Libertarians Are The True Political Moderates

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Um, what?

1. First if their is no minimum wage it is impossible to work for less than the minimum wage. Second, the reason people cannot afford an apartment is that government restricts available housing through zoning laws. Third, you idiots keep arguing that people can't afford rent even with the minimum wage.
2. Wait a second, are you arguing for, or against, the Democratic Party position? Are you so confused that you think that immigration makes people poor?
3. I don't even know where to begin with that nonsense.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Compared to me you are a far right wing reactionary when it comes to civil liberties.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

Um, what?

1. First if their is no minimum wage it is impossible to work for less than the minimum wage. Second, the reason people cannot afford an apartment is that government restricts available housing through zoning laws. Third, you idiots keep arguing that people can't afford rent even with the minimum wage.
2. Wait a second, are you arguing for, or against, the Democratic Party position? Are you so confused that you think that immigration makes people poor?
3. I don't even know where to begin with that nonsense.

You gave yourself the right name because you are full of it.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

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).

Flowery speeches (like the one you just gave) and hypocrisy are the cornerstones of liberalism. The government is constantly trouncing the rights and freedoms of its citizenry while being a police state.

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

What a surprise, you are too obtuse to understand adult issues. If you would find an adult to read and explain it to you, those people (speculators) made multiple BUSINESS decisions. Similar to investors dumping a bad stock.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

What a surprise, you are too obtuse to understand adult issues. If you would find an adult to read and explain it to you, those people (speculators) made multiple BUSINESS decisions. Similar to investors dumping a bad stock.

That doesn't change the fact that multiple thousands of people made bad decisions, does it?

 

[Pete7469]

This is a very good post Kaz.

I'm pretty much on the libertarian side, I would probably disagree regarding with you regarding the military though.

Our military does provide stability in places, as well as humanitarian operations. I might agree that we have too large of a footprint, and need to just stay the hell out of the middle east at this point. In order for us to conduct international trade, having a military that can respond to any place on earth in a few hours can be a good thing. Indeed we probably do interfere in matters that don't concern us though.

In any case, I would rather have the US as the primary "world's police" than Russia and/or China. It's just too bad we can't bill the world for the services provided.

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

What a surprise, you are too obtuse to understand adult issues. If you would find an adult to read and explain it to you, those people (speculators) made multiple BUSINESS decisions. Similar to investors dumping a bad stock.

That doesn't change the fact that multiple thousands of people made bad decisions, does it?

I guess it is impossible to reason with a dogmatic mind. Let's lay it out.

1) There was a housing bubble.

Then

2) Property values plummeted.

3) The people you say caused the crisis (CRA and lower income buyers) continued to pay their mortgage. Why? Because although the value dropped, they were buying a homestead. And those who lost their jobs probably kept paying even when foreclosure was inevitable.

If these were the only buyers affected, there would have been a slow deflation of the housing market.

4) But speculators and wealthy buyers trying to make a fast buck flipping houses made a cold, hard business decision...walk away and cut your loses. Speculators comprised up to 50% of buyers in the 'hot' markets where the massive foreclosures occurred.

So the ONLY way there could be a bust, is for the market to be instantly flooded with foreclosures.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What a surprise, you are too obtuse to understand adult issues. If you would find an adult to read and explain it to you, those people (speculators) made multiple BUSINESS decisions. Similar to investors dumping a bad stock.

That doesn't change the fact that multiple thousands of people made bad decisions, does it?

I guess it is impossible to reason with a dogmatic mind. Let's lay it out.

1) There was a housing bubble.

Then

2) Property values plummeted.

3) The people you say caused the crisis (CRA and lower income buyers) continued to pay their mortgage. Why? Because although the value dropped, they were buying a homestead. And those who lost their jobs probably kept paying even when foreclosure was inevitable.

If these were the only buyers affected, there would have been a slow deflation of the housing market.

4) But speculators and wealthy buyers trying to make a fast buck flipping houses made a cold, hard business decision...walk away and cut your loses. Speculators comprised up to 50% of buyers in the 'hot' markets where the massive foreclosures occurred.

So the ONLY way there could be a bust, is for the market to be instantly flooded with foreclosures.

The only reason to foreclose on a loan is if somene isn't paying it. Given all the regulations, both federal and state, that make kicking people out of their house all but impossible, your claim that there was a massive conspiracy by banks to burst the housing bubble is so absurd I don't even think a rational person could possibly consider it as reality.

