Libertarians Are The True Political Moderates

[kaz]

As we moved toward an ideology driven 'free market' ONLY belief economically, and away from a mixed economy, the results have been disastrous

The more and more government controls our markets, the freer you think they are, and that freedom is what is causing our market problems.

Well, apparently libertarians are not the only ones supporting legalization of drugs around here...

Conservative economic theories have never worked and never will. You can say "tax cuts create jobs" but that's just blather. Show me when it has worked and then we'll talk.

JFK and RWR. Actually, government spending has never worked. FDR blew through countless money until WWII ended the depression. Obama blew through trillions accomplishing nothing but the slowest recession recovery in over a century. Communism went bust from fiscal not physical force. You are 100% wrong. But hey, if liberal lawyers tell you they know more about economics than economists do, they can't be lying, can they? I mean what do politicians get from lying to you? I mean other than ubiquitous power provided by the monopoly of guns. They wouldn't lie to you for that, would they?

Now, baa-ck to what you were saying...

 

[kaz]

Social security keeps 50% of seniors out of poverty

PROGRESSIVE policies created the worlds largest middle class. Reaganomics/conservative policy is destroying it

Baseless talking point

Rush Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, etc

Their AUDIENCE is unable to grasp concepts that aren't all or nothing, and they GO to great effort to keep it that way

Gotcha. Conservatives, socons, neocons, libertarians, tea partiers, all of us who don't agree on anything, we're just programmed. To disagree. Liberals, who agree on every position and use the same talking point to justify it, you are free thinkers only convinced by logic. To agree on everything.

The irony is that you are repeating a talking point ... about talking points ...

 

[kaz]

As we moved toward an ideology driven 'free market' ONLY belief economically, and away from a mixed economy, the results have been disastrous

The more and more government controls our markets, the freer you think they are, and that freedom is what is causing our market problems.

Well, apparently libertarians are not the only ones supporting legalization of drugs around here...

The reason for the collapse of our economy was a LACK of government regulations. The housing bubble and bust was caused by PRIVATE lenders and wealthy speculators.

So as government continually regulates the market more, whatever is still not controlled by government causes more and more problems. The more regulations we have, the more lack of regulation harms us. Which is why we need Marxist to control everything.

Liberalism is very confusing, I see why you have to be so smart to understand it. I would think that if a bathtub holds 50 gallons of water, 25 gallons would make it half full. You're telling me that in economics, putting in 25 gallons is actually worse than putting in no water. And it continues to get worse until you've put in the full 50 gallons. And then the bathtub is full and you can bathe. That never came up in my economics or finance classes, you need to write a dissertation and get a PhD at the University of Chicago for this. I'm thinking it's Nobel Prize material. It could change everything.

 

[RKMBrown]

The more and more government controls our markets, the freer you think they are, and that freedom is what is causing our market problems.

Well, apparently libertarians are not the only ones supporting legalization of drugs around here...

The reason for the collapse of our economy was a LACK of government regulations. The housing bubble and bust was caused by PRIVATE lenders and wealthy speculators.

So as government continually regulates the market more, whatever is still not controlled by government causes more and more problems. The more regulations we have, the more lack of regulation harms us. Which is why we need Marxist to control everything.

Liberalism is very confusing, I see why you have to be so smart to understand it. I would think that if a bathtub holds 50 gallons of water, 25 gallons would make it half full. You're telling me that in economics, putting in 25 gallons is actually worse than putting in no water. And it continues to get worse until you've put in the full 50 gallons. And then the bathtub is full and you can bathe. That never came up in my economics or finance classes, you need to write a dissertation and get a PhD at the University of Chicago for this. I'm thinking it's Nobel Prize material. It could change everything.

Yeah pretty much. Marxism and socialism are only supposed to work if everyone is forced to give up all their worldly goods. If anyone is allowed to work outside of the "circle" they are the evil people who are hoarding resources for themselves. Of course marxism and socialism have never worked. But that doesn't stop the lazy from wishing they could get something for free paid for by the government they elected via taxes on someone else's assets. It never works because no one wants to work their ass off so the lazy/ignorant bottom feeders can sit on their ass all day. Why work if you don't have to?

