Why aren't more people Libertarian?

[Samson]

Libertarians are of course anti-human because they are essentially "it's all about me" people.

They no more understand human nature than did the communists.

Shove it up your ass, you bigoted liar.

Being pro-human starts with the smallest minority of humanity: The individual.

What a shit stripe you are. Libertarianism is all about social darwinism. To simpletons like yourself, the market is always right, and if you get fucked by it, it's your fault.

Whose fault is it?



I blame "society."

 

[Oddball]

Libertarians are of course anti-human because they are essentially "it's all about me" people.

They no more understand human nature than did the communists.

Shove it up your ass, you bigoted liar.

Being pro-human starts with the smallest minority of humanity: The individual.

What a shit stripe you are. Libertarianism is all about social darwinism. To simpletons like yourself, the market is always right, and if you get fucked by it, it's your fault.

You can stuff it up your ass, too.

Contrary to your bigoted bullshit, the market isn't always right...It's just a better alternative than pushy know-it-all do-gooder mobsters like you and Jake the Fake.

And I can't help my neighbor if I don't have my own affairs in order first.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Shove it up your ass, you bigoted liar.

Being pro-human starts with the smallest minority of humanity: The individual.

What a shit stripe you are. Libertarianism is all about social darwinism. To simpletons like yourself, the market is always right, and if you get fucked by it, it's your fault.

Whose fault is it?



I blame "society."

I blame dogmatism for ******* up the heads of society.

 

[dblack]

Libertarians are of course anti-human because they are essentially "it's all about me" people.

They no more understand human nature than did the communists.

Shove it up your ass, you bigoted liar.

Being pro-human starts with the smallest minority of humanity: The individual.

What a shit stripe you are. Libertarianism is all about social darwinism. To simpletons like yourself, the market is always right, and if you get fucked by it, it's your fault.

Nope. You're just wrong on that Dick. Do some more reading.

For most libertarians, it isn't a question of whether or not we should take care of each other as a community, but how. When it comes to solving our problems, coercive government isn't the only answer. It's our view that if we can solve our problems without resorting to the billy club we should.

 

[Oddball]

Libertarians are of course anti-human because they are essentially "it's all about me" people.

They no more understand human nature than did the communists.

Shove it up your ass, you bigoted liar.

Being pro-human starts with the smallest minority of humanity: The individual.

Its not so much that I'm "all about me," as it is......


.....that I'm so much against the vast majority of others.

I'm fine with the majority of others, as long as they tend to their own affairs and leave me to tend to mine.

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest....

 

[Samson]

Oddball is out of touch with the human condition, for sure.

Well, considering that the vast majority of human's are ignorant boobs, being out of touch with their condition is probably a good thing.

In fact, if anyone has any advise as to DECREASING contact with the "Human Condition," I'd be delighted to hear it......


Perhaps I'll start a thread.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot and Mao and plenty of others are role values for those out of touch.

 

[Samson]

What a shit stripe you are. Libertarianism is all about social darwinism. To simpletons like yourself, the market is always right, and if you get fucked by it, it's your fault.

Whose fault is it?



I blame "society."

I blame dogmatism for ******* up the heads of society.

Yes, the more incomprehensibly abstract, the less personal responsibility I need to take.

I like it:

"Dogmatism."

 

[Dick Tuck]

Shove it up your ass, you bigoted liar.

Being pro-human starts with the smallest minority of humanity: The individual.

What a shit stripe you are. Libertarianism is all about social darwinism. To simpletons like yourself, the market is always right, and if you get fucked by it, it's your fault.

Nope. You're just wrong on that Dick. Do some more reading.

For most libertarians, it isn't a question of whether or not we should take care of each other as a community, but how. When it comes to solving our problems, coercive government isn't the only answer. It's our view that if we can solve our problems without resorting to the billy club we should.

So you believe that the benevolence of the shit stains like oddball, will provide a social safety net? Nope, modern civilization and economics is too complex. A belief in Libertarianism is nothing more than dogmatic naivete.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Whose fault is it?



I blame "society."

I blame dogmatism for ******* up the heads of society.

Yes, the more incomprehensibly abstract, the less personal responsibility I need to take.

I like it:

"Dogmatism."

Do you believe that the vast majority of Americans aren't taking personal responsibility? Bullshit.

 

[Samson]

I blame dogmatism for ******* up the heads of society.

Yes, the more incomprehensibly abstract, the less personal responsibility I need to take.

I like it:

"Dogmatism."

Do you believe that the vast majority of Americans aren't taking personal responsibility? Bullshit.

Where did I say that?

No, I think most people live with only slightly more sophistication than their closest genetic relatives.

Evidence: The inability to comprehend my posts.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Yes, the more incomprehensibly abstract, the less personal responsibility I need to take.

I like it:

"Dogmatism."

Do you believe that the vast majority of Americans aren't taking personal responsibility? Bullshit.

Where did I say that?

No, I think most people live with only slightly more sophistication than their closest genetic relatives.

Evidence: The inability to comprehend my posts.

Are you not able to grasp the simple punctuation of a question mark? Perhaps you ought to be more clear about what your posts are. Perhaps your naive adherence to a belief in Liberrtaianism ought to be made more clear. Is it any wonder why less than 1% of the American people sign on to that silly dogma?

 

[Samson]

Do you believe that the vast majority of Americans aren't taking personal responsibility? Bullshit.

Where did I say that?

No, I think most people live with only slightly more sophistication than their closest genetic relatives.

Evidence: The inability to comprehend my posts.

Are you not able to grasp the simple punctuation of a question mark? Perhaps you ought to be more clear about what your posts are. Perhaps your naive adherence to a belief in Liberrtaianism ought to be made more clear. Is it any wonder why less than 1% of the American people sign on to that silly dogma?

You're correct.

I meant to say that you're question was stupid.

Better now?

 

[Contumacious]

.

I still think that if the Libertarian party would wise up and moderate on its absolutist positions it would attract a significant portion of the electorate.

.

Not a ******* chance. None.

We support individual rights - 100% FREE - Capitalism -Free Enterprise, No ifs, buts or however.

You want compromise, you want fascism/socialism/parasitism ? well you have the democrats and the republicans.


.

Well, good luck with that.

One good thing is, with that approach, the party will never need to worry about the responsibilities of actual governance.

.

Well, we shall see

50% of the people on welfare, 17 TTTTTTrillion in the hole...you do the math

.

 

[konradv]

I feel like nothing would be better for libertarians getting their message out than public financing of elections breaking up the Republicrat duopoly. Every time I bring it up though, all they think about is "government control" and "tax money going to my enemies". I feel they cut their own throat in that regard, because in the present system those they feel are keeping them down are funding both sides and keeping libertarian voices on the margins. I'm no libertarian fan, but I really can't see why we couldn't be allies on this issue. Not only would new people be able to break into the political scene, but it should cost us less in the long run, when politicians have fewer expensive promises to keep. Seems like a goal most libertarians would support, if they weren't blinded by ideological correctness.

Because it's an impossible fantasy konradv. Our system naturally gravitates to two powerful parties. This fact of political life is an inevitable outcome of plurality, winner-take-all elections. There's no question our government will be dominated by one, or at best two, mainstream parties. The only question is, how much control will they have? Public financing gives them much more control, not less.

You've not (yet) outlined any system for preventing a public financing scheme from becoming politicized itself, and that's the Achilles' heel of your proposition. Public financing requires that we give up our right to support politicians that we agree with, and instead let government pick them out for us. It seems even a dyed-in-the-wool statist would see the potential for abuse in such a system.

Once again you're going with the "government control" mantra. The government wouldn't have anything to do with it. It would be determined by the results of the ballot box. That would require a pre-primary election to determine those qualified to vie for party nominations or an independent run. How does that become politicized beyond the fact that the races would be about politics? As far as the parties go, they'd lose a lot of their power, if the money angle was removed and become what they should be, clearinghouses for ideas. It's not the first time I've proposed this, so I should start crying like the libertarians do, that their ideas are constantly being misrepresented, I guess.

 

[dblack]

What a shit stripe you are. Libertarianism is all about social darwinism. To simpletons like yourself, the market is always right, and if you get fucked by it, it's your fault.

Nope. You're just wrong on that Dick. Do some more reading.

For most libertarians, it isn't a question of whether or not we should take care of each other as a community, but how. When it comes to solving our problems, coercive government isn't the only answer. It's our view that if we can solve our problems without resorting to the billy club we should.

So you believe that the benevolence of the shit stains like oddball, will provide a social safety net? Nope, modern civilization and economics is too complex. A belief in Libertarianism is nothing more than dogmatic naivete.

Those of us who want there to be a social safety net will maintain it. But we'll have to do it without coercion.

 

[Paulie]

Libertarians are of course anti-human because they are essentially "it's all about me" people.

They no more understand human nature than did the communists.

Shove it up your ass, you bigoted liar.

Being pro-human starts with the smallest minority of humanity: The individual.

What a shit stripe you are. Libertarianism is all about social darwinism. To simpletons like yourself, the market is always right, and if you get fucked by it, it's your fault.

The market isn't always right. But it's right most of the time, for most of the people, and creates most of the prosperity for most of the nation.

It's got government beat by a long shot.

 

[dblack]

Once again you're going with the "government control" mantra.

Yes. Because that's what you keep proposing.

The government wouldn't have anything to do with it. It would be determined by the results of the ballot box. That would require a pre-primary election to determine those qualified to vie for party nominations or an independent run. How does that become politicized beyond the fact that the races would be about politics?

Who decides the rules for this process? Answering that question is inevitably political. How are you imagining that you can reduce collusion when you are increasing the incentive?

As far as the parties go, they'd lose a lot of their power, if the money angle was removed and become what they should be, clearinghouses for ideas. It's not the first time I've proposed this, so I should start crying like the libertarians do, that their ideas are constantly being misrepresented, I guess.

I think you've represented your ideas pretty clearly. You want to prohibit people, particularly rich people, from using their money to promote political candidates. You're essentially suggesting that we supplant the current informal "system" of voluntary campaign fundraising with an 'in house' contest run by the government and funded by taxpayers. I think this would be huge mistake.

 

[Contumacious]

So you believe that the benevolence of the shit stains like oddball, will provide a social safety net? Nope, modern civilization and economics is too complex. A belief in Libertarianism is nothing more than dogmatic naivete.

Yo Vern, what is wrong with learning a marketable skill and finding a job?

Otherwise , taxpayers and the producer will have to provide a safety net for the 50% of the populace who are now dependent upon the taxpayers for support!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

 

[Oddball]

So you believe that the benevolence of the shit stains like oddball, will provide a social safety net? Nope, modern civilization and economics is too complex. A belief in Libertarianism is nothing more than dogmatic naivete.

If it's any shit stain can't be relied upon, it's the goon who uses compulsion to impose his notion of "benevolence" upon others, at gunpoint if necessary...A shit stain kinda like you.