The question libertarians just can’t answer

[kaz]

Very true

We don't need BIG GOVERNMENT to save us from unlicensed doctors. We can figure it out ourselves.

Suppose government required doctors to accurately disclose their credentials so you could make your own informed choice instead of government insisting on making it for you?

Obviously this isn't your issue. You not only support government making it for you, but you demand government regulate every aspect of health care and government be the provider of health care.

Yeah, what you want it "big government." You always do, comrade.

You FASCIST

Keep your Nanny State away from my doctor

That one doesn't make sense even for you

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No one is saying anything about utopia, Corky. Your "mixed" system is a failure and yet you just want to keep on trying to make it work. it's the definition of insanity. Keep trying the same thing over and over and expect a different result.

How much of this and that central planning always leads to more central planning and when it appears that the initial planning failed, well certainly that is grounds for another round of planning.

cookoo cookoo cookoo

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

In a way all these hucksters of economic systems are like Marx, they paint a picture of utopia and say it can be ours if only we practice what they preach. They've all been tried and dropped, and the only thing that seems to work is a mixed system. The real argument is how much of this and how much of that should be added to the mix.
Perhaps if we could come up with goals for an economic system we might do better in the mix. Should an economic system make the rich richer, the poor poorer or something else? It won't happen during our lifetime, however.

Nobody actually says that a completely free market would be a utopia.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

In a way all these hucksters of economic systems are like Marx, they paint a picture of utopia and say it can be ours if only we practice what they preach. They've all been tried and dropped, and the only thing that seems to work is a mixed system. The real argument is how much of this and how much of that should be added to the mix.
Perhaps if we could come up with goals for an economic system we might do better in the mix. Should an economic system make the rich richer, the poor poorer or something else? It won't happen during our lifetime, however.

Nobody actually says that a completely free market would be a utopia.

Well, the cancer lady appeal to emotion fallacy hasn't worked, so the next thing to try is to just outright lie as a basis for discredit.

When the false premise of uptopia fails, they will wheel the cancer lady back out and try that one again. When that doesn't work they will call you names as a basis for their argument. then slap each other on the back for an argument well won.

it never ends. Ever. It's the same story I've seen over and over again for the last 25 years of holding to libertarian principles.

 

[kaz]

In a way all these hucksters of economic systems are like Marx, they paint a picture of utopia and say it can be ours if only we practice what they preach. They've all been tried and dropped, and the only thing that seems to work is a mixed system. The real argument is how much of this and how much of that should be added to the mix.
Perhaps if we could come up with goals for an economic system we might do better in the mix. Should an economic system make the rich richer, the poor poorer or something else? It won't happen during our lifetime, however.

Nobody actually says that a completely free market would be a utopia.

Liberals consistently apply that standard. If we oppose liberalism, we have to prove that our system would be perfect. If we can't prove it's perfect, they win. On the other hand, they apply no standard at all to themselves.

 

[AmazonTania]

No, that's where your misunderstanding of the virtues of a free market get you confused. 'Self-regulation' just means that people get to decide for themselves how much regulation they want. If you don't want to go to a doctor who hasn't been authorized by the AMA, you don't have to. If you don't want to buy food that hasn't been inspected thoroughly, you're not required to.

On the other hand, if you know a doctor you trust, who hasn't been licensed by the AMA, you're free to contract his services. If you want to buy food from the farmer down the street without the overhead of an inspection authority, you're free to do that as well. The free market is about freedom. That includes the freedom to decide for yourself how much risk you're willing to tolerate. There's no magic involved.

At this point, it is illegal to practice medicine without a license, so if you go to this quack, he will be getting arrested soon, presumably.

I suppose you mean that under a libertarian form of government, doctors wouldn't have to have licenses.

When you think about it, Doctors don't need licenses, the free market will weed them out. As people go to unlicensed doctors, word will get out that people who see that doctor are dying. That doctor will eventually go out of business.