People need an incentive to work. Typically the incentive is monetary reward, that they then use to purchase things they need and want. If you make the things they need free, then most of the incentive is gone and you are only left with an incentive for nice to have items. But really, those nice to have are not really necessary when the needs have been classified as access to the internet with a computer, a flat screen TV with cable, a smart phone, nice meals every day, a place to live with with utilities, clothes, etc. Why work at all when the government will take care of me like I'm a child?

 

[kaz]

Thomas Jefferson was a pro-gun, anti-government libertarian moderate. Your endless quotes that he was a Marxist are just taking him out of context.


Thomas Jefferson: That government is best which governs least

Thomas Jefferson: If we can but prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy.

Thomas Jefferson: A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circlue of our felicities.

Thomas Jefferson: Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

Thomas Jefferson: The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.

Thomas Jefferson: It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.

Thomas Jefferson: For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.

Thomas Jefferson: When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

 

[dblack]

Revisionist history is irrelevant. Jefferson's personal views are irrelevant. What matters is what we value going forward. We're at a critical juncture in our nation's history, facing a strong push to turn our nation away from it's core traditions of rule of law, equal rights and economic freedom, and toward corporatism, class-based rights, state control of economic decisions.

 

[Bfgrn]

Indeed. Which is why its foolhardy to give them coercive control over their markets.

The lenders who caused the collapse were OUTSIDE of government 'control'.

You're missing my point (and unwittingly supporting it). Regulatory agencies invariably come under the control of the industries they regulate. The dominant players in the industry in question use the regulatory apparatus to further their own interests, leveraging the illusion that consumers and the public are 'protected' from their shenanigans. It's become so blatant that Congress now invites them into the legislative process, overseeing the formation of these regulatory schemes from the start (witness ACA).

Yea, I GET your point...the cure for a high fever is hypothermia...

The pieties of libertarianism and free markets sound pretty, but they cannot withstand even a cursory inspection. Libertarianism does not support democracy; taken to an extreme, it entails the law of the jungle. If government never interferes, we could all get away with murder. Alternatively, if the libertarian position is not to be taken to an extreme, where should it stop? What is the difference between no government and minimal government? Attempts to justify libertarianism, even a less than extreme position, have failed. Laissez faire, or free market economics, characterized by minimal or no government intervention, has a history that is long but undistinguished. Just as the negative effects of a high fever do not certify the health benefits of the opposite extreme, hypothermia, the dismal failure of communism, seeking complete government control of the economy, does not certify the economic benefits of the opposite extreme, total economic non-intervention.

 

[dblack]

The lenders who caused the collapse were OUTSIDE of government 'control'.

You're missing my point (and unwittingly supporting it). Regulatory agencies invariably come under the control of the industries they regulate. The dominant players in the industry in question use the regulatory apparatus to further their own interests, leveraging the illusion that consumers and the public are 'protected' from their shenanigans. It's become so blatant that Congress now invites them into the legislative process, overseeing the formation of these regulatory schemes from the start (witness ACA).

Yea, I GET your point...the cure for a high fever is hypothermia.......

Hmm.. I'm pretty sure you're not getting it. I'm not advocating for the extremes you're envisioning. We NEED laws holding people and businesses accountable for their actions. I'm arguing against the extremes of using regulation to mandate conformity in the name of convenience. It's not a good idea, and not just from the point of view of individual freedom. Committing everyone to uniform practices puts all of our eggs in one basket, and amplifies the damage when things go wrong. We should avoid it when we can, instead embracing diversity and experimentation.

 

[thanatos144]

Libertarian: "Taxes are to high spending is to high....... We need Legal dope and taxes on it to pay for the regulation of it!!!!!!"

 

[Samson]

Libertarian: "Taxes are to high spending is to high....... We need Legal dope and taxes on it to pay for the regulation of it!!!!!!"

Thanatos: Able to express stupid in six (6) exclaimation points.

 

[thanatos144]

Libertarian: "Taxes are to high spending is to high....... We need Legal dope and taxes on it to pay for the regulation of it!!!!!!"

Thanatos: Able to express stupid in six (6) exclaimation points.

Sorry cant understand faggot.

 

[Samson]

Libertarian: "Taxes are to high spending is to high....... We need Legal dope and taxes on it to pay for the regulation of it!!!!!!"

Thanatos: Able to express stupid in six (6) exclaimation points.

Sorry cant understand faggot.

Your inability to understand much is your only endearing quality.


Keep up the good work.

