User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 68

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    I used to vote libertarian at times, but I was coming more from a left type of libertarianism. For example, with some drug laws or euthanasia.. I don't even do drugs myself, and I think euthanasia is pretty f'in grim, but I still think the laws and/or the surrounding issues are stupid. Not to mention a few others. Basically, I hate "big government" when it comes to social conservatism. I'm thankful it's not as bad it used to be apparently (for example, "blue laws", where businesses couldn't even be opened on Sundays in some territories at one point), but all of the conservative moralizing and nannying annoys me whenever it turns up. Libertarianism is generally associated with people who are solely concerned with free markets, but in my view, I feel I'm libertarian precisely because of conservatives. Not because I am one. They have a history of making "big government" umbrella measures themselves, and in my view, it's usually more annoying than "market constraints".
    It sounds like you secretly think Libertarianism is cool, its not cool, look at most of the things which libertarians stand up for in the name of individual freedom and choice, now take the whole legal aspect out of it because the reality is that you have free choice and obedience is generally a result of something more than there simply being laws and there's never going to be enough cops to enforce every law all the time, are they good things? Why? Why not?

    I remember the last time libertarianism was cool, it was called anarchy, before that socialism, before that something else, right back if you choose to enlightenment vs. ancien regims, protestantism vs. the establishment, schismatic establishment vs. roman catholicism, back further to divisions I dont even got names for right now. Each one of those things for the good it did resulted in plenty of bad too, sometimes more bad than good.

    The only possible qualification I'd make of that would that I'm talking in a cultural more than a structural or economic sense, I'm not entirely an enemy of economic modernism, whether its sustainable or not its been good for me, but even at that I'm not fan of economic neo-liberalism or libertarianism. It's not cool either, the economic variety.

  2. #22
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Where is the romanticism of history here? I don't see anything saying "We need to turn back the clock." Can you find some actual evidence?


    Capitalism is fine, and it's better than straight up Communism, but unregulated Capitalism is basically a polite form of rape and plunder. There's nothing future-forward about practicing something that begin occuring in the 15th century, except that it wasn't called "Capitalism" at that time.
    You're going to have cite something there. How is a system based on VOLUNTARY exchange akin to "rape and plunder?"


    While laissez-faire Capitalism was an improvement on older ways of living - say, Feudalism - that doesn't mean that it's superior to the more regulated system we have at this time.
    Having something now doesn't mean it's superior to something else, either. Again, cite some evidence.


    The quality of life for the overall population in the United States and England is superior to 100 years ago, thanks to both technology and regulations on Capitalism.
    And yet statistics like acceleration of life expectancy have SLOWED in the past 100 years. Why do you think they exploded from the late-18th through early-20th Centuries?


    Refusing to face the fact that working people frequently died at work in factories, lived in slums and died so often that they had "death chutes" to extricate them from the tenant buildings, and that children were often employed ...all of these people, children and adults - at less than fair or livable wages is like denying that the Holocaust happened. It's denying a part of history that you don't find palatable.
    Not at all. But the fact remains that it was more likely for a woman in the 18th Century to die in a fire in her household than it was for factory workers to die at work a century later. And what is a wage you consider "livable?" The population exploded during the Industrial Revolution(s), so clearly more people were living, and they were living better and longer lives.


    This kind of grim, disturbing lack of ethics in business went on in coal mines as well as factories, and also affected farmers.
    Mining is still one of the most dangerous jobs there is, and the danger is factored into the comparatively high wages miners make compared to other jobs aimed at workers of similar skills.


    People began to form themselves into unions, not because government made them, but because they were tired of being exploited and essentially murdered by early capitalists.
    Disgusting rhetoric. I won't even respond to that bullshit.


    If I can grow out of my silly adolescent idealization of communism, and rationally concede that there are very good things about capitalism, I honestly don't see why it's so difficult for libertarians to face that there are very primitive, disgusting, horrendous things about unregulated capitalism that went on in the past in the U.S. and England, and continue to go on in third world countries in the name of almighty capitalism.
    Third World countries are among the LEAST capitalist in the world. So, no, we don't have to do that. Look at the list of the freest economies in the world, and tell me they aren't awesome places to live.


    I think business and government have to keep an eye on one another, that either one can get out of control and become a sick, power-hungry institution.
    The best way to do that is to decrease the amount of power these institutions have over people. Which means DON'T GIVE THEM FUCKING POWER OVER PEOPLE. That is the whole point!