Licensing doctors is just another example of BIG GOVERNMENT interfering in the lives of people with intrusive regulation

Life is so simple when you are a libertarian

Life is very simple when your perception of the world is naive. It's part of the reason why we have economic illiterates steering our economy.

As during the early 1900's the country was producing a surplus of doctors entering the industry, which increased competition and drastically lowered the cost of health care. Seeing how inexpensive health care is a bad thing, the AMA convinced law makers to shut down 'substandard' medical schools rolling back the supply of doctors by 30% over 40 years. Fewer medical schools were allowed to open since 1980.

Now, the country is producing drastic shortage of doctors in which the AMA can no longer deny. But, all in the name of making sure doctors can make hundreds of thousands more than you, right?

 

[editec]

.

I'm very glad they're around, and I absolutely love it when they piss off both "major" parties at the same time.

We'll never have a Libertarian system, because we're far too dependent on government now. But I want them around to remind us of the Constitution and to challenge us to not turn to the government for every goddamn problem.

.

Yup.

I think most libertarians are a variant of the people calling themselves anarchists.

I think you're getting a skewed picture from political message boards and blogs. Shall we judge all liberals by their most vocal proponents? (e.g. Lakhota)

Well possibly, but remember that most self proclaiming anarchists are NOT really anarchists, either.

They also believe in some KIND of government, and usually by anarchism what they really mean is REVOLUTION from what is to something they DO like. (usually some variant of socialism)

I never met a REAL anarchist.

And NOBODY owns the franchise on the word LIBERTARIAN.

SAdly Libertarian one of those weasel words that has no clearly understood meaning.

A philosophy or belief system which gives priority to the liberty of the individual. May be associated with classical liberalism regarding economic matters or the protection of those negative liberties which declare the right of the individual to be free from interference by the state, or the community, unless the actions of the individual constitute harm to others. For example, the individual has the right to freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religious expression, freedom of contract. Libertarianism is related to individualism and contrasted with communitarianism: See: COMMUNITARIAN / .

Online Dictionary of the Social Sciences

It is a flavor but basically it means whatever the person using it means.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Another cancer lady from editec.

A philosophy or belief system which gives priority to the liberty of the individual.

From there, it becomes complex, but that is the foundation. People call themselves whatever they wish, but there is no mistake about what the libertarian principles are. many people who claim to be LOLberal hold positions that go against their self appointed political philosophy as well.

That doesnt change what LOLberalism is suppose to be about.


jeebus it's the hampster wheel! Everybody get in and we'll run a million miles to no where. And this is why i find it absolutely ridiculous to discuss libertarian ideas with people that dont have a ******* clue about what libertariansism stands for.

 

[editec]

I suspect there are as many versions of LIBERTARIANISM as there are self proclaiming libertarians.

In that respect Libertarianism is much like socialism..as that social philosophy, too, has as many variations of meaning as it has adherents.

If someone could DEFINE LIBERTARIANISM once and for all, then we could discuss this philosophical approach to society rationally.

MOST people are libertarians in the sense that they LIKE liberty and hate oppression.

Sadly there is no overarching canon of beliefs that defines LIBERTARIANISM.

There does not appear to be any single defining characteristic of libertarianism to help us define it like there is for socialism, or facism, or republicanism, or democracy.

So what IS libertarianism? Nobody really knows..or perhaps everybody is the world's leading authority of what the word means TO THEM.

[bolding mine]

We'll get on that. Right after the rest of you define liberalism or conservatism once and for all. Seriously, I couldn't disagree more with this claim.

I have the exactly same complaint about the WEASEL WORDS liberalism or conservatism, Dblack

Those words ALSO mean NOTHING specific.

Part of the reason libertarians get such guff is because we actually DO define our principles and try to adhere to them -

Who is WE?

You mean you and your mates?

far more so than Democrats or Republicans.

If you think I am somehow defending the Ds or Rs in this case, you surely do not understand who I am.

I've known communist who claim to be libertairains
I know FACISTS weho claim to be libertarians.