 

[kaz]

One great liberal quoting another great liberal succinctly defined the role of the President of the United States

LOL, Jefferson was a classic liberal, you are an authoritarian leftist. There is zero overlap.

 

[kaz]

It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it

Right, when the Clinton administration threatened banks to lower their lending standards and the Fed flooded them with virtually zero interest loans, and W continued that policy it was the bank's fault, not the politicians who used government force and confiscated assets to make them do it.

You're a sheep. Or in your native language, baaaaaa...

 

[kaz]

I personally don't find that you're not smart enough to grasp free markets, man enough to support yourself or generous enough to give your own money to charity persuasive in any way that I need to dumb down my views and join the ignorant masses that are so manipulated by liberal lawyers.

No I get free markets. You don't understand that there is no such thing as a free market. Read this then we'll talk.

Democracy - Not "The Free Market" - Will Save America's Middle Class

I think we have established that Libertarians aren't the true moderates. They are extremists and anarchists. The middle class and poor ones mean well because it sounds good on paper but there is no truly free market. Government makes the rules. Without rules/referees what kind of game would it be between the rich and the poor/middle class? The middle class will be GONE my brother. Even if I was rich enough to benefit from Libertarian ways I wouldn't want society to work that way. You libertarians while you mean well are also very ignorant about the value of government until you need it. I can't tell you how many people I knew who were Republicans when Clinton was in office and when Bush sent all the jobs overseas, not only did they file for unemployment, they filed for extensions when they found that no it's not that easy to find a job in a wrecked economy. And guess what? None of them was willing to flip burgers. That wouldn't even make their car payments, the arrogant bastards. One of them went to another state and still couldn't find a job and had to come crawling back to work at his daddy's company. What a hypocrite and loser he is, just like the rest of you. You would vote for a Libertarian and then when you are broke and old you wouldn't have social security. You think your lousy 401K is going to be there? Your healthcare costs would eat all that up.

YOU don't understand reality. Don't tell me I don't understand free markets you brainwashed little shit. Think you would benefit from winner take all survival of the fittest every man for himself society? Go move on an island or to a red state at least. Separate but equal. You in Kenhicky and me in Michigan. Only thing is we got to get this Snyder bum out of office first. Michigan although it votes every 4 years for Democrats the stupid masses don't show up to midterms.

You are wrong, there are actual free markets out there, and they prove you wrong.

Yes, electronics is a great example, and look what keeps happening to quality and price. Liberals will always point to the most regulated markets to prove that free markets don't work and we need more regulation.

 

[kaz]

No I get free markets. You don't understand that there is no such thing as a free market. Read this then we'll talk.

Democracy - Not "The Free Market" - Will Save America's Middle Class

I think we have established that Libertarians aren't the true moderates. They are extremists and anarchists. The middle class and poor ones mean well because it sounds good on paper but there is no truly free market. Government makes the rules. Without rules/referees what kind of game would it be between the rich and the poor/middle class? The middle class will be GONE my brother. Even if I was rich enough to benefit from Libertarian ways I wouldn't want society to work that way. You libertarians while you mean well are also very ignorant about the value of government until you need it. I can't tell you how many people I knew who were Republicans when Clinton was in office and when Bush sent all the jobs overseas, not only did they file for unemployment, they filed for extensions when they found that no it's not that easy to find a job in a wrecked economy. And guess what? None of them was willing to flip burgers. That wouldn't even make their car payments, the arrogant bastards. One of them went to another state and still couldn't find a job and had to come crawling back to work at his daddy's company. What a hypocrite and loser he is, just like the rest of you. You would vote for a Libertarian and then when you are broke and old you wouldn't have social security. You think your lousy 401K is going to be there? Your healthcare costs would eat all that up.

YOU don't understand reality. Don't tell me I don't understand free markets you brainwashed little shit. Think you would benefit from winner take all survival of the fittest every man for himself society? Go move on an island or to a red state at least. Separate but equal. You in Kenhicky and me in Michigan. Only thing is we got to get this Snyder bum out of office first. Michigan although it votes every 4 years for Democrats the stupid masses don't show up to midterms.

You are wrong, there are actual free markets out there, and they prove you wrong.

MYTH ALERT!