    And please, don't tell me that people are better than they were 150 years ago. We haven't evolved that quickly that human nature is not continue to commit the same mistakes when given so much "freedom."
    Individuals are the best ones to judge how to live their own lives. When you get together to decide "what is best for everyone," THEN you have problems.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  3. #23
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    I used to vote libertarian at times, but I was coming more from a left type of libertarianism. For example, with some drug laws or euthanasia.. I don't even do drugs myself, and I think euthanasia is pretty f'in grim, but I still think the laws and/or the surrounding issues are stupid. Not to mention a few others. Basically, I hate "big government" when it comes to social conservatism. I'm thankful it's not as bad it used to be apparently (for example, "blue laws", where businesses couldn't even be opened on Sundays in some territories at one point), but all of the conservative moralizing and nannying annoys me whenever it turns up. Libertarianism is generally associated with people who are solely concerned with free markets, but in my view, I feel I'm libertarian precisely because of conservatives. Not because I am one. They have a history of making "big government" umbrella measures themselves, and in my view, it's usually more annoying than "market constraints".
    Definitely. Libertarians often call themselves "classical liberals" because they are inheritors to the tradition of Jefferson, Paine, Locke, etc.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  4. #24
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Where is the romanticism of history here? I don't see anything saying "We need to turn back the clock." Can you find some actual evidence?
    The Libertarian FAQ - along with every libertarian I've ever actually met - love to talk on and on about the 18th and 19th centuries and classic liberalism and worship the founding fathers as if they were some sort of deities.





    And yet statistics like acceleration of life expectancy have SLOWED in the past 100 years. Why do you think they exploded from the late-18th through early-20th Centuries?
    Do you really think overall quality of life was better for average people in 1856 than it is now? You're dodging what I said, and are again making the mistake of claiming that the 18th and 19th century was an improvement to what came before it...but it's not an improvement compared to now. Increase in life expectancy has slowed because we've overall grown closer to our human genetic point for dying. People aren't just going to keep living longer and longer indefinitely, unless some major technology is employed for gene mutation.

    Not at all. But the fact remains that it was more likely for a woman in the 18th Century to die in a fire in her household than it was for factory workers to die at work a century later. And what is a wage you consider "livable?" The population exploded during the Industrial Revolution(s), so clearly more people were living, and they were living better and longer lives.

    Mining is still one of the most dangerous jobs there is, and the danger is factored into the comparatively high wages miners make compared to other jobs aimed at workers of similar skills.

    Disgusting rhetoric. I won't even respond to that bullshit.
    Seriously, the shit you're saying right now looks to me like "The Holocaust didn't happen" and "AIDS only kills gay people." It's straight up denial of the actual working conditions of the 19th and early 20th century compared to now. Whatever helps you sleep at night and so you can keep on believing that libertarianism is ethical.



    Third World countries are among the LEAST capitalist in the world. So, no, we don't have to do that. Look at the list of the freest economies in the world, and tell me they aren't awesome places to live.
    The United States and England are awesome places for most people to live now thanks not only to capitalism, but also to regulations put upon capitalism and programs similar to democratic socialism.

    And yes, similar exploitation is going on in third world countries by Western capitalists, and once again, I guess you're gonna deny that really happens because it would be too upsetting to your world view.

  5. #25
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    The Libertarian FAQ - along with every libertarian I've ever actually met - love to talk on and on about the 18th and 19th centuries and classic liberalism and worship the founding fathers as if they were some sort of deities.
    The Libertarian FAQ? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You're hilarious!

    1) First of all, WHICH FAQ are you talking about? There isn't just one Libertarian FAQ. See? http://www.google.com/search?q=liber...ient=firefox-a

    2) Anecdotal evidence! I love it. And it's not even HONEST anecdotal evidence, since you know ME, and I don't do any of that. So that is at least one libertarian who disproves your claim.

    3) I've NEVER met a libertarian who has said that life in 1800 was better than life in 2000. Not once. And I've been an active libertarian for 15 years. What you WILL hear is "Our Founding Fathers really had the right idea about how to set up a government. We've lost our way in America since the Civil War/Progressive Era/New Deal/whatever, and we should get back to constitutional principles." How is that deifying anyone? Do you think we want to go back to slavery (against which libertarians were some of the most active fighters)? I highly doubt you've ever read a major libertarian/classical liberal text in your life. And Ayn Rand novels don't count.


