The question libertarians just can’t answer

[g5000]

As noted in the Preamble, the Constitution was written and enacted to further perfect the Articles of Confederation, not repeal them.

Next ill-informed straw man argument, anyone?

Nice try. The Constitution radically altered the government of the United States. Which is why the Convention in Philadelphia was held behind closed doors with utmost secrecy. Precisely because the participants were sent there to modity the Articles and instead chose to completely toss the Articles and draft an entirely new and different Constitution, which was a violation of the charter they had been tasked with.

Next historically ill-informed Libertarian argument, anyone?

Radically altered is not the same as outright repeal.

Even though progressives have radically altered the nation with everything from the Federal Reserve to the NDAA, the Constitution is still, albeit terribly usurped, the law of the land.

The Articles of Confederation are not. They were repealed and can be found on the dustbin of history as a failed five year experiment.

 

[Oddball]

Then I'm certain you'll have no trouble digging up the debate and enacting vote which repealed them.

I'll wait.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

libertarians? where are they? Other than Kevin_Kennedy, all we have here are Repub apologists

As to the OP, Tom Woods seems to have answered a question with a question which is a deflection

There are several libertarians on the board, though quite a few seem to have stopped posting lately. Still, there are many in this thread.

Woods' response isn't a deflection. The questions he asked answer Lind's question perfectly.

 

[Bfgrn]

Reagan has about as much to do with liberty as you do, Bf.

I am very big on liberty. My own personal beliefs on SOME issues are a libertarian as it gets. Issues like privacy, the absolute adherence to the presumption of innocence, hatred for the war on drugs, hatred for 'free speech zones' Bush used to crush free speech, hatred for SWAT teams and the belief you have to be breaking the ******* law to be pulled over by a ******* cop. I have much in common with and great respect for civil libertarians. People like the late Harry Browne and Barry Goldwater are among the people I have much agreement with.

Where libertarians and I part ways is on economic issues. BIG time. That is where these 'laissez-faire' libertarians are more in line with Mussolini than Madison.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Reagan has about as much to do with liberty as you do, Bf.

I am very big on liberty. My own personal beliefs on SOME issues are a libertarian as it gets. Issues like privacy, the absolute adherence to the presumption of innocence, hatred for the war on drugs, hatred for 'free speech zones' Bush used to crush free speech, hatred for SWAT teams and the belief you have to be breaking the ******* law to be pulled over by a ******* cop. I have much in common with and great respect for civil libertarians. People like the late Harry Browne and Barry Goldwater are among the people I have much agreement with.

Where libertarians and I part ways is on economic issues. BIG time. That is where these 'laissez-faire' libertarians are more in line with Mussolini than Madison.

If you can't understand the difference between free markets and fascism how is somebody supposed to take you seriously?

 

[kaz]

libertarians? where are they? Other than Kevin_Kennedy and maybe one or two others, all we have here are Repub apologists

As to the OP, Tom Woods seems to have answered a question with a question which is a deflection

Actually there are a bunch of us on the site. You should try reading posts some times while you're on the board writing them...

 

[kaz]

Reagan has about as much to do with liberty as you do, Bf.

I am very big on liberty

No one who supports government using the force of guns to take someone's property and give it to someone else is "big on liberty"

 

[Erand7899]

Please run along sonny, adults are talking here. Children should be seen and not heard.

Uh huh. That's why the adult made a mountain of strawmen in the thread so big it would take two hours to rip apart. two hours Im certainly not going to spend trying to help you understand how much failure is in your understanding of free markets.

With that, you can kindly go **** yourself. Twice.

OK. let's you and I discuss 'free markets' shall we? First of all that is a misnomer. There is no such thing as a 'free market' All markets are constructed and all markets have rules.

Do you understand the concept of stakeholders and the malfeasance created by absenteeism?

What are the rules when two farmers trade a cow for two pigs? What are the rules when I make a deal with the kid down the street to mow my grass?

You are obviously referring to government ordained rules and regulations.

Being that there were no government ordained rules or regulations on the frontiers of this great nation, commerce was pretty well rule free, and yet the population managed to exist and thrive.

It should be a recognized fact that when markets become too big, and too widespread for internal regulation, government does have a role in keeping markets open, honest, and fair to all players. However, government should not go beyond that endeavor and attempt to tilt markets towards some noble social goal.

 

[Bfgrn]

Reagan has about as much to do with liberty as you do, Bf.