Libertarianism isn't a, meat, a fish nor a fowl, its a FLAVOR




We actually ask the hard questions about the purpose, benefits and drawbacks of government - and attempt to answer them. That's both the reason why many people like us and the reason why so many think we're loons.

Again.... who the **** is WE?

I can tell you VERY SPECIFICALLY what socialism means
I can tell you what VERY SPECIFICALLY communism means, too.

I can tell you VERY SPECIFICALLY what fascism means

I cannot tell you what libertarianism means and YOU cannot ell me because there is NO clearly defined definition of it. There is no single principle that make it UNIQUE.

EVerybody ASKS "the hard questions about the purpose, benefits and drawbacks of government - and attempt to answer them." amigo

That doesn't make liberarianism unique.

Liking liberty and fearing government doe not make you a libertarian.

Almost everybody likes liberty and fears government.

There's nothing UNIQUE about that.

What I am asking YOU to do is THINK LIKE A POLITICAL SCIENTIST.

Words must MEAN something very specific and unique or we cannot even HAVE a rational discussion.

LIBERAL, LIBERTARIAN, CONSERVATIVE? THOSE WORDS HAVE NO MEANINGS

That's why politcal propagandists SO LOVE them.

They mean nothing whatever

 

[Oddball]

I suspect there are as many versions of LIBERTARIANISM as there are self proclaiming libertarians.

In that respect Libertarianism is much like socialism..as that social philosophy, too, has as many variations of meaning as it has adherents.

If someone could DEFINE LIBERTARIANISM once and for all, then we could discuss this philosophical approach to society rationally.

MOST people are libertarians in the sense that they LIKE liberty and hate oppression.

Sadly there is no overarching canon of beliefs that defines LIBERTARIANISM.

There does not appear to be any single defining characteristic of libertarianism to help us define it like there is for socialism, or facism, or republicanism, or democracy.

So what IS libertarianism? Nobody really knows..or perhaps everybody is the world's leading authority of what the word means TO THEM.

[bolding mine]



Those words ALSO mean NOTHING specific.




Who is WE?

You mean you and your mates?

far more so than Democrats or Republicans.

If you think I am somehow defending the Ds or Rs in this case, you surely do not understand who I am.

I've known communist who claim to be libertairains
I know FACISTS weho claim to be libertarians.

Libertarianism isn't a, meat, a fish nor a fowl, its a FLAVOR




We actually ask the hard questions about the purpose, benefits and drawbacks of government - and attempt to answer them. That's both the reason why many people like us and the reason why so many think we're loons.

Again.... who the **** is WE?

I can tell you VERY SPECIFICALLY what socialism means
I can tell you what VERY SPECIFICALLY communism means, too.

I can tell you VERY SPECIFICALLY what fascism means

I cannot tell you what libertarianism means and YOU cannot ell me because there is NO clearly defined definition of it. There is no single principle that make it UNIQUE.
]

Your ignorance of libertarianism is nobody's fault but your own.

• The principle of peaceful exchange between consenting adults.
• The principle of non-initiation of aggression.
• The principle of MYOB and live and let live.
• The principle of self-ownership and private property.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yes they do have meaning. Just because retards warp their meaning to fit what they believe them to be, doesn't make the words meaningless.

it's as if you just want to dance around in a game of semantics. Alrighty everyone! Another trip around the hampster wheel!!! WOO-HOO

 

[Oddball]

How is consumer protection and environmental protection working out? Not as well as it should. WHY? Because corporations, monied interests and their lobbyists have achieved what is called 'regulatory capture'. What is regulatory capture?

Regulatory capture occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating.

And we face trying to stop REALLY ignorant regressive teabaggers that have infested Washington and have created The Most Anti-Environment House In History. House Republican leaders have pushed through an astonishing 191 votes to weaken environmental protections.

"The House Republican assault on the environment has been reckless and relentless, in bill after bill, for one industry after another, the House has been voting to roll back environmental laws and endanger public health."

THAT is not the object of government our founder's envisioned. And wise men from both parties have warned us about the threat of excessive corporate power and the corrosive impact that has on our democracy.

Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, said that America would never be destroyed by a foreign power but he warned that our political institutions, our democratic institutions, would be subverted by malefactors of great wealth, who would erode them from within. Dwight Eisenhower, another Republican, in his most famous speech, warned America against domination by the military industrial complex.

The 'form' of government our founders created is still intact. The Constitution, Bill of Rights, 3 equal branches of government serving as checks and balances.

But the danger we face today is not the size of government, it is exactly what Teddy Roosevelt and Ike us warned about. Our government is being subverted by malefactors of great wealth.

Great public servants like Elizabeth Warren and other liberal/progressive Democrats are trying to change that. But they are being blocked by Republicans who are in bed with big money.

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

Good grief, is there any end to your victimhood?

"Regulatory capture" is, by far, the biggest mythical straw man booger man argument in the lolberal arsenal.

Corporate interests didn't capture jack shit....Huge corporations are players in making the regulation because the regulators want it that way.....Your "malefactors of great wealth" got that way by exploiting things like rights-of-way and mineral rights that were granted to them by people with the monopoly on the use of force......And those people don't populate the eeeeeevil corporations.

The republic that the founders created had been bastardized beyond recognition, since at least the T Roosevelt administration and a century of progressive central planner tinkering, meddling and futile attempts at social engineering.....Listening to that monumental jerk preach about how wealthy people being the ruin of the nation would be like getting missives on the virtues of sobriety from Lindsay Lohan.

And your assessment of one of the biggest socialist cranks in the Senate, while downright amusing, is delusional beyond description.... But it is always great to start the day with a big laugh...Thanks for that anyways.

Can there possibly be a more infantile, polarized mind than yours?

Yes...Yours....You demonstrate such with the following....

You possess the mind of a RETARD. But let's take a look at how your brain deciphers. Let me get my microscope.

The only evil people in the whole wide world are in government, and in that government, the only evil people in government are liberals and progressives.

And only good people are in the private sector, run corporations and become lobbyists.

Gee, if we can just castrate government, only the good people will be left! Holy ******* shit Jethro, just imagine if we apply your logic to all areas of society. Why, if we could just get rid of cops, burglers would become monks. Racists would open day care centers for poor black children.

U ******* topia!

And then, we must never forget. It was the ******* hen who invited the wolf into the hen house.

Tell me Einstein, WHY would regulators WANT banks to create 30 page credit card applications to swindle people out of their hard earned money?

WHY would regulators want health insurance corporations have Wall Street investors punish any corporation that doesn't deny enough claims to patients to meet their demands for low medical loss ratios?

Victimhood Jethro? Damn right, that is who and what you right wing turds are all about. You so worship your hierarchy, the beloved CEO's and 'captains of industry that you remove all personal responsibility from them because: The EVIL government made me pollute. The EVIL government made me swindle people out of their life savings. The EVIL government made me cower to Wall Street investors and create REAL death panels.

But you did make one true statement:

The republic that the founders created had been bastardized beyond recognition. Yes, by MONEY, GREED and MORONS like you.

Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
Edmund Burke

Thanks for the clinic in infantile straw man argument, infantile ad hominem attacks, more infantile straw man, more infantile ad hominems, infantile non sequitur, infantile post hoc ergo propter hoc, infantile false dichotomy, infantile mind reading, infantile Freudian projection, all neatly wrapped up in one neat tiny little infantile package pf paranoid delusion.

Now go take your Paxil.

 

[flacaltenn]

How is consumer protection and environmental protection working out? Not as well as it should. WHY? Because corporations, monied interests and their lobbyists have achieved what is called 'regulatory capture'. What is regulatory capture?

Regulatory capture occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating.

And we face trying to stop REALLY ignorant regressive teabaggers that have infested Washington and have created The Most Anti-Environment House In History. House Republican leaders have pushed through an astonishing 191 votes to weaken environmental protections.

In other words, regulation agencies stemming from government are FAILURES. Yet you want to pursue even more of it and defend it as a realistic, efficient and workable concept.

