Libertarians Are The True Political Moderates

[TakeAStepBack]

Libertarianism and free markets on the other hand sound pretty, but they cannot withstand even a cursory inspection. 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.

That's right. Mob rule is an ugly and failed business. That's why this is a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

A constitutionally elected government is not mob rule

That's right, dumb fuck. Yet you leftist turd burglars throw around democracy like you do. Yet, you would rather have mob rule "we won the election, so deal with it." is your new mantra. You're authoritarian t the bone. There is nothing liberal about your kind. Nothing. You believe in mob rule which is why you constantly call our system democracy. Which isn't an accurate portrayal of the system at all. Whether you realize it or not.

 

[rightwinger]

That's right. Mob rule is an ugly and failed business. That's why this is a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

A constitutionally elected government is not mob rule

That's right, dumb fuck. Yet you leftist turd burglars throw around democracy like you do. Yet, you would rather have mob rule "we won the election, so deal with it." is your new mantra. You're authoritarian t the bone. There is nothing liberal about your kind. Nothing. You believe in mob rule which is why you constantly call our system democracy. Which isn't an accurate portrayal of the system at all. Whether you realize it or not.

Every election has winners and losers. Decisions are made based on who is in power. If your freedom or liberty are impacted by the ruling party then you have the courts at your disposal to stand up for your rights

That is the way our Constitution works

 

[TakeAStepBack]

A constitutionally elected government is not mob rule

That's right, dumb fuck. Yet you leftist turd burglars throw around democracy like you do. Yet, you would rather have mob rule "we won the election, so deal with it." is your new mantra. You're authoritarian t the bone. There is nothing liberal about your kind. Nothing. You believe in mob rule which is why you constantly call our system democracy. Which isn't an accurate portrayal of the system at all. Whether you realize it or not.

Every election has winners and losers. Decisions are made based on who is in power. If your freedom or liberty are impacted by the ruling party then you have the courts at your disposal to stand up for your rights

That is the way our Constitution works

Like I said, you like mob rule. You're more than happy to run roughshod over people with your "decisions" (all which never involve liberty or freedom) because "we won the election". Meanwhile, the rule of law isn't subject to the whims of the mob. But that's what you guys have been pushing for the past however many years.

What's really ugly about it is that you actually have the audacity to call yourselves liberals. While you force people to buy things, do things, take their money, tell them what to do, etc...

 

[Slyhunter]

Libertarians want to get rid of the minimum wage, get rid of welfare, and open the borders to anyone who wants to work here. Do you know the consequences of doing all three simultaneously is? American poor living in the streets, bamboo huts like in Cambodia, Cages like in Hong Kong, Coffin hotels like in Japan, in abject misery because they are forced to survive on substandard wages. Is that what you really want for your fellow American citizens, or do you even care?

I call myself a compassionate Libertarian because I do believe everyone should have the right to do whatever the fuck they want to as long as it doesn't interfere with another individuals right to do the same. However, I got a heart and I don't want my fellow American citizens living in abject poverty because they have to compete with third worlders for jobs.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Libertarians want to get rid of the minimum wage, get rid of welfare, and open the borders to anyone who wants to work here. Do you know the consequences of doing all three simultaneously is? American poor living in the streets, bamboo huts like in Cambodia, Cages like in Hong Kong, Coffin hotels like in Japan, in abject misery because they are forced to survive on substandard wages. Is that what you really want for your fellow American citizens, or do you even care?

I call myself a compassionate Libertarian because I do believe everyone should have the right to do whatever the fuck they want to as long as it doesn't interfere with another individuals right to do the same. However, I got a heart and I don't want my fellow American citizens living in abject poverty because they have to compete with third worlders for jobs.

You have a very narrow understanding of economics based on this commentary. Not to mention all that fucking hyperbolic nonsense mingling with such a narrow understanding.

 

[rightwinger]

That's right, dumb fuck. Yet you leftist turd burglars throw around democracy like you do. Yet, you would rather have mob rule "we won the election, so deal with it." is your new mantra. You're authoritarian t the bone. There is nothing liberal about your kind. Nothing. You believe in mob rule which is why you constantly call our system democracy. Which isn't an accurate portrayal of the system at all. Whether you realize it or not.

Every election has winners and losers. Decisions are made based on who is in power. If your freedom or liberty are impacted by the ruling party then you have the courts at your disposal to stand up for your rights

That is the way our Constitution works

Like I said, you like mob rule. You're more than happy to run roughshod over people with your "decisions" (all which never involve liberty or freedom) because "we won the election". Meanwhile, the rule of law isn't subject to the whims of the mob. But that's what you guys have been pushing for the past however many years.