I am very big on liberty. My own personal beliefs on SOME issues are a libertarian as it gets. Issues like privacy, the absolute adherence to the presumption of innocence, hatred for the war on drugs, hatred for 'free speech zones' Bush used to crush free speech, hatred for SWAT teams and the belief you have to be breaking the ******* law to be pulled over by a ******* cop. I have much in common with and great respect for civil libertarians. People like the late Harry Browne and Barry Goldwater are among the people I have much agreement with.

Where libertarians and I part ways is on economic issues. BIG time. That is where these 'laissez-faire' libertarians are more in line with Mussolini than Madison.

If you can't understand the difference between free markets and fascism how is somebody supposed to take you seriously?

SERIOUSLY? If you can't digest the reality that without government regulations and oversight, 'free markets' become fascism, where the big guy crushes the little guy, then you are naive. Which is the core of the problem. You folks are Utopians living in some dream world.

How would you 'laissez-faire' 'free-marketeers' handle bank lawyers authoring legislation that leads to 30 page credit card applications tightly written by teams of corporate lawyers to swindle people out of their hard earned money? Should an honest hard working middle class family have to hire their own lawyer just to read a ******* credit card application?

Is THAT what our founder's intended, to protect the ******* sharks and barracudas??

 

[Oddball]

I am very big on liberty. My own personal beliefs on SOME issues are a libertarian as it gets. Issues like privacy, the absolute adherence to the presumption of innocence, hatred for the war on drugs, hatred for 'free speech zones' Bush used to crush free speech, hatred for SWAT teams and the belief you have to be breaking the ******* law to be pulled over by a ******* cop. I have much in common with and great respect for civil libertarians. People like the late Harry Browne and Barry Goldwater are among the people I have much agreement with.

Where libertarians and I part ways is on economic issues. BIG time. That is where these 'laissez-faire' libertarians are more in line with Mussolini than Madison.

If you can't understand the difference between free markets and fascism how is somebody supposed to take you seriously?

SERIOUSLY? If you can't digest the reality that without government regulations and oversight, 'free markets' become fascism, where the big guy crushes the little guy, then you are naive. Which is the core of the problem. You folks are Utopians living in some dream world.

How would you 'laissez-faire' 'free-marketeers' handle bank lawyers authoring legislation that leads to 30 page credit card applications tightly written by teams of corporate lawyers to swindle people out of their hard earned money? Should an honest hard working middle class family have to hire their own lawyer just to read a ******* credit card application?

Is THAT what our founder's intended, to protect the ******* sharks and barracudas??

Such legislation wouldn't stand a chance in a laissez-faire free market libertarian environment.

You really are quite dense, aintcha?

 

[kaz]

'free markets' become fascism, where the big guy crushes the little guy

First, you don't know what the word "fascism" means.

Second, since in a free market, a free man can chose who they want to deal with, calling that "crushing" him is nonsense.

Third, what you are actually referring to only happens when your beloved government controls markets and picks winners.

Fourth, ironically, we worked our way back to the word you didn't know the meaning of in the first point...

 

[chikenwing]

The question libertarians just can?t answer - Salon.com

Libertarian Tom Woods answers this question on his blog, by asking a series of other questions.



?The Question Libertarians Just Can?t Answer? | Tom Woods

However, there are a few comments I'd like to make regarding the article.



Here we see that the author doesn't really have a firm grasp on libertarianism. Privatized Social Security and school vouchers are not libertarian-approved policies. A libertarian would not privatize Social Security, a libertarian would abolish Social Security and let people prepare for their own retirements in any way that they choose to do so. A libertarian is also uninterested in school vouchers, and would rather privatize education completely and let schools compete for the business of children's parents by offering different rates and styles of education.



As for this, my question is: Can the author point out to us one absolutely liberal or progressive country, and one absolutely conservative country? There are no such countries. Governments are never purely one ideology or another for any sustained period of time. The Soviet Union was forced to enact certain market reforms even under Lenin, and even today China's "communist" government openly embraces the market in many instances.



This is patently false. Many libertarians, including many anarcho-capitalists, hold the Articles of Confederation, which governed the United States from 1776-1787, with a certain fondness, and one could even argue that a strict interpretation of the Constitution is libertarian as well, though perhaps not as good as the Articles.



The only response to this is that correlation does not equal causation. That Mauritius is allegedly more economically free does not mean that that is the reason that their infant mortality rate is higher than the U.S.'s. Rather, it's likely that, even if they technically have a freer economy, their economy is not as developed as the United States. Nor is the Heritage Foundation claiming that Mauritius is better than the U.S. in general. Their claim has only to do with economic freedom, not development as a whole.