You clearly are way more confused than previous assumed. You sit right there and show the failures of the State and then turn around and tell us that without this failure we'd all be poisoned by Joe the food guy because this failed regulatory agency wasn't there to fail.

The government is the problem in "regulatory capture", not the corp. that lobbied them. If the reg agency didnt exist, and the government wasn't in the business of dishing out favoritism in economic sectors, the only legs these corps would have to stand on is their own merit against competition.

It's clear that you have got your wires not only crossed, but not thoroughly tightened down either.

I'm assuming the quote came from Big Daddy BFgrn.. Inventing terms like "regulatory capture" OR miss using them because he hasn't a ******* clue about the MISSION of those "REGULATORY" agencies.. This is a very common lack of knowledge on the part of the anti-market, big govt types. THEY ASSUME all those agencies are there to WHIP and PUNISH and SPY on the market.. But they are not...

Dept of Agriculture Vision Statement

To expand economic opportunity through innovation, helping rural America to thrive; to promote agriculture production sustainability that better nourishes Americans while also helping feed others throughout the world; and to preserve and conserve our Nation's natural resources through restored forests, improved watersheds, and healthy private working lands.

"To promote agriculture production....." That must be how they get to spend money on TV telling folks to drink milk.. HALF of their brain is engaged AIDED in making money for farmers, and the other HALF is there trying to hobble and restrict them..

The Dept of Commerce is even simplier.. 98% of THAT operation is crony Capitalism..

Now you are correct that "regulatory capture" EXISTS..
All those foods regs that tell you how much "other stuff" can be in "White Meat Turkey"???
All written to help the Hormel or BallPark guys..

But don't tell me that those regulatory agencies didn't already have a bias for collusion.. It's right there in their conflicting mission statements.. Take away their power to pick winners and losers with punishing regulation --- problem solved..

The should NEVER BE writing LAW on the size of frozen green peas and simultaneously helping the Jolly Green Giant make a bigger profit..

 

[Oddball]

Now you are correct that "regulatory capture" EXISTS.

Nonsense....There is no more "corporate capture" than Tessio and Clemenza "captured" Don Vito.

All those foods regs that tell you how much "other stuff" can be in "White Meat Turkey"???
All written to help the Hormel or BallPark guys.. .

To carry the metaphor forward, that's what the Ball Park guys get for bringing good returns on the protection and numbers rackets in their territory.

"Corporate capture" is a Grimm's Fairy Tales boogerman invented by leftists, to rationalize even more failed rules, regs and taxes on the eeeeevil and reviled corporations.

 

[flacaltenn]

Now you are correct that "regulatory capture" EXISTS.

Nonsense....There is no more "corporate capture" than Tessio and Clemenza "captured" Don Vito.

All those foods regs that tell you how much "other stuff" can be in "White Meat Turkey"???
All written to help the Hormel or BallPark guys.. .

To carry the metaphor forward, that's what the Ball Park guys get for bringing good returns on the protection and numbers rackets in their territory.

"Corporate capture" is a Grimm's Fairy Tales boogerman invented by leftists, to rationalize even more failed rules, regs and taxes on the eeeeevil and reviled corporations.

Ohhhh Feisty today.. I like that..

What happens instead of Corporate capture is crony Capitalism.. You are correct that neither Hormel or Ballpark got the FDA language to vanquish one of them. In fact, BOTH of them SEEK the power to knee-cap their opposition. LITERALLY PAGES of Fed Regs on frozen green peas.. Did the FDA hire a green pea expert? Don't think so..

They went around asking manufacturers what their INTERNAL SPECS were. Essentially getting into their pants. POINT IS ---

If the GOVT is gonna have the POWER to write infinite regs, they HAVE to be in bed with commerce. BFGRn thinks they are promoting HIS INTEREST in the matter of Green Peas. They are not.

Not only applies to frozen green peas.. Applies to Energy as well. How does the govt KNOW what technologies are coming on line next decade? They got access to privvy corporate research plans.. It would be a pretty sketchy Energy Plan if it was truly written in the Vacuum of Washington ---- wouldn't it?