What's really ugly about it is that you actually have the audacity to call yourselves liberals. While you force people to buy things, do things, take their money, tell them what to do, etc...

Every "decision" leaves some people happy and some people upset
Can't please all of the people all of the time.........especially if they are Libertarians

 

[Slyhunter]

Libertarians want to get rid of the minimum wage, get rid of welfare, and open the borders to anyone who wants to work here. Do you know the consequences of doing all three simultaneously is? American poor living in the streets, bamboo huts like in Cambodia, Cages like in Hong Kong, Coffin hotels like in Japan, in abject misery because they are forced to survive on substandard wages. Is that what you really want for your fellow American citizens, or do you even care?

I call myself a compassionate Libertarian because I do believe everyone should have the right to do whatever the fuck they want to as long as it doesn't interfere with another individuals right to do the same. However, I got a heart and I don't want my fellow American citizens living in abject poverty because they have to compete with third worlders for jobs.

You have a very narrow understanding of economics based on this commentary. Not to mention all that fucking hyperbolic nonsense mingling with such a narrow understanding.

You are mistaken.
1. get rid of minimum wage - consequences people end up working for less than the minimum wage and are unable to pay rent in a decent house or apartment.
2. Add make it easier for any alien to get a work visa to work here. Consequences now instead of just competing for jobs vs fellow Americans and allowing the law of supply and demand work you end up competing for jobs with every person who can hop skip and skedaddle to America and willing to work for less than a dollar a day, in some cases. That will turn our country into a third world country.
3. On top of that you get rid of welfare too. Consequences of all three being enacted is people living and dieing in the street.

 

[Bfgrn]

Libertarianism and free markets on the other hand 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.

That's right. Mob rule is an ugly and failed business. That's why this is a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

Liberals don't support mob rule. Our founding fathers created a representative republic based on democratic values, where everyone has equal rights.

You are parroting the right's hatred of democracy. These are people who want to create an aristocracy, where there is a hierarchy based on wealth.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Libertarianism and free markets on the other hand sound pretty, but they cannot withstand even a cursory inspection. 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.

That's right. Mob rule is an ugly and failed business. That's why this is a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

Liberals don't support mob rule. Our founding fathers created a representative republic based on democratic values, where everyone has equal rights.

You are parroting the right's hatred of democracy. These are people who want to create an aristocracy, where there is a hierarchy based on wealth.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

There is nothing liberal about your positions. Same with RWer and the rest of the herd you guys surround yourself ideologically with. Invoking classical liberalism in any sense of your positions is absolutely laughable.There aren't very many positions held by modern "liberals" that reflect liberty or freedom to the individual. You twist up every word to suite your authoritarian agenda. Everything from liberal, to freedom to liberty.

And I'm not parroting anything. You guys constantly refer to our system as "democracy". Which means you either do not want to acknowledge that this is a simpletons view, or you do not wan to because you prefer mob rule....i.e "we won the election so deal with it."

 

[Contumacious]

Liberals don't support mob rule. Our founding fathers created a representative republic based on democratic values, where everyone has equal rights.
n

Bullshit.

Ochlocracy (Greek: ὀχλοκρατία, okhlokratía; Latin: ochlocratia) or mob rule is the rule of government by mob or a mass of people, or the intimidation of legitimate authorities. As a pejorative for majoritarianism, it is akin to the Latin phrase mobile vulgus meaning "the fickle crowd", from which the English term "mob" was originally derived in the 1680s.

The gargantuan welfare state was adopted because of the parasitic hordes who vote early and often.

.

 

[Bfgrn]

That's right. Mob rule is an ugly and failed business. That's why this is a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

Liberals don't support mob rule. Our founding fathers created a representative republic based on democratic values, where everyone has equal rights.

You are parroting the right's hatred of democracy. These are people who want to create an aristocracy, where there is a hierarchy based on wealth.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

There is nothing liberal about your positions. Same with RWer and the rest of the herd you guys surround yourself ideologically with. Invoking classical liberalism in any sense of your positions is absolutely laughable.There aren't very many positions held by modern "liberals" that reflect liberty or freedom to the individual. You twist up every word to suite your authoritarian agenda. Everything from liberal, to freedom to liberty.

And I'm not parroting anything. You guys constantly refer to our system as "democracy". Which means you either do not want to acknowledge that this is a simpletons view, or you do not wan to because you prefer mob rule....i.e "we won the election so deal with it."

I am a liberal with a lot more beliefs in common with civil libertarians than any of you faux right wing 'libertarians' who are just using it as a front to let your beloved opulent rule over the masses. I can see why you folks want to castrate government. You have already selected the 'mob' you want to rule. Madison called it a 'faction'.

You are unwilling to admit that your hatred of democracy is based on your desire to create an aristocracy.