So basically, what we have here is a poor attempt to discredit libertarianism, which is easily answered as evidenced by Tom Woods' response, a series of incorrect statements regarding libertarianism and history, and a few illogical extrapolations from economic freedom indicies from a few conservative, not even libertarian, think tanks.

Simply,it takes a fair measure of honest objectivity and maturity in all things to be a libertarian. Man hasn't matured enough yet.

Interesting argument.

So, if we're not honest, objective and mature enough to live in a free libertarian society, what the hell is going on with a federal gubmint that wields the kind of absolute power over the American peasants that it does?...Are those politicians and bureaucrats deemed to be "honest, objective and mature" for no better reason that they can manage to get elected or appointed to political office?

Are you serious?

As a heart attack!

You have proven my point , in your follow up question thanks,we are not nor are those in DC.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I am very big on liberty. My own personal beliefs on SOME issues are a libertarian as it gets. Issues like privacy, the absolute adherence to the presumption of innocence, hatred for the war on drugs, hatred for 'free speech zones' Bush used to crush free speech, hatred for SWAT teams and the belief you have to be breaking the ******* law to be pulled over by a ******* cop. I have much in common with and great respect for civil libertarians. People like the late Harry Browne and Barry Goldwater are among the people I have much agreement with.

Where libertarians and I part ways is on economic issues. BIG time. That is where these 'laissez-faire' libertarians are more in line with Mussolini than Madison.

If you can't understand the difference between free markets and fascism how is somebody supposed to take you seriously?

SERIOUSLY? If you can't digest the reality that without government regulations and oversight, 'free markets' become fascism, where the big guy crushes the little guy, then you are naive. Which is the core of the problem. You folks are Utopians living in some dream world.

How would you 'laissez-faire' 'free-marketeers' handle bank lawyers authoring legislation that leads to 30 page credit card applications tightly written by teams of corporate lawyers to swindle people out of their hard earned money? Should an honest hard working middle class family have to hire their own lawyer just to read a ******* credit card application?

Is THAT what our founder's intended, to protect the ******* sharks and barracudas??

fas·cism [fash-iz-uhm] noun: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism

The free market is the exact opposite of government regimenting industry and commerce, so tell us how it can become fascism without the government.

"How would you 'laissez-faire' 'free-marketeers' handle bank lawyers authoring legislation..."

Let me stop you right there. We wouldn't have lawyers authoring legislation.

Like I said, if you don't know the difference between free markets, absence of government interference, and fascism, governmental regimentation of markets, then how can we take you seriously?

 

[Bfgrn]

If you can't understand the difference between free markets and fascism how is somebody supposed to take you seriously?

SERIOUSLY? If you can't digest the reality that without government regulations and oversight, 'free markets' become fascism, where the big guy crushes the little guy, then you are naive. Which is the core of the problem. You folks are Utopians living in some dream world.

How would you 'laissez-faire' 'free-marketeers' handle bank lawyers authoring legislation that leads to 30 page credit card applications tightly written by teams of corporate lawyers to swindle people out of their hard earned money? Should an honest hard working middle class family have to hire their own lawyer just to read a ******* credit card application?

Is THAT what our founder's intended, to protect the ******* sharks and barracudas??

Such legislation wouldn't stand a chance in a laissez-faire free market libertarian environment.

You really are quite dense, aintcha?

REALLY? Oh my gosh, are there puppy dogs and kitty cats too? Sounds like a REAL Utopia. Attention folks: Please leave your human foibles at the door before you pick up your puppy or kitty...thank you

 

[TakeAStepBack]

OK. let's you and I discuss 'free markets' shall we? First of all that is a misnomer. There is no such thing as a 'free market' All markets are constructed and all markets have rules.

Do you understand the concept of stakeholders and the malfeasance created by absenteeism?

Markets are the construct of human action. That is, voluntary exchange of goods and services. Markets are not the construct of any other authority. All authoritarians do, is attempt to control human action by dictating rules through the use of force for compliance.

A free market means just that. People are allowed to enter into exchange with one another without interference or coercion from a thrid party.

Your giant post full of strawmen shows you dont understand this and believe that not only are thrid party interference and coercion good, but necessary.

A VERY, VERY immature view. The theory of a free market can work very well without a 3rd party or rules (what you call authority) under ideal (Utopian) circumstances. How? Where everyone is an equal 'stakeholder'. What does that mean? It means that your stakes serve as the 'authority'.

