal. And I know libertrians aren't asking for that.

BUT...a weak government simply makes way for religious, criminal powers to take control, even unofficially, of a society. After all, who is really in control in Mexico and Afghanistan? The govt? Or the gangs and religious tribes?

All humans will answer to some human authority, whether it be a government, religious power or criminal power. Unless you just float around in a boat in the middle of the ocean. Then Mother Nature and sharks will have power.

You don't understand the libertarian stand at all.

No government, weak government etc have nothing to do with libertarian thinking.

In fact libertarians believe the government should be very strong when it comes to the task of protecting individual rights. A weak government cannot enforce laws that protect those rights.

Excellent point. The Republicans have picked up on the small-government mantra, and there's no question that the current government could be much, much smaller, but that's not the point. The government should be as big as necessary to do its job. It's the parameters of that "job" that are at issue.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Somalia!!!!

Stateless in Somalia, and Loving It - Yumi Kim - Mises Daily

The media invariably describe this prospect as a "hope." But it's a strange hope that is accompanied by violence and dread throughout the country. Somalia has done very well for itself in the 15 years since its government was eliminated. The future of peace and prosperity there depends in part on keeping one from forming.

As even the CIA factbook admits:

"Despite the seeming anarchy, Somalia's service sector has managed to survive and grow. Telecommunication firms provide wireless services in most major cities and offer the lowest international call rates on the continent. In the absence of a formal banking sector, money exchange services have sprouted throughout the country, handling between $500 million and $1 billion in remittances annually. Mogadishu's main market offers a variety of goods from food to the newest electronic gadgets. Hotels continue to operate, and militias provide security."

Questions arise as to rampageous warlords when discussing a country without a central government. Van Notten explains that warlords exist because of the efforts to form a central government, not because of its absence:

"A democratic government has every power to exert dominion over people. To fend off the possibility of being dominated, each clan tries to capture the power of that government before it can become a threat. Those clans that didn't share in the spoils of political power would realize their chances of becoming part of the ruling alliance were nil. Therefore, they would rebel and try to secede. That would prompt the ruling clans to use every means to suppress these centrifugal forces… in the end all clans would fight with one another." (van Notten, 136; 2005)

The Rule of Law without the State - Spencer Heath MacCallum - Mises Daily

If the expectation was that Somalia would plunge into an abyss of chaos, what is the reality? A number of recent studies address this question, including one by economist Peter Leeson drawing on statistical data from the United Nations Development Project, World Bank, CIA, and World Health Organization. Comparing the last five years under the central government (1985–1990) with the most recent five years of anarchy (2000–2005), Leeson finds these welfare changes:

•Life expectancy increased from 46 to 48.5 years. This is a poor expectancy as compared with developed countries. But in any measurement of welfare, what is important to observe is not where a population stands at a given time, but what is the trend. Is the trend positive, or is it the reverse?
•Number of one-year-olds fully immunized against measles rose from 30 to 40 percent.
•Number of physicians per 100,000 population rose from 3.4 to 4.
•Number of infants with low birth weight fell from 16 per thousand to 0.3 — almost none.
•Infant mortality per 1,000 births fell from 152 to 114.9.
•Maternal mortality per 100,000 births fell from 1,600 to 1,100.
•Percent of population with access to sanitation rose from 18 to 26.
•Percent of population with access to at least one health facility rose from 28 to 54.8.
•Percent of population in extreme poverty (i.e., less than $1 per day) fell from 60 to 43.2.
•Radios per thousand population rose from 4 to 98.5.
•Telephones per thousand population rose from 1.9 to 14.9.
•TVs per 1,000 population rose from 1.2 to 3.7.
•Fatalities due to measles fell from 8,000 to 5,600.
Another even more comprehensive study published last year by Benjamin Powell of the Independent Institute, concludes: "We find that Somalia's living standards have improved generally … not just in absolute terms, but also relative to other African countries since the collapse of the Somali central government."

Somalia!!!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Somalia!!!!

I wonder who builds the roads in Somalia.

