How can anyone NOT be a libertarian?

[magog704]

Also in regards to tea parties, that is something that was started by the Ron Paul grassroots campaign. Neocons have hijacked it, as they're attempting to hijack the liberty movement. That doesn't mean they are welcome by libertarians.

This was my original question. I lol'd at the Tea Parties because I knew the Neocons didn't even know wtf they were talking about.

But I'm reminded of a quote, so now I've got to wrap it up.

The conditions under which any one understands me, and necessarily understands me--I know them only too well. Even to endure my seriousness, my passion, he must carry intellectual integrity to the verge of hardness. He must be accustomed to living on mountain tops--and to looking upon the wretched gabble of politics and nationalism as beneath him.

Nietzsche

[cheerupemokid]

Your idea of what would happen with pure libertarianism is completely skewed. Libertarianism would bring the age of huge SUPER monopolistic coporations and there would be no more middle class, only the poor workers. There would be massive pollution in the highly packed areas where the poor live. Drinking water, air quality and overall wellbeing will be lost completely.

The fact taht corporations dont want to work with Ron Paul is because there is no point in throwing money at a guy that has no hope in hell of winning. Corporations are all about bottom line, what can they get out of a deal, with Ron Paul, that is nothing because he cant win.

You're in desperate need of an economics lesson.

First, how do corporations exist? No. They exist because the government grants them the status which affords the protections by treating them as an individual.

Second, what is the