A "free market" doesn't exist. There is no such thing. All markets are constructed. Think of the stock exchange. It has rules. The WTO [World Trade Organization] has 900 pages of regulations. The bond market has all kinds of regulations and commissions to make sure those regulations carried out. Every market has rules.

So if free markets don't exist, then how are you blaming free markets for our endless economic woes exactly?

 

[kaz]

Over valued property defaulted on, the Savings and Loan crises was the exact same thing, which Daddy Bush bailed out. Like Father like Son.

Maybe this is why there is complete silence from Bush when it comes to being critical of Obama or Clinton.

Actually, until Carter and Clinton, it was tradition that Presidents don't criticize current administrations when they leave office. It's pretty clear which of those sides the messiah will be on.

 

[Bfgrn]

You're missing my point (and unwittingly supporting it). Regulatory agencies invariably come under the control of the industries they regulate. The dominant players in the industry in question use the regulatory apparatus to further their own interests, leveraging the illusion that consumers and the public are 'protected' from their shenanigans. It's become so blatant that Congress now invites them into the legislative process, overseeing the formation of these regulatory schemes from the start (witness ACA).

Yea, I GET your point...the cure for a high fever is hypothermia.......

Hmm.. I'm pretty sure you're not getting it. I'm not advocating for the extremes you're envisioning. We NEED laws holding people and businesses accountable for their actions. I'm arguing against the extremes of using regulation to mandate conformity in the name of convenience. It's not a good idea, and not just from the point of view of individual freedom. Committing everyone to uniform practices puts all of our eggs in one basket, and amplifies the damage when things go wrong. We should avoid it when we can, instead embracing diversity and experimentation.

I DO get it...the cure for a high fever is hypothermia.

The ACA is not what liberals advocated for. BUT, was the status quo better?

Should we again allow people to be denied coverage for preexisting conditions?

Should we go back to lifetime limits on coverage?

Should we go back to not requiring insurance corporations to publicly justify any unreasonable rate hikes?

Should we go back to allowing Wall Street investors to CONTROL our health care by being allowed to punish insurance corporations who spend too much on treatments and coverage?

I am sure NONE of those provisions we lobbied for by insurance corporations.

 

[Bfgrn]

You are wrong, there are actual free markets out there, and they prove you wrong.

MYTH ALERT!

A "free market" doesn't exist. There is no such thing. All markets are constructed. Think of the stock exchange. It has rules. The WTO [World Trade Organization] has 900 pages of regulations. The bond market has all kinds of regulations and commissions to make sure those regulations carried out. Every market has rules.

So if free markets don't exist, then how are you blaming free markets for our endless economic woes exactly?

I am blaming it on "Marketists" like you, the twin sister of Marxists. People who believe in a 'religion' of 'invisible hands, magic, and voodoo, instead of logic, prudence and common decency.

 

[dblack]

Yea, I GET your point...the cure for a high fever is hypothermia.......

Hmm.. I'm pretty sure you're not getting it. I'm not advocating for the extremes you're envisioning. We NEED laws holding people and businesses accountable for their actions. I'm arguing against the extremes of using regulation to mandate conformity in the name of convenience. It's not a good idea, and not just from the point of view of individual freedom. Committing everyone to uniform practices puts all of our eggs in one basket, and amplifies the damage when things go wrong. We should avoid it when we can, instead embracing diversity and experimentation.

I DO get it...the cure for a high fever is hypothermia.

If you say so. I disagree.

The ACA is not what liberals advocated for. BUT, was the status quo better?

Shitty as it was, yes.

Should we again allow people to be denied coverage for preexisting conditions?

Yes. That's a delusional requirement.

Should we go back to lifetime limits on coverage?

If you want to buy that kind of policy, you should be allowed to, yes.

Should we go back to not requiring insurance corporations to publicly justify any unreasonable rate hikes?

Another ridiculous requirement.

Should we go back to allowing Wall Street investors to CONTROL our health care by being allowed to punish insurance corporations who spend too much on treatments and coverage?

Wall Street investors don't control your health care unless you invite them to control it.

I am sure NONE of those provisions we lobbied for by insurance corporations.

In exchange for mandated customers, of course they were. Regulations that raise the cost of doing business, as long as they are forced on competitors, are always welcomed by the dominant players in an industry. They function as a barrier to entry and favor vested interests who can more readily absorb the overhead. This is par for the course with the regulatory game. You really haven't looked into this much, have you?