    Do you really think overall quality of life was better for average people in 1856 than it is now? You're dodging what I said, and are again making the mistake of claiming that the 18th and 19th century was an improvement to what came before it...but it's not an improvement compared to now.
    No. And short of a major catastrophe (like a WWIII), quality of life will continue to improve. That is the overall trend for human history. The question is: how do we accelerate the process and make it improve ALL lives? The fact remains that life improved more quickly from 1856 to 1900 than it did from 1956 to 2000 (in North America and Europe, at least).

    Increase in life expectancy has slowed because we've overall grown closer to our human genetic point for dying. People aren't just going to keep living longer and longer indefinitely, unless some major technology is employed for gene mutation.
    Absolutely false. Show me the scientific basis for that claim. Actually, provide ANY hard evidence for what you are spouting.


    Seriously, the shit you're saying right now looks to me like "The Holocaust didn't happen" and "AIDS only kills gay people." It's straight up denial of the actual working conditions of the 19th and early 20th century compared to now. Whatever helps you sleep at night and so you can keep on believing that libertarianism is ethical.
    People weren't killed by Nazis or AIDS willingly. People left subsistence farming for factories because they were IMPROVING THEIR LIVES. Your historical narrative is complete fantasy.


    The United States and England are awesome places for most people to live now thanks not only to capitalism, but also to regulations put upon capitalism and programs similar to democratic socialism.

    And yes, similar exploitation is going on in third world countries by Western capitalists, and once again, I guess you're gonna deny that really happens because it would be too upsetting to your world view.
    Soooooo. . . First World countries, which have far free markets, are nice places to live because of socialistic programs, and Third World countries, which tend to have command economies, are shitholes because Western capitalists show up and impoverish them? Riiiiiiiiiight.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  6. #26
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    The Libertarian FAQ? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You're hilarious!

    1) First of all, WHICH FAQ are you talking about? There isn't one Libertarian FAQ. See? http://www.google.com/search?q=liber...ient=firefox-a

    2) Anecdotal evidence! I love it. And it's not even HONEST anecdotal evidence, since you know ME, and I don't do any of that. So that is at least one libertarian who disproves your claim.

    3) I've NEVER met a libertarian who has said that life in 1800 was better than life in 2000. Not once. And I've been an active libertarian for 15 years. What you WILL hear is "Our Founding Fathers really had the right idea about how to set up a government. We've lost our way in America since the Civil War/Progressive Era/New Deal/whatever, and we should get back to constitutional principles." How is that deifying anyone? Do you think we want to go back to slavery (against which libertarians were some of the most active fighters)? I highly doubt you've ever read a major libertarian/classical liberal text in your life. And Ayn Rand novels don't count.
    You don't want to go back to slavery but you want to revoke civil rights and abolish the minimum wage, so yes, that is going backward in time.

    "We've lost our way in America since the Civil War/Progressive Era/New Deal"

    Again, going back in time.

    I think Libertarianism is epic social retardation, and most of its proponents are white, upper-middle class males who want nothing more than to secure their own social dominance.


    No. And short of a major catastrophe (like a WWIII), quality of life will continue to improve. That is the overall trend for human history. The question is: how do we accelerate the process and make it improve ALL lives? The fact remains that life improved more quickly from 1856 to 1900 than it did from 1956 to 2000 (in North America and Europe, at least).
    That statistic is irrelevant in the context of the fact that the last half of the 20th century was a time of much greater quality of life than the late 19th century. People's lives became better - everybody's. In that time, black people, women, and gay people were granted equal rights, and laws were put into effect to protect the environment, children, and also to help people from less priveleged backgrounds to attend college.

    Yep, that's really "losing our way." Statistical increase in life expectancy is so much more relevant than context and actual quality of life.



    Absolutely false. Show me the scientific basis for that claim. Actually, provide ANY hard evidence for what you are spouting.
    So you believe that people are genetically equipped to live forever as well as believing in libertarian utopia? Wow.



    People weren't killed by Nazis or AIDS willingly. People left subsistence farming for factories because they were IMPROVING THEIR LIVES. Your historical narrative is complete fantasy.
    It's not a complete fantasy - it's fact. You are the one living in a fantasy world. Your denial of history is kind of shocking.