 

[thanatos144]

Libertarians are the most partisan people on this board.....Even more so then most of the idiot liberals.

 

[Bfgrn]

Liberals don't support mob rule. Our founding fathers created a representative republic based on democratic values, where everyone has equal rights.
n

Bullshit.

Ochlocracy (Greek: ὀχλοκρατία, okhlokratía; Latin: ochlocratia) or mob rule is the rule of government by mob or a mass of people, or the intimidation of legitimate authorities. As a pejorative for majoritarianism, it is akin to the Latin phrase mobile vulgus meaning "the fickle crowd", from which the English term "mob" was originally derived in the 1680s.

The gargantuan welfare state was adopted because of the parasitic hordes who vote early and often.

.

False.

First of all you UN-American piece of shit, the American people are not 'parasites'. They are hard working people who receive much less government help than any of their counterparts in other industrialized countries. Like universal health care. The so called 'welfare state' in America is the weakest of nations who call themselves civilized.

And the 'welfare state' is a characteristic of advanced capitalist economies. The forgotten truth about health provision is that socialism and state welfare are old enemies. The first welfare state on earth (Bismarck’s Prussia) was created against socialist opposition.

When the two Germanies united after 1990, the social provision of the capitalist West was more than twice that of the socialist East, and the cost of unification to West Germany proved vast. Talk of socialized medicine was always misleading if socialized implies socialist, and the very word probably guarantees that confusion. The British National Health Service of 1948, like the Canadian version that followed it 20 years later, always allowed for a flourishing private sector—a sector that has tended to grow with the years. It neither banned private medical care nor discouraged it. Only a competitive economy, what is more, is likely to generate a tax base big enough to maintain public hospitals, pensions, and schools. In short, a free economy needs state welfare, and state welfare needs a free economy.

The American Scholar: The Forgotten Churchill - George Watson

 

[Contumacious]

Liberals don't support mob rule. Our founding fathers created a representative republic based on democratic values, where everyone has equal rights.
n

Bullshit.

Ochlocracy (Greek: ὀχλοκρατία, okhlokratía; Latin: ochlocratia) or mob rule is the rule of government by mob or a mass of people, or the intimidation of legitimate authorities. As a pejorative for majoritarianism, it is akin to the Latin phrase mobile vulgus meaning "the fickle crowd", from which the English term "mob" was originally derived in the 1680s.

The gargantuan welfare state was adopted because of the parasitic hordes who vote early and often.

.

False.

First of all you UN-American piece of shit, the American people are not 'parasites'. They are hard working people who receive much less government help than any of their counterparts in other industrialized countries. Like universal health care. The so called 'welfare state' in America is the weakest of nations who call themselves civilized.

And the 'welfare state' is a characteristic of advanced capitalist economies. The forgotten truth about health provision is that socialism and state welfare are old enemies. The first welfare state on earth (Bismarck’s Prussia) was created against socialist opposition.]

You miserable scum bag

HHS BUDGET 1,000,000,000 BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBbbbillions



WELFARE STATE = GOVERNMENT BUY THE PEOPLE

.

 

[kaz]

So, you did no research on the subject I see

Not on Crooks and Liars like you did, no. I actually care what happened, not just how to spin it against Republicans. Hence your relying on Crooks and Liars for your "research."

A critical mind would understand the only way there would be a massive burst or hemorrhage of the housing market is if a huge amount of people all defaulted on their mortgages at the same time.

A critical mind would realize that once there's a bubble, it will burst. Which is why had you read what I wrote and as I explained, I addressed the bubble, which was the issue. The problem since you don't have a critical mind is that you memorize talking points and you're not able to process information coming back. And when you only have anti-Republican talking points, a libertarian who doesn't give a crap about protecting Republicans, your anti-Republican talking points are like trying to shoot a ghost with a handgun. I blame Republicans too. W continued Clinton's policy, both of them did this to us.

That how the bubble burst rather than how it was created demonstrates your fundamental lack of grasp of the problem. That you are only concerned with the burst was all I could glean from your post since you never stated what you are actually arguing. You just worked in burst with rich, corporations, wall street and greed. So I realized your point had something to do with Republicans, but since you never stated your actual argument, just a bunch of random points, I don't know if there is more to it or not.

All your anti-Republican talking points and use of bogey man words are irrelevant. If you have a critical mind, stop and think about the bottom line. When government pressures the market to make loans, floods the market with cheap cash and gives people write-offs for the interest, the cost of houses is going to soar far past the actual value of the homes. Now think about the word, "bubble." Now think about the economy stumbling. Now think about running with an overinflated balloon through a pin factory.