That's funny. I was curious who was educating the roads.

 

[eflatminor]

It's the parameters of that "job" that are at issue.

Only since the Progressives came to power. The job of the federal government continues to be spelled out in the enumerated powers...with the 10th amendment to drive the point home. The thing is, your meddling has not helped with whatever job you perceive needs to be done. As we've learned from the failings of LBJ's great society, you've made the problems worse.

 

[JWBooth]

libertarian philosophy is historically failed philosophy

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k80nW6AOhTs]Jane you Ignorant slut - YouTube[/ame]

 

[dblack]

It's the parameters of that "job" that are at issue.

Only since the Progressives came to power. The job of the federal government continues to be spelled out in the enumerated powers...with the 10th amendment to drive the point home. The thing is, your meddling has not helped with whatever job you perceive needs to be done. As we've learned from the failings of LBJ's great society, you've made the problems worse.

Me? (your, you've?)

 

[eflatminor]

It's the parameters of that "job" that are at issue.

Only since the Progressives came to power. The job of the federal government continues to be spelled out in the enumerated powers...with the 10th amendment to drive the point home. The thing is, your meddling has not helped with whatever job you perceive needs to be done. As we've learned from the failings of LBJ's great society, you've made the problems worse.

Me? (your, you've?)

Progressive meddlers, central planner wannabes...whatever name you care to give your ilk.

 

[Paulie]

Only since the Progressives came to power. The job of the federal government continues to be spelled out in the enumerated powers...with the 10th amendment to drive the point home. The thing is, your meddling has not helped with whatever job you perceive needs to be done. As we've learned from the failings of LBJ's great society, you've made the problems worse.

Me? (your, you've?)

Progressive meddlers, central planner wannabes...whatever name you care to give your ilk.

dblack is a libertarian. I think maybe you misread something of his.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

dblack is a libertarian. I think maybe you misread something of his.

 

[eflatminor]

Me? (your, you've?)

Progressive meddlers, central planner wannabes...whatever name you care to give your ilk.

dblack is a libertarian. I think maybe you misread something of his.

My bad. Sorry.

 

[dblack]

Progressive meddlers, central planner wannabes...whatever name you care to give your ilk.

dblack is a libertarian. I think maybe you misread something of his.

My bad. Sorry.

np. I've been called worse. One jerk called me "rightwing"!

 

[asaratis]

This explains your ignorance regarding libertarians. They do NOT want an absence of government. They want LESS government intervention in their lives. I suppose if government were limited to the minimum required to provide the services envisioned by our founding fathers, we would have a working libertarian government.

It is a strawman argument to say that libertarians want zero government. Liberals are good at strawman! Keep up the good work!

Admit you are just as full of shit as any other political philosophy

You do not want less government....you only want government that pays for shit that helps you personally

Just like everyone else

I suppose if government were limited to the minimum required to provide the services envisioned by our founding fathers, we would have a working libertarian government.

Libertarian nirvanna

No roads, no infrastructure, no clean water, no sanitation, no free public school education, no standing military, no worker protections, no environmental protections

What is that word for that again?

Oh yes......Anarchy

Again, it is not I but you that is full of shit. I don't identify with any of the parties we have. I do come closer to what Libertarians stand for than anything else.

Certainly, we need infrastructure such as roads, bridges, railroads, waterways...all funded by the US government and available to all that have need of them. We need courts and police forces. We need a reasonable number of lawyers for people that can't afford them.

We do NOT need the number of regulations we have or the people necessary to enforce them. We do NOT need for every Representative and Senator to have a staff of twenty or so people with office space and other costs attached.

I believe we could cut the number of government workers IN HALF and still have enough people to do a good job IF THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DO A GOOD JOB IN ORDER TO KEEP THAT JOB.

We do NOT need government to write laws favoring union goons.

We DO need a strong and well equipped military.

This laundry list does not approach anarchy.

You ******* imbecile! Repeat a lie enough times and it becomes the truth...to you!


You are evidence that there is no sense whatsoever in trying to argue with a goddamned liberal asshole!