    People weren't willingly killed by capitalist tyrants, and people in coal mining towns were often put in positions where they literally had no choice. It wasn't all a product of people moving to cities, though people moving to cities to improve their lives certainly isn't ethical justification for working people literally to death for less than a livable wage.

    Soooooo. . . First World countries, which have far free markets, are nice places to live because of socialistic programs, and Third World countries, which tend to have command economies, are shitholes because Western capitalists show up and impoverish them? Riiiiiiiiiight.
    It's funny that Western Europe is such a nice place to live when it's Democratic Socialist, and that the quality of life in our own country has improved so drastically since the implementation of social programs and restrictions on capitalism.

    I never said third world countries were "shitholes" as direct result of capitalism, I was obviously pointing out that capitalists will - and do - whatever the fuck they think they can get away with, and that includes employing children in third world countries for pennies a day instead of having to pay American adults minimum wage. It's the fundamental reason - well, aside from ludicrous economic instability resulting from unregulated capitalism - that libertarianism will not work in real life. People will do whatever the fuck they can get away with, they are not intrinsically good or moral, and libertarianism will not be happy fun time - it will mean a lot of chaos, suffering, and exploitation, because of the primitive aspects of human nature.

  7. #27
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    It sounds like you secretly think Libertarianism is cool, its not cool, look at most of the things which libertarians stand up for in the name of individual freedom and choice, now take the whole legal aspect out of it because the reality is that you have free choice and obedience is generally a result of something more than there simply being laws and there's never going to be enough cops to enforce every law all the time, are they good things? Why? Why not?

    I remember the last time libertarianism was cool, it was called anarchy, before that socialism, before that something else, right back if you choose to enlightenment vs. ancien regims, protestantism vs. the establishment, schismatic establishment vs. roman catholicism, back further to divisions I dont even got names for right now. Each one of those things for the good it did resulted in plenty of bad too, sometimes more bad than good.

    The only possible qualification I'd make of that would that I'm talking in a cultural more than a structural or economic sense, I'm not entirely an enemy of economic modernism, whether its sustainable or not its been good for me, but even at that I'm not fan of economic neo-liberalism or libertarianism. It's not cool either, the economic variety.


    I don't secretly think anything.. umm.. I think? I just said I voted for some libs at times. I admittedly swing to the side of individual freedoms on some issues, but I'm not exactly ideological about it. It's more of a case-by-case basis thing for me. In some ways, I can be very egalitarian too. I wouldn't argue against legislation that encourages public welfare, especially in terms of basic needs (medical aid). And I'm cynical about corporations being environmentally responsible, if left to their own whims. I'm definitely not an "anarchist" per se.

  8. #28
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    You don't want to go back to slavery but you want to revoke civil rights and abolish the minimum wage, so yes, that is going backward in time.

    "We've lost our way in America since the Civil War/Progressive Era/New Deal"

    Again, going back in time.
    When it comes to government? I don't know about that. Saying poor decisions were made in the past does NOT mean you want to go back to the time before those poor decisions were made. It means you would have made different decisions at the time, based on what you know was working up to that point. These are simple concepts you aren't grasping. I shouldn't have gone with out that crazy chick Susan in 2006. That doesn't mean I want to turn back the clock to four years ago. It happened, and I learned from it. The problem is that government almost never learns. It's a dumb, blunt instrument/organization by nature.


    I think Libertarianism is epic social retardation, and most of its proponents are white, upper-middle class males who want nothing more than to secure their own social dominance.
    And, in a libertarian world, you are free to believe any silly thing you want.


    That statistic is irrelevant in the context of the fact that the last half of the 20th century was a time of much greater quality of life than the late 19th century. People's lives became better - everybody's. In that time, black people, women, and gay people were granted equal rights, and laws were put into effect to protect the environment, children, and also to help people from less priveleged backgrounds to attend college.
    As I ALREADY STATED, the issue isn't that people's live are getting worse. The issue is that they could be getting better FASTER. I keep pointing out that living standards of African-Americans grew slower AFTER passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Do you really believe that "laws" (by which I assume you mean entitlements) are the reason for quality of life improvements?


    Yep, that's really "losing our way." Statistical increase in life expectancy is so much more relevant than context and actual quality of life.
    No, increase in quality of life is what we're discussing. Quality of life increased for the people who left subsistence farming (which was little better than slavery, in terms of lifespan and freedom). I guess that doesn't make sense to you, though, since you have already decided the big, bad capitalists were twirling their moustaches and tying poor children to railroad tracks.