 

[Bfgrn]

That doesn't change the fact that multiple thousands of people made bad decisions, does it?

I guess it is impossible to reason with a dogmatic mind. Let's lay it out.

1) There was a housing bubble.

Then

2) Property values plummeted.

3) The people you say caused the crisis (CRA and lower income buyers) continued to pay their mortgage. Why? Because although the value dropped, they were buying a homestead. And those who lost their jobs probably kept paying even when foreclosure was inevitable.

If these were the only buyers affected, there would have been a slow deflation of the housing market.

4) But speculators and wealthy buyers trying to make a fast buck flipping houses made a cold, hard business decision...walk away and cut your loses. Speculators comprised up to 50% of buyers in the 'hot' markets where the massive foreclosures occurred.

So the ONLY way there could be a bust, is for the market to be instantly flooded with foreclosures.

The only reason to foreclose on a loan is if somene isn't paying it. Given all the regulations, both federal and state, that make kicking people out of their house all but impossible, your claim that there was a massive conspiracy by banks to burst the housing bubble is so absurd I don't even think a rational person could possibly consider it as reality.

I never said "there was a massive conspiracy by banks to burst the housing bubble". There was no conspiracy by anyone. It had nothing to do with banks. It has to do with buyers who were using "homes" as mere investment, just like buying a stock. When the 'investment' went south, they dumped the bad investment.

You continue to view speculators as home buyers. Even if there was no crisis, they were never going to reside in that 'home'.

 

[ScienceRocks]

If not paying for the roads you drive on makes you a moderate. I just have to say that your idea of moderate is insane.

Somalia is how this country would look if the op was true. The truth is, paying for our infrastructure, public educational system and allowing our government have its place within society is the moderate thing to do. Losertrians are far right wing nuts when it comes to economics.

 

[ScienceRocks]

These idiots want the banks to be completely unregulated. This is what they're fighting for with threads like this.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I guess it is impossible to reason with a dogmatic mind. Let's lay it out.

1) There was a housing bubble.

Then

2) Property values plummeted.

3) The people you say caused the crisis (CRA and lower income buyers) continued to pay their mortgage. Why? Because although the value dropped, they were buying a homestead. And those who lost their jobs probably kept paying even when foreclosure was inevitable.

If these were the only buyers affected, there would have been a slow deflation of the housing market.

4) But speculators and wealthy buyers trying to make a fast buck flipping houses made a cold, hard business decision...walk away and cut your loses. Speculators comprised up to 50% of buyers in the 'hot' markets where the massive foreclosures occurred.

So the ONLY way there could be a bust, is for the market to be instantly flooded with foreclosures.

The only reason to foreclose on a loan is if somene isn't paying it. Given all the regulations, both federal and state, that make kicking people out of their house all but impossible, your claim that there was a massive conspiracy by banks to burst the housing bubble is so absurd I don't even think a rational person could possibly consider it as reality.

I never said "there was a massive conspiracy by banks to burst the housing bubble". There was no conspiracy by anyone. It had nothing to do with banks. It has to do with buyers who were using "homes" as mere investment, just like buying a stock. When the 'investment' went south, they dumped the bad investment.

You continue to view speculators as home buyers. Even if there was no crisis, they were never going to reside in that 'home'.

I view speculators as buyers? If that is true, is there a reason I shouldn't? Aren't they actually buying those homes, even if their intent is to flip them? Aren't they putting their money on the line just like anyone else?

 

[Bfgrn]

The only reason to foreclose on a loan is if somene isn't paying it. Given all the regulations, both federal and state, that make kicking people out of their house all but impossible, your claim that there was a massive conspiracy by banks to burst the housing bubble is so absurd I don't even think a rational person could possibly consider it as reality.

I never said "there was a massive conspiracy by banks to burst the housing bubble". There was no conspiracy by anyone. It had nothing to do with banks. It has to do with buyers who were using "homes" as mere investment, just like buying a stock. When the 'investment' went south, they dumped the bad investment.

You continue to view speculators as home buyers. Even if there was no crisis, they were never going to reside in that 'home'.

I view speculators as buyers? If that is true, is there a reason I shouldn't? Aren't they actually buying those homes, even if their intent is to flip them? Aren't they putting their money on the line just like anyone else?

NO, they were NOT putting their money on the line. THAT is why the private lenders took over the market and pushed out Freddie and Fanny Mae. They offered 'gimmicks' and flooded the market with zero-down-payment, no monthly payments for the first two years and mortgages requiring no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower.

