Libertarians

[Bern80]

Lack of infrastructure in such a Libertarian idealized system would weaken the country dramatically.

What about libertarianism says there would be a lack of infrastructure?

Lack of regulation would allow the greedy to eventually destroy the system to their own benefit.

Why? In a libertarians eyes no legitimate transaction can occur until both parties agree it is fair. If a buyer deems a sellers terms unfair he is free to seek a better deal somewhere else. If a seller doesn't agree to the price a buyer is willing to pay he is free to seek someone else who will give him the price he wants. As I said to another you also seem to believe libertarianism is one stepped removed from anarchy. It isn't

 

[Bern80]

your freedom to do anything that infringes on the freedoms (interesting you didn't say 'rights') of others- you answered your own question

This makes no sense and is certainly not what I said

Why do you lie about what you said?

you seem to be ignoring the 'as long as it doesn't infringe upon the freedoms of others' part. Take a deep breath, wipe the foam from your mouth and attempt to make sense next time.

 

[JBeukema]

you stated what freedoms they give up

then you asked what freedoms they give up

then I showed you where you already stated what freedoms they give up

then you say I'm ignoring that they gave up those freedoms


are you retarded?

 

[Ragnar]

you stated what freedoms they give up

then you asked what freedoms they give up

then I showed you where you already stated what freedoms they give up

then you say I'm ignoring that they gave up those freedoms


are you retarded?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk]YouTube - You keep using that word.[/ame]

 

[Bern80]

you stated what freedoms they give up

then you asked what freedoms they give up

then I showed you where you already stated what freedoms they give up

then you say I'm ignoring that they gave up those freedoms


are you retarded?

I think you're be argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. The best I can make out of your idiocy is that you have some problem with libertarians claiming they are for personal f reedom yet exclude the freedom to infringe upon the freedom of others.....? Seriously do you have ******* point? It's a pretty ******* simple rule. A) Everyone does what they want to do. B)Government protects people from being deprived of tje ability to do A.

 

[JBeukema]

It's a pretty ******* simple rule. A) Everyone does what they want to do. B)Government protects people from being deprived of tje ability to do A.

Whatever they want? So you no longer think that there should be moral/ethical/legal limits on what they can do? Rule B means that Rule A does not stand.

 

[Bern80]

It's a pretty ******* simple rule. A) Everyone does what they want to do. B)Government protects people from being deprived of tje ability to do A.

Whatever they want? So you no longer think that there should be moral/ethical/legal limits on what they can do? Rule B means that Rule A does not stand.

I think I quite clearly explained what the limit is. Is there some made up rule where the provision 'except for doing things that prevent others from exercising their freedoms' isn't allowed?

 

[JBeukema]

Clearly, basic logic is beyond your comprehension

 

[Skull Pilot]

Problem #2: You have a Libertarian school system. Strictly pay as you go. Of course this system is very efficient and we will say it is no more expensive than our local Catholic school. They use many unpaid nuns as teachers and administrators.

This school still costs about $3500 per year per student in grades 2 - 8

How could a family with three kids, making 40 grand a year, afford this?

This is the conversation that people who believe in personal responsibility have:

"You know, wife, I want to have kids but i only want the best education possible for them."

"I agree, husband. Let's have 3 adorable little rug rats and make sure they have the best education money can buy"

"But Wife, We only make 40K a year so that would be impossible"

"Well then, Husband, maybe we should only have as many kids as we can afford to send to the best schools"

"I agree, Wife. How many is that?"

"Well Husband, I think we could afford to send one rug rat to a really good school so let's just have one kid"

Imagine that.

And later...

Wife: Well husband, I'm pregnant again no thanks to you. With twins. Now what?

Husband: How did you let that happen, wife?

[fight ensues and husband walks out]

Wife ends up returning to work and supporting three children.

Another scenario...imagine that.

yeah because birth control is unheard of.

 

[sweetie]

...lol! ..a bunch of stoooooooopid **** republicrats whose political heroes have facilitated world-wide warmongering, massive monetary fraud (about which they are dick-headedly ignorant), police-statism galore, sniping at some strawman LIBERTARIANS who've achieved VERY few political offices higher than dog-catcher..

...stfu, republicrats..

..actually, i too disagree with most self-described 'Libertarians'..about 80% seem like mere stooooopid republicrats who smoke dope...(not that there's anything wrong with an occasional whiff)

...but just about 100% of you republicrats are ignoramusses in essence..

...you ******* idiots are CONSTANTLY working your hamburger holes about 'political issues' involving illions of 'dollars,' yet you stooopid ***** are worse than merely unaware of the massive, destructive monetary fraud (money issuance, etc.) going on right underneath your goddamned fool noses..ooga booga, you monetary ignoramusses...ooga ******* booga..

...granted, most 'Libertarians' are monetary ignoramusses too!..but of THE VERY FEW people i've met who are 'monetarily aware,' a large, vastly disproportionate percentage call themselves 'libertarian'..

...stfu republicrats...including you 'Libertarian' republicrats...for once, truly 'follow the money'...all the way back to its issuance/creation...i believe the knowledge of this hideous money creation 'privilege' will focus your wild, stoooooooopid political parrotry..

..the rest of you, have a good day!...

 

[onecut39]

libertarians have this vast, though relatively simple, platform. They explain their philosophy with ease and precision but there is a reason this (non) governing scheme has never been used.............anywhere, anytime.

actually, it was used in america for more than 150 years.

