Why aren't more people Libertarian?

[TakeAStepBack]

You are a broken record, TakeAStepBack.

Count your blessings instead of whining.

Thanks. Consistency used to be a good thing.
These days we have psuedo-conservatives pushing Marxist style protections from the "bad people".

You should probably picka stance and hold it sometimme too.

 

[Paulie]

The same Constitution that many libertarians despise because they find it "coercive"?

Paulie, step off if you can abide by constitutional, electoral process.

How is that right secured? By force of the liberated individual?

Crazy loons.

I urge you to check out a document called the US constitution. I'm sure it's available all over the internet if you do a google search.

What?

I don't think I've ever met a libertarian in my life that despised the constitution. And I'm sure I've met more than you.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

A lot of illiterate degenerates that are LOLberal or psuedo-conservative think they know what a libertarian is. They're the first to pipe up in a thread like this to show their undying and unwavering ignorance of the ideology/phillosophy.

 

[Truthmatters]

the libertarian ideas are historically failed ideas.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Which libertarian idea is a historical failure?

 

[Truthmatters]

Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Truthmatters]

are you an austrian?

 

[Truthmatters]

Austrian School - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


its the short bus school of economics

 

[JakeStarkey]

TakeAStepBack is coherently challenged, syntax and diction impaired, and just generally an all around mess when it comes to talking logically.

Is he CrusaderFrank's sock?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You two make a perfect couple! Congrats!

 

[Truthmatters]

your libertarian philosophy is one big fail.


That is why people dont go there

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And you can't even name one failure. Who's the real failure here, TM?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The libertarian philosophy fails on its ignorance concerning human nature. Individuals will prey on one another if given the opportunity. Our history as mankind has demonstrated that immutable fact.

Government must retain the right to authorized violence, and it must retain the right to define what level of individual violence is permissible in self dense.

 

[LibertyForAll]

The libertarian philosophy fails on its ignorance concerning human nature. Individuals will prey on one another if given the opportunity. Our history as mankind has demonstrated that immutable fact.

Government must retain the right to authorized violence, and it must retain the right to define what level of individual violence is permissible in self dense.

I guess this says it all about your position. Let me say this though about your first point. Libertarianism isn't the absence of law, that's anarchy. Libertarians reject aggression so there would be no authorized use of violence. Aggressors would forfeit the right to exemption from violence from their victim. Aggressors would also be subject to the agreed upon penalties for their crimes.

Individuals prey on one another now and we are far from a libertarian ideal. There wouldn't be any less restriction on personal aggression in a libertarian society and the punishment could be more severe and much swifter.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are not a libertarian, for who would agree on the penalties of violators? A democratic meeting of the whole population? You are sillier than democrats gone wild.

None of you guys offer a consistent philosophy that is different than what we have. You just say it is different.

The libertarian philosophy fails on its ignorance concerning human nature. Individuals will prey on one another if given the opportunity. Our history as mankind has demonstrated that immutable fact.

Government must retain the right to authorized violence, and it must retain the right to define what level of individual violence is permissible in self dense.

I guess this says it all about your position. Let me say this though about your first point. Libertarianism isn't the absence of law, that's anarchy. Libertarians reject aggression so there would be no authorized use of violence. Aggressors would forfeit the right to exemption from violence from their victim. Aggressors would also be subject to the agreed upon penalties for their crimes.

Individuals prey on one another now and we are far from a libertarian ideal. There wouldn't be any less restriction on personal aggression in a libertarian society and the punishment could be more severe and much swifter.

 

[Paulie]

And you can't even name one failure. Who's the real failure here, TM?

Don't you love how they go from "its never been tried before in history" to "its a big failure"?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Have you noticed that the philosophy changes from L to L, and each is less coherent than the one before?

 

[occupied]

And you can't even name one failure. Who's the real failure here, TM?

Don't you love how they go from "its never been tried before in history" to "its a big failure"?

I think I pointed out on the other thread that the economic policies have been tried and the opinion of if they failed or not depends if you are a multinational conglomerate or a worker in one of their sweatshops. To my knowledge the social and legal aspects are still either a pipe dream or the symptom of a weak government allowing the lawless warlord elements to rule in fact a la Somalia.

 

[Paulie]

And you can't even name one failure. Who's the real failure here, TM?

Don't you love how they go from "its never been tried before in history" to "its a big failure"?

I think I pointed out on the other thread that the economic policies have been tried and the opinion of if they failed or not depends if you are a multinational conglomerate or a worker in one of their sweatshops. To my knowledge the social and legal aspects are still either a pipe dream or the symptom of a weak government allowing the lawless warlord elements to rule in fact a la Somalia.

In this information age I'd like to see it given another shot.

 

[occupied]

Don't you love how they go from "its never been tried before in history" to "its a big failure"?

I think I pointed out on the other thread that the economic policies have been tried and the opinion of if they failed or not depends if you are a multinational conglomerate or a worker in one of their sweatshops. To my knowledge the social and legal aspects are still either a pipe dream or the symptom of a weak government allowing the lawless warlord elements to rule in fact a la Somalia.

In this information age I'd like to see it given another shot.

It happens every time some troubled nation reforms after a dictator and the WTO and the World Bank comes in to settle the inevitable mountain of debt incurred by the outgoing prick. The debt is usually forgiven but the price is a fairly common set of economic and political concessions that do not include any but the bare minimum social programs and voucher education or barriers to trade and exploitation of labor and resources. It's great if you want cheap labor or to strip mine or clear cut entire regions of a third world shit hole, not so much for the poor saps that live there.