((Wonder why I SUPPORT Cheney having secret meetings with energy companies? Because I don't want an energy policy built on "hope and change". I want folks who KNOW what's coming along soon. And their corporate secret sharing deserves to be respected))

So call it crony capitalization, or govt/corporate collusion --- because that part is undeniable. But I'll give ya that "CAPTURE" implies someone grabbed the flag and won the game..

C'mon and get it Bully....

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I call it corporatism.

 

[Circe]

jeebus it's the hampster wheel! Everybody get in and we'll run a million miles to no where. And this is why i find it absolutely ridiculous to discuss libertarian ideas with people that dont have a ******* clue about what libertariansism stands for.

Well, why do you keep discussing it, then? You keep calling names here and doing low insults and then complaining about being here --- don't you know you are free not to be here and not to discuss Libertarianism? No one is forcing you to do this. Take A Step Back, get off the hamster wheel. You got on it yourself, no one pushed you on it and started you spinning.

 

[regent]

No one is saying anything about utopia, Corky. Your "mixed" system is a failure and yet you just want to keep on trying to make it work. it's the definition of insanity. Keep trying the same thing over and over and expect a different result.

How much of this and that central planning always leads to more central planning and when it appears that the initial planning failed, well certainly that is grounds for another round of planning.

cookoo cookoo cookoo

Can you name a few nations that do not have mixed economies. What's the Cookoo, you also a clock.

 

[Circe]

[
Well possibly, but remember that most self proclaiming anarchists are NOT really anarchists, either.

They also believe in some KIND of government, and usually by anarchism what they really mean is REVOLUTION from what is to something they DO like. (usually some variant of socialism)

I never met a REAL anarchist.

Yes, I think this is right. They say they are anarchists, but they simply don't have any idea what that means. So basically they want a socialist revolution, same as usual.

 

[Oddball]

Now you are correct that "regulatory capture" EXISTS.

Nonsense....There is no more "corporate capture" than Tessio and Clemenza "captured" Don Vito.

All those foods regs that tell you how much "other stuff" can be in "White Meat Turkey"???
All written to help the Hormel or BallPark guys.. .

To carry the metaphor forward, that's what the Ball Park guys get for bringing good returns on the protection and numbers rackets in their territory.

"Corporate capture" is a Grimm's Fairy Tales boogerman invented by leftists, to rationalize even more failed rules, regs and taxes on the eeeeevil and reviled corporations.

Ohhhh Feisty today.. I like that..

What happens instead of Corporate capture is crony Capitalism.. You are correct that neither Hormel or Ballpark got the FDA language to vanquish one of them. In fact, BOTH of them SEEK the power to knee-cap their opposition. LITERALLY PAGES of Fed Regs on frozen green peas.. Did the FDA hire a green pea expert? Don't think so..

They went around asking manufacturers what their INTERNAL SPECS were. Essentially getting into their pants. POINT IS ---

If the GOVT is gonna have the POWER to write infinite regs, they HAVE to be in bed with commerce. BFGRn thinks they are promoting HIS INTEREST in the matter of Green Peas. They are not.

Not only applies to frozen green peas.. Applies to Energy as well. How does the govt KNOW what technologies are coming on line next decade? They got access to privvy corporate research plans.. It would be a pretty sketchy Energy Plan if it was truly written in the Vacuum of Washington ---- wouldn't it?

So call it crony capitalization, or govt/corporate collusion --- because that part is undeniable. But I'll give ya that "CAPTURE" implies someone grabbed the flag and won the game..

C'mon and get it Bully....

Collusion is not "capture".

Tessio and Clememza collude with Don Vito....But there's no questioning who rules the roost.

Get a little big for your britches and the Godfather hauls you up before a congressional committee for a good public mau-mau-ing, like was done with Apple....Play nice with the Don and you get a nice comfy place at the head of the table, or maybe even your own exclusive protection racket like all the BigPharm companies get with the FDA.