Myth #1: Busted.

problem: You live in a libertarian state and desperately need a new highway between cities. How do you obtain the right of way?

Only libertarians need answer.

you obtain right-of-way by declaring it and paying the landowners just compensation (the 5th amendment mentions something about this)....we're libertarians, not anarchists.

Myth #2: Busted.

except there's that pesky little consideration of what to do if the landowner just says no. Right now in vermont, the public utility responsible for power transmission, and the lines and towers that support it, can't get certain property owners in outlying areas to sell a right-of-way regardless of the amount offered. But of course they're also the same ones (residents of bedroom communities) who scream the loudest when there's a power failure, often due to aging and crumbling poles and towers.

bingo!

 

[onecut39]

The problem is not Libertarianism, per se.

Extremists of any philosophy tend to speak in broad, simple terms, that have little application in the real world.

Extreme Libertarians, which are the ones you hear the most from, are good examples of this.

When you use empty rhetoric like "smaller government", and "individual freedoms" to describe the policies that you would put in place, you're not really saying anything.

Of course, Communists are the same way. They have broad ideas about "economic equality" and "working for the common good", but when it comes down to implementation on a large scale, they fail miserably.

That's strange. You say Libertarians cannot articulate their program. I find that true also but I find it particularly damning. If they wanted to make their points, they could.

The Libertarian platform is on the web. It doesn't look as if any of our posters on this thread have read it. It is the poster child for euphoric simplicity.

Just the sections on civil rights and domestic trade policies should scare off all but the most egocentric.l

 

[Oddball]

Care to point out which policies you're talking about, or are you just going to stick with the sweeping generalizations?

 

[onecut39]

If you can reconcile their position on civil rights, and (local)trade and business policies with any concept of freedom I will listen.

 

[Bern80]

If you can reconcile their position on civil rights, and (local)trade and business policies with any concept of freedom I will listen.

I guess that depends on what you think their opinion is on civil rights and trade and business policies. Care to elaborate?

 

[MaggieMae]

The problem is not Libertarianism, per se.

Extremists of any philosophy tend to speak in broad, simple terms, that have little application in the real world.

Extreme Libertarians, which are the ones you hear the most from, are good examples of this.

When you use empty rhetoric like "smaller government", and "individual freedoms" to describe the policies that you would put in place, you're not really saying anything.

Of course, Communists are the same way. They have broad ideas about "economic equality" and "working for the common good", but when it comes down to implementation on a large scale, they fail miserably.

That's why it will be interesting to see how a new batch of Republicans can effect any type of "change" since they don't really identify specifics in their campaigns. These newbies should also be worried that their supporters will expect ALL their campaign promises to occur immediately. I can't wait to see the excuses from supporters when they can't, of course.

 

[MaggieMae]

Another similar situation occurred several years ago in Grand Isle County near the northern shores of Lake Champlain where the power company needed to expand the infrastructure to bring in power from Hydro Quebec. But the shoreline property owners complained so loudly that it finally wound up that the EXISTING lines were made to come down and all the lines buried, which cost a fortune. And guess who ultimately paid the price so that those property owners didn't have their lake views obstructed? The rest of us.

It's their property. You don't have a right to electrical power at the expense of violating someone elses property rights. It's that simple.

Great. The poor hobby farmer might have to look two miles out over his vast pasture land of nothingness and see a half-dozen new power lines. Oh boo hoo. What if it were you and your family whose power went down for several days following a relatively minor storm that resulted from aging and crumbling utlity infrastructure which couldn't be replaced because of a couple of assholes on soapboxes?

 

[MaggieMae]

The problem is not Libertarianism, per se.

Extremists of any philosophy tend to speak in broad, simple terms, that have little application in the real world.

Extreme Libertarians, which are the ones you hear the most from, are good examples of this.

When you use empty rhetoric like "smaller government", and "individual freedoms" to describe the policies that you would put in place, you're not really saying anything.

Of course, Communists are the same way. They have broad ideas about "economic equality" and "working for the common good", but when it comes down to implementation on a large scale, they fail miserably.

I am of the opposite mind. That there are people like you in the world who think things need to be more complicated than they are. You complicate things so you can you use at an excuse to rationalize immoral choices. What is this complexity that requires large government? Where is the complexity the justifies sacrificing someone's freedoms for the benefit of the other?

Only about 300 million more people all requiring similar survival basics than the mere 2,527,460 that were the total population of the nation in 1776.

 

[MaggieMae]

I am of the opposite mind. That there are people like you in the world who think things need to be more complicated than they are. You complicate things so you can you use at an excuse to rationalize immoral choices. What is this complexity that requires large government? Where is the complexity the justifies sacrificing someone's freedoms for the benefit of the other?

ON a basic level, what you describe is the basis of all civilization.

To become a civilization, all must sacrifice at least some of their "freedoms" for the benefit of the whole.

The basic concept of libertarianism is that people should be left to their own devices so long as their choices don't infringe upon the freedoms of others. Explain to me why that level of freedom must be sacrificed for the benefit of the whole.

For one thing, the rest of the general population can't rely on the noble convictions that you describe. While YOU may not "infringe upon the freedoms of others," there are a vast number of people who share your philosophies that I'm sure drive 80 in 65 mph zones, pollute the environment of neighbors, and violate the same rights of other citizens who have an equal "right" to their own pursuit of happiness.

 

[MaggieMae]

Nobody.

Commies like you declare that the roads are state property and off limits to all non-members of the party.