    So you believe that people are genetically equipped to live forever as well as believing in libertarian utopia? Wow.
    You don't have to behave. No one can be made to behave, no matter how draconian the laws are. It's easier to behave when you have a job and responsibilities and a way out of poverty, though. That is what I am arguing for.

    As to living forever, I'd like to see where I said that was possible. Human life expectancy has more than doubled in the past 200 years, though. Who is to say we can't get to 140-150 years in another few centuries? Libertarianism is about possibilities and freedom to go for them. I was trying to show that your beloved government intervention had little to do with these improvements.


    It's not a complete fantasy - it's fact. You are the one living in a fantasy world. Your denial of history is kind of shocking.
    Where are the facts? Show me them.


    People weren't willingly killed by capitalist tyrants, and people in coal mining towns were often put in positions where they literally had no choice. It wasn't all a product of people moving to cities, though people moving to cities to improve their lives certainly isn't ethical justification for working people literally to death for less than a livable wage.
    How many people were literally worked to death? Have we not established that life expectancy increased SIGNIFICANTLY during this period? If so many people were worked to death, why did living standards and life expectancy increase so rapidly? Where is your evidence for this? Please, provide a solid basis for these claims, or don't make them at all. I don't mean an Upton Sinclair novel or a 7th-grade Social Studies textbook, either. Hard data.


    It's funny that Western Europe is such a nice place to live when it's Democratic Socialist, and that the quality of life in our own country has improved so drastically since the implementation of social programs and restrictions on capitalism.
    Is it? The highest living standards are in places like Ireland, Norway, Denmark, etc., which have very dynamic economies with lots of trade and private sector development. Some of them have more generous welfare state-type policies, but they aren't "socialist. " Are you sure you aren't a Tea Partier who calls everything "socialist?" As libertarian as I am, I know the difference between a 35-hour workweek and a socialist economy.

    And, just so you know, countries like Ireland, Canada, and Switzerland actually rank higher than the United States on some indices of liberty now, so that doesn't help your argument.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_o..._Liberty_Index


    I never said third world countries were "shitholes" as direct result of capitalism, I was obviously pointing out that capitalists will - and do - whatever the fuck they think they can get away with, and that includes employing children in third world countries for pennies a day instead of having to pay American adults minimum wage. It's the fundamental reason - well, aside from ludicrous economic instability resulting from unregulated capitalism - that libertarianism will not work in real life. People will do whatever the fuck they can get away with, they are not intrinsically good or moral, and libertarianism will not be happy fun time - it will mean a lot of chaos, suffering, and exploitation, because of the primitive aspects of human nature.
    So giving people jobs at which they make more money and have more free time and possessions than they EVER would otherwise is "fucking them over?" That is nonsense. Why do you keep insisting that libertarianism demands perfect human beings? Part of the point of keeping government limited is that human beings are NOT perfect, so you shouldn't give them lots of power over others (like being able to jail or kill them).
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  9. #29
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    When it comes to government? I don't know about that. Saying poor decisions were made in the past does NOT mean you want to go back to the time before those poor decisions were made. It means you would have made different decisions at the time, based on what you know was working up to that point. These are simple concepts you aren't grasping. I shouldn't have gone with out that crazy chick Susan in 2006. That doesn't mean I want to turn back the clock to four years ago. It happened, and I learned from it. The problem is that government almost never learns. It's a dumb, blunt instrument/organization by nature.
    "The government" is made up of people. Lots of people. Other people vote to put those people there. "The government" is not a mythological monster, nor is it some unilateral tyranny lorded over by a king or queen. People organize themselves in order to handle social and economic issues. This will happen even among libertarians, who shockingly (and hypocritically) insist upon organizing themselves into a political party.






    As I ALREADY STATED, the issue isn't that people's live are getting worse. The issue is that they could be getting better FASTER. I keep pointing out that living standards of African-Americans grew slower AFTER passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Do you really believe that "laws" (by which I assume you mean entitlements) are the reason for quality of life improvements?
    Yes. Laws exist for a reason. Without the constitution even libertarian philosophy wouldn't have a leg to stand on. I cannot fathom that you do not understand that, for example, in places like Mexico the people starve not because of lack of natural resources or actual lack of money, but because of LAWS. Rape isn't a dreary fact of life in the United States for most women like it is for many women in some African countries where rape is not illegal. Laws do not completely deter undesirable behavior, but they sure to curb it and set a desirable social tone.