Some of them walked away with paying anything.

 

[dblack]

The housing bubble happened because buyers didn't worry about risk, assuming that a regulated market was protecting them. Bankers played along, assuming the government would bail them out.

 

[Bfgrn]

The housing bubble happened because buyers didn't worry about risk, assuming that a regulated market was protecting them. Bankers played along, assuming the government would bail them out.

You are full of shit. The private lenders were not backed by the government.

Let's go through some things we know.

1. Private markets, rather than the GSEs, created the subprime mortgage boom.

The subprime mortgage boom and the subsequent crash are very much concentrated in the private market, not the public market. Subprime is a creature of the private label securitization channel (PLS) market, instead of the Government-Sponsored Entities (GSEs, or Fannie and Freddie). The fly-by-night lending boom, slicing and dicing mortgage bonds, derivatives and CDOs, and all the other shadiness of the mortgage market in the 2000s were Wall Street creations, and they drove all those risky mortgages.

Here's some data to back that up: "More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions... Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year."

No, Marco Rubio, government did not cause the housing crisis - The Washington Post

 

[dblack]

The housing bubble happened because buyers didn't worry about risk, assuming that a regulated market was protecting them. Bankers played along, assuming the government would bail them out.

You are full of shit. The private lenders were not backed by the government.

Let's go through some things we know.

1. Private markets, rather than the GSEs, created the subprime mortgage boom.

The subprime mortgage boom and the subsequent crash are very much concentrated in the private market, not the public market. Subprime is a creature of the private label securitization channel (PLS) market, instead of the Government-Sponsored Entities (GSEs, or Fannie and Freddie). The fly-by-night lending boom, slicing and dicing mortgage bonds, derivatives and CDOs, and all the other shadiness of the mortgage market in the 2000s were Wall Street creations, and they drove all those risky mortgages.

Here's some data to back that up: "More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions... Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year."

No, Marco Rubio, government did not cause the housing crisis - The Washington Post

You're shadow boxing. I agree with you. It was private investors and bankers and investors who created the bubble, because ...

.... buyers didn't worry about risk, assuming that a regulated market was protecting them. Bankers played along, assuming the government would bail them out.

At least try responding to what I post, rather than dishing out canned spaghettios.

 

[Pete7469]

The housing bubble happened because buyers didn't worry about risk, assuming that a regulated market was protecting them. Bankers played along, assuming the government would bail them out.

What "risk" did the buyers have? Bankruptcy protection kept them safe from total ruin.

At least that's my assumption.

The problem is that there are volumes of rules and regulations. Ordinary people should not have to hire lawyers and agents to make a simple property transaction.

This shit should be common sense.

 

[dblack]

The housing bubble happened because buyers didn't worry about risk, assuming that a regulated market was protecting them. Bankers played along, assuming the government would bail them out.

What "risk" did the buyers have? Bankruptcy protection kept them safe from total ruin.

At least that's my assumption.

That's my point. Or part of it. There's moral hazard in regulation and law that protects people from financial ruin. "Buyer beware" isn't just good advice, it's a crucial component of a properly functioning market.

 

[Bfgrn]

The housing bubble happened because buyers didn't worry about risk, assuming that a regulated market was protecting them. Bankers played along, assuming the government would bail them out.

You are full of shit. The private lenders were not backed by the government.

Let's go through some things we know.

1. Private markets, rather than the GSEs, created the subprime mortgage boom.

The subprime mortgage boom and the subsequent crash are very much concentrated in the private market, not the public market. Subprime is a creature of the private label securitization channel (PLS) market, instead of the Government-Sponsored Entities (GSEs, or Fannie and Freddie). The fly-by-night lending boom, slicing and dicing mortgage bonds, derivatives and CDOs, and all the other shadiness of the mortgage market in the 2000s were Wall Street creations, and they drove all those risky mortgages.

Here's some data to back that up: "More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions... Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year."

No, Marco Rubio, government did not cause the housing crisis - The Washington Post

You're shadow boxing. I agree with you. It was private investors and bankers and investors who created the bubble, because ...

.... buyers didn't worry about risk, assuming that a regulated market was protecting them. Bankers played along, assuming the government would bail them out.

At least try responding to what I post, rather than dishing out canned spaghettios.

I had a flat tire. It is the government's fault...

Your beloved private sector can do no wrong...

Fuck you!