Can you process what I just told you? I realize I may have an MBA in finance and have spent my career in financial services on and off wall street, and you obviously know more since you're repeating what liberal lawyers who went to law school and know nothing about economics told you. But if you actually care, try reading what I told you. Focusing on which pin burst the balloon is irrelevant.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Liberals don't support mob rule. Our founding fathers created a representative republic based on democratic values, where everyone has equal rights.

You are parroting the right's hatred of democracy. These are people who want to create an aristocracy, where there is a hierarchy based on wealth.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

There is nothing liberal about your positions. Same with RWer and the rest of the herd you guys surround yourself ideologically with. Invoking classical liberalism in any sense of your positions is absolutely laughable.There aren't very many positions held by modern "liberals" that reflect liberty or freedom to the individual. You twist up every word to suite your authoritarian agenda. Everything from liberal, to freedom to liberty.

And I'm not parroting anything. You guys constantly refer to our system as "democracy". Which means you either do not want to acknowledge that this is a simpletons view, or you do not wan to because you prefer mob rule....i.e "we won the election so deal with it."

I am a liberal with a lot more beliefs in common with civil libertarians than any of you faux right wing 'libertarians' who are just using it as a front to let your beloved opulent rule over the masses. I can see why you folks want to castrate government. You have already selected the 'mob' you want to rule. Madison called it a 'faction'.

You are unwilling to admit that your hatred of democracy is based on your desire to create an aristocracy.

No, you're an authoritarian who believes in a small amount of personal freedom from the State. Otherwise you are more than happy to force people to do what you think is right, relinquish their property to the alter of the State for shit YOU think is right, wetc..etc..etc... Modern dayt liberals do not believe in freedom of the individual, they believe in freedom of the state to perform mob rule to run roughshod over others with their holier than thou ideology.

Otherwise you wouldnt be in favor of stealing peoples money
You wouldnt be in favor of redistributing it to those you deem worthy
and you wouldnt use the state as the answer to every single solitary problem, social, economic or otherwise.

But you do. And you do this under the false presentations of liberal, liberty, freedom, etc...and you know why? Because if you called yourselves what you are, your game would be up. So youre forced to hide behind the facade of being liberal as an authoritarian. Because that sort of appeal to emotion works on Rubes.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Libertarians are the most partisan people on this board.....Even more so then most of the idiot liberals.

You're about as bright as a dark cave, son.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So, you did no research on the subject I see.

A critical mind would understand the only way there would be a massive burst or hemorrhage of the housing market is if a huge amount of people all defaulted on their mortgages at the same time. Those people did not "simultaneously make the same stupid decisions." They made a shrewd, cold, calculated business decision. They jettisoned a bad investment. Plain and simple. They were not buying a homesteaded. They already had a 'home' or mansion. Wealthy people are not concerned with 'credit scores', they have something that trumps credit score, it is called money. If you look at the map of the foreclosure concentration, it is all in high priced, exclusive areas. No matter what the government did or didn't do, those were never areas were CRA loans would exist.


Let's critically think about who would desire subprime loans? Someone buying a homestead, would want a mortgage. The word “mortgage” comes from the French “mort-gage”, literally death-pledge. Did some poor folks get scammed by lenders...sure. But not by government backed lenders. So WHO would really want subprime loans? If you put yourself in the shoes of a speculator, you would understand they would salivate over any loan that had low or no down payment, deferred payments or any 'gimmick' that would attain their SHORT term goals. To buy and SELL. Not buy and move in.

The lenders who made the bulk of subprime loans weren’t even covered by government laws to encourage homeownership. 94 percent of high-cost loans were totally unconnected from government homeownership laws.

http://www.responsiblelending.org/m...tion/congress/cra-not-to-blame-for-crisis.pdf

Damn, you still can't think.

Question, if it is impossible for the housing market to collapse as the result of multiple bad decisions, why the fuck did multiple people make bad decisions at the same time?

Hey, the street lights are on. All children should be in bed.

What a surprise, no explanation of something that actually happened because you prefer to believe that it was all the fault of a cabal that only exists in your head.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nothing makes the left cringe more than libertarianism. Freedom and liberty is the last thing the left wants.

Freedom and liberty are the cornerstones of liberalism. But within a representative democracy where We, the People are the government. That is what our founding fathers created.

Libertarianism and free markets on the other hand 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.


"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
Thomas Jefferson to the Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland" (March 31, 1809).

The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.
Thomas Jefferson - Letter to Larkin Smith (1809).

It might be the cornerstone of liberalism, but it isn't the cornerstone of the Democratic Party, which you support unconditionally. That is what makes you part of the problem.

 

[thanatos144]

Libertarians are the most partisan people on this board.....Even more so then most of the idiot liberals.

You're about as bright as a dark cave, son.

Thanks for proving my point

tapatalk post