In voluntary exchange, that is exactly how it works. My ability to enter into exchange or not enter is the authority and the only authority needed. This also translates further regarding who and in what way competition can come to a market. The State makes sure in several sectors that competition is squashed by serving special favors. You obviously dont understand economics at all.

An example... a small community with a self sustaining local economy. Every member of that community is a stakeholder. They all contribute something to the economy and they all rely on others for what they don't produce. So, the blacksmith will not pollute the river, even though it would increase his profits to dump waste in the river instead of properly disposing of it. WHY? Because HE drinks from that river and he doesn't want to be ostracized and blackballed by other 'stakeholders' who he relies on for milk, meat, dry goods etc.

This has nothing to do with regulation. If anything, you just advocated for free markets by saying that the network of producers and consumers is balanced by human nature. And where it isn't one of the two, supply or demand, will make the proper correction. No one person has the omniscience to make that call for everyone. It's absolutely the most IMMATURE and ridiculous claim ever.

What is the malfeasance created by absenteeism?

Irrelevant, Cork.

Joe outsider builds a factory on that river. He doesn't drink from that river and he doesn't relies on 'stakeholders for milk, meat, dry goods etc.

He lives in another state, or another country. He is not a full stakeholder.

And Joe is also committing an act of aggression against the people around him for polluting their waters. In which case they have the right to take action against Joe. Be it direct defense or through marketing his fraudulent practice. Ultimately Joe would be run out of business in todays world of information.


You have no idea about what you speak, Cork. I suggest a lot more reading and a lot less typing and gum flapping from you on this subjkect.

 

[Oddball]

SERIOUSLY? If you can't digest the reality that without government regulations and oversight, 'free markets' become fascism, where the big guy crushes the little guy, then you are naive. Which is the core of the problem. You folks are Utopians living in some dream world.

How would you 'laissez-faire' 'free-marketeers' handle bank lawyers authoring legislation that leads to 30 page credit card applications tightly written by teams of corporate lawyers to swindle people out of their hard earned money? Should an honest hard working middle class family have to hire their own lawyer just to read a ******* credit card application?

Is THAT what our founder's intended, to protect the ******* sharks and barracudas??

Such legislation wouldn't stand a chance in a laissez-faire free market libertarian environment.

You really are quite dense, aintcha?

REALLY? Oh my gosh, are there puppy dogs and kitty cats too? Sounds like a REAL Utopia. Attention folks: Please leave your human foibles at the door before you pick up your puppy or kitty...thank you

Yet another straw man from the knuckle dragging mental midget.

Go play with your Tinker Toys, you bloody imbecile.

 

[kaz]

As a heart attack!

You have proven my point , in your follow up question thanks,we are not nor are those in DC.

We're not smart enough to do things for ourselves, so we need to let other ... people (you do know government is comprised of people, right?) ... do things for us. Because that is the smart thing to do and we want to be smart. They'd never do anything to abuse that power and clearly looking at government there is no reason to believe they are.

If that's smart, I'll pass on being smart....

OMG, you did that your SELF! Government would have done it for you! Better! What were you thinking!!!! Ooops....

 

[chikenwing]

As a heart attack!

You have proven my point , in your follow up question thanks,we are not nor are those in DC.

We're not smart enough to do things for ourselves, so we need to let other ... people (you do know government is comprised of people, right?) ... do things for us. Because that is the smart thing to do and we want to be smart. They'd never do anything to abuse that power and clearly looking at government there is no reason to believe they are.

If that's smart, I'll pass on being smart....

OMG, you did that your SELF! Government would have done it for you! Better! What were you thinking!!!! Ooops....

Why has the gov.local on up grown so much over the years?

We move daily away from liberty in so many ways,dependence on others is just one.

 

[LoneLaugher]

.

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.

.

I don't need anyone to remind me of the Constitution. The people who we elected to office were put there as per the laws stipulated in the Constitution and they must adhere to those laws while in office.

I got a flat tire today. Huge screw that I picked up somewhere. You know what I did? I plugged the damned thing and filled it with the little compressor that I keep in the van and went on my way. Goddamned problem......and I didn't call the government. But......the road I was on had a nice, wide shoulder that I was able to pull over onto and do the job safely. For that, I thank the government.

 

[kaz]

The people who we elected to office were put there as per the laws stipulated in the Constitution and they must adhere to those laws while in office

Actually, they exempt themselves from laws while they are in office and those laws are far more often then not Unconstitutional, most frequently by the 10th Amendment. Not sure what you're even thinking here.