    No, increase in quality of life is what we're discussing. Quality of life increased for the people who left subsistence farming (which was little better than slavery, in terms of lifespan and freedom). I guess that doesn't make sense to you, though, since you have already decided the big, bad capitalists were twirling their moustaches and tying poor children to railroad tracks.
    Have you ever actually taken an American history class? The things I'm speaking of were discussed in my college text book - as well as many, many other primary sources readily available to you if you weren't in tragic denial. it's not like I made it up, or lifted it from a Marxist conspiracy site.



    You don't have to behave. No one can be made to behave, no matter how draconian the laws are. It's easier to behave when you have a job and responsibilities and a way out of poverty, though. That is what I am arguing for.
    Oh, but it helps. It decreases numbers of crimes significantly, whether those laws are set by religion or government.

    As to living forever, I'd like to see where I said that was possible. Human life expectancy has more than doubled in the past 200 years, though. Who is to say we can't get to 140-150 years in another few centuries? Libertarianism is about possibilities and freedom to go for them. I was trying to show that your beloved government intervention had little to do with these improvements.
    I'm not even going to dignify this madness with a response.






    How many people were literally worked to death? Have we not established that life expectancy increased SIGNIFICANTLY during this period? If so many people were worked to death, why did living standards and life expectancy increase so rapidly? Where is your evidence for this? Please, provide a solid basis for these claims, or don't make them at all. I don't mean an Upton Sinclair novel or a 7th-grade Social Studies textbook, either. Hard data.
    Do you get all of your history from libertarian authored sources? I mean really?




    Is it? The highest living standards are in places like Ireland, Norway, Denmark, etc., which have very dynamic economies with lots of trade and private sector development. Some of them have more generous welfare state-type policies, but they aren't "socialist. " Are you sure you aren't a Tea Partier who calls everything "socialist?" As libertarian as I am, I know the difference between a 35-hour workweek and a socialist economy.

    And, just so you know, countries like Ireland, Canada, and Switzerland actually rank higher than the United States on some indices of liberty now, so that doesn't help your argument.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_o..._Liberty_Index
    I'm sorry - what exactly are you arguing against? Welfare state-type policies are a form of democratic socialism. I never said that capitalism wasn't helpful, I said it has to be regulated. A lot of those countries you mention have more SOCIAL FREEDOM. Canada is further away from anarcho-capitalism than the United States is.



    So giving people jobs at which they make more money and have more free time and possessions than they EVER would otherwise is "fucking them over?" That is nonsense. Why do you keep insisting that libertarianism demands perfect human beings? Part of the point of keeping government limited is that human beings are NOT perfect, so you shouldn't give them lots of power over others (like being able to jail or kill them).
    Why is it that you do not see economic power as "lots of power" and it can be equally as damaging as legal power?

    It's about balance. The interest of one group should not outweigh the other. Giving too much power to business is just as much of a mistake as giving too much power to government, hence why Libertarianism is the same epic fail as Communism.

  10. #30
    Senior Member ZPowers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    1,492

    Default

    Question:

    I've only seen a couple of listings for most libertarian presidents. Here is one:

    http://www.xaviercromartie.com/2009/...ed-states.html

    Now, in this list, the top ten is either exclusively A) forgotten presidents who show up mid-list in most historians assessments of presidents or B) were full-on shitty (Coolidge, Harding, Grant and Johnson). Not a single president commonly considered the best ever, either Republican or Democrat, appears above "Below Average".

    On top of that, modern conservatives, like Reagan, whom modern Libertarians seem to like, fall below Democrats including every Democratic president since Reagan.

    I recently saw someone talking about a very different libertarian list on a show: while I lack access to it, Jimmy Carter was 8th, Reagan was 40th in terms of real Libertarian ideas.

    Isn't there a fundamental disconnect between the idea and practice of libertarianism today? Is there a strong President in American history who was actually libertarian?
    Does he want a pillow for his head?

Similar Threads

  1. Why I think so called seperatism could be a good idea
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-25-2017, 11:18 AM
  2. Do you think you have a soul? If you do, why?
    By Riva in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 145
    Last Post: 10-19-2009, 07:47 PM
  3. "Have a good evening sir/ma'am"
    By swordpath in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-28-2007, 07:51 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO