What are libertarians?

[Rikurzhen]

Actually "libertarianism" didn't even exist yet. Fortunately Liberalism did.

Not your brand of liberalism. That awaited the publication of The Communist Manifesto.

Pogo and her never-ending sophistry. At least she's not plagiarizing anyone in this thread. Yet.

 

[bripat9643]

leftists don't accuse the founders of embracing Marxist principles.

The argument was not what leftists accuse anybody of. The argument was what language/metaphors Kaz is allowed to use according to Pogo.

I do concur with Kaz, however, that many leftists do attribute positions to the Founders that are Marxist in nature. People didn't start calling such positions Marxist until he presented his manifesto to the world any more than we used the terms Machiavellian or Orwellian before those guys became famous. But the concepts existed whether the men existed yet or not--we just have a way to label them now that saves a lot of time.

It's amusing how liberals won't read what each other write either.

It's amusing how libertarians ignore what our founders said (post #346), or how anti-laissez-faire they governed.

But carry on...

You don't understand how they designed our government, you don't understand laissez-faire, and you don't care. I only argue with liberals when there is something for non-liberals to read. You are useless. I don't think this one is a point non-liberals would particularly get anything out of.

leftists don't accuse the founders of embracing Marxist principles.

The argument was not what leftists accuse anybody of. The argument was what language/metaphors Kaz is allowed to use according to Pogo.

I do concur with Kaz, however, that many leftists do attribute positions to the Founders that are Marxist in nature. People didn't start calling such positions Marxist until he presented his manifesto to the world any more than we used the terms Machiavellian or Orwellian before those guys became famous. But the concepts existed whether the men existed yet or not--we just have a way to label them now that saves a lot of time.

It's amusing how liberals won't read what each other write either.

It's amusing how libertarians ignore what our founders said (post #346), or how anti-laissez-faire they governed.

But carry on...

You don't understand how they designed our government, you don't understand laissez-faire, and you don't care. I only argue with liberals when there is something for non-liberals to read. You are useless. I don't think this one is a point non-liberals would particularly get anything out of.

Here is your 'laissez-faire' limited government of our founders:

Debate and argument over the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers has been going on for over 200 years by and between citizens, scholars, theologians and polemics. It is nothing new, and our founder's true intent on many issues has not become any closer to being resolved.

So when we have an example of how those same men applied all those principles, beliefs and ideas to actual governing, it serves as the best example of how they put all those principles, beliefs and ideas to use. Their actions carry the most weight.

Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.

Early laws regulating corporations in America

*Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.

*Corporations’ licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).

*The state legislature could revoke a corporation’s charter if it misbehaved.

*The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.

As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldn’t break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were “just doing their job” when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.

They still can't, bozo.

*Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

*Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

*Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted “in perpetuity,” as is now the practice).

*Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

*Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

*Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

Today there is a limit on the amount corporations can donate to politicians. However, they are free to say whatever they like about issues of the day. In other words, they have First Amendment rights.

*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

*State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

Ever heard of a public utility? That rule hasn't disappeared.

*All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

They still are. All they have to do is get a subpoena.

So you think that constitutes massive regulation of corporations? There are two or three rules that no longer exist today, because the court has ruled the violate the 5th amendment rights of stockholders, but other than that they don't amount to a hill of beans compared to the mountain of regulations that corporations labor under today.

 

[bripat9643]

Actually "libertarianism" didn't even exist yet. Fortunately Liberalism did.

Not your brand of liberalism. That awaited the publication of The Communist Manifesto.

Pogo and her never-ending sophistry. At least she's not plagiarizing anyone in this thread. Yet.

Pogo is a "she?" I would never have guessed.

 

[Youch]

Pogo obviously has nothing to provide other than personal attacks.

 

[Billy000]

Have we not yet established just how much bullshit libertarianism is to you nutters?

 

[Youch]

Have we not yet established just how much bullshit libertarianism is to you nutters?

Not a libertarian, but what is your beef with them? You no like freedom?

 

[Pogo]

Pogo obviously has nothing to provide other than personal attacks.

What do you call the three posts before yours? Cotton candy?

No, Pogo's never been a 'she', not even the cartoon character. We have a troll who's dishonest enough that when his personal attacks, making shit up and poisoning the well fallacies don't work, simply melts down into feminization of the opponent he can't counter, because he thinks feminine would be some sort of "insult".

Small minds come up with small thoughts. It's all they're capable of.

Take Fingerboy. Came oozing in the other day making claims about my positions, then when I challenged him to document, he ran away. Cowards, both of 'em.

"Personal attacks" my ass.

 

[Billy000]

Have we not yet established just how much bullshit libertarianism is to you nutters?

Not a libertarian, but what is your beef with them? You no like freedom?

I love freedom but there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. Government serves a vital purpose. The idea of private industry taking over government services is dangerous and ineffective.

 

[Pogo]

Pogo obviously has nothing to provide other than personal attacks.

Translation: you still haven't read that link from several days ago. Or any other points posted.
Oh wait --- that leaves nothing.

Then you want to blame others for your own lack of reading.

How zat been working out?

 

[bripat9643]

Have we not yet established just how much bullshit libertarianism is to you nutters?

The only thing you have established is the fact that you're an ignorant moron and a blowhard.

 

[Pogo]

Have we not yet established just how much bullshit libertarianism is to you nutters?

The only thing you have established is the fact that you're an ignorant moron and a blowhard.

--says the spineless coward who flings poo and then runs away.

 

[bripat9643]

Have we not yet established just how much bullshit libertarianism is to you nutters?

Not a libertarian, but what is your beef with them? You no like freedom?

I love freedom but there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. Government serves a vital purpose. The idea of private industry taking over government services is dangerous and ineffective.

You are right, having private industry take over government services would be dangerous. Having a corporation take over Social Security, which is nothing more than organized plunder, would be a catastrophe. You see, private firms can't use guns to provide their services. That's why they are preferable to government. Under libertarian government, there wouldn't be any "services" that involved shaking people down at gun point. Getting rid of such "services" is the primary aim of libertarian government, not replacing them versions run by private corporations.

 

[bripat9643]

Have we not yet established just how much bullshit libertarianism is to you nutters?

The only thing you have established is the fact that you're an ignorant moron and a blowhard.

--says the spineless coward who flings poo and then runs away.

So says the biggest poo flinger in the forum.

What am I running away from?

 

[Pogo]

Have we not yet established just how much bullshit libertarianism is to you nutters?

The only thing you have established is the fact that you're an ignorant moron and a blowhard.

--says the spineless coward who flings poo and then runs away.

So says the biggest poo flinger in the forum.

What am I running away from?

Oh jellyfish please. Want me to put an animated bouncing ball on it so you can follow the words? Want to see it in Morse Code? How 'bout I read it aloud onto YouTube and post the link while holding your fishlike hand? Duh?

Guess the old saying is true -- a coward can't change his stripes.

 

[kaz]

Have we not yet established just how much bullshit libertarianism is to you nutters?

While the men go hunting, you put on a dress and wait in the village with the women and children...

 

[kaz]

Actually "libertarianism" didn't even exist yet. Fortunately Liberalism did.

How words change. What they called liberals today are libertarians and the people who call themselves liberal today are authoritarian leftists who have as much in common with classic liberals as sperm whales have to do with moon rocks.

 

[Pogo]

Actually "libertarianism" didn't even exist yet. Fortunately Liberalism did.

How words change. What they called liberals today are libertarians and the people who call themselves liberal today are authoritarian leftists who have as much in common with classic liberals as sperm whales have to do with moon rocks.

Well that's odd because that's what Fingerboy said about me, and I challenged him to document it two days ago. He ran away then, and just ran away again now.

It would seem this redefinition thing isn't holding up real well.

"Liberals are not "leftists". Never have been. That you don't know the difference is not our problem.

 

[kaz]

If you believe the FDA should not exist, you might have (or be) a Thalidomide baby.

If you believe the FAA should not exist, you enjoy sitting near airports watching 747s crash into each other.

OK, moron, you chastise bripat over not reading your links and and you don't read the OP's post where I said I am referring to ... all together now ... small government libertarians ... not anarchists. I specifically said I am NOT talking about anarchists, simpleton. It's not that hard. You just have to read and comprehend, that's it. Which one is it that you can't do? Are you not able to read? Or do you read and not comprehend?

If you believe human beings will be on their best behavior if there are no rules and regulations and that insider trading and financial fraud regulations should be abrogated, you might be clinically insane.

And if you believe human beings given the absolute power of government guns to decree their rules and regulations are going to be on their best behavior, there is no "might be" about your clinical insanity.

Etc etc etc - by the way you spelled "anarchist" wrong.

The FFs were Liberals, like it or lump it.

I like it! Sadly liberals of today have nothing to do with them. They were actually liberal, today authoritarian leftists call themselves liberal. There is no overlap between you and an actual liberal like me. None.

 

[kaz]

Well that's odd because that's what Fingerboy said about me, and I challenged him to document it two days ago. He ran away then, and just ran away again now.

Since you can't read my OP post in discussing the topic in my thread, you're not in a position to talk, are you?

 

[Pogo]

If you believe the FDA should not exist, you might have (or be) a Thalidomide baby.

If you believe the FAA should not exist, you enjoy sitting near airports watching 747s crash into each other.

OK, moron, you chastise bripat over not reading your links and and you don't read the OP's post where I said I am referring to ... all together now ... small government libertarians ... not anarchists. I specifically said I am NOT talking about anarchists, simpleton. It's not that hard. You just have to read and comprehend, that's it. Which one is it that you can't do? Are you not able to read? Or do you read and not comprehend?

If you believe human beings will be on their best behavior if there are no rules and regulations and that insider trading and financial fraud regulations should be abrogated, you might be clinically insane.

And if you believe human beings given the absolute power of government guns to decree their rules and regulations are going to be on their best behavior, there is no "might be" about your clinical insanity.

Etc etc etc - by the way you spelled "anarchist" wrong.

The FFs were Liberals, like it or lump it.

I like it! Sadly liberals of today have nothing to do with them. They were actually liberal, today authoritarian leftists call themselves liberal. There is no overlap between you and an actual liberal like me. None.

Ah, so you're following the Fingerboy pattern -- fling poo, get challenged to prove it, and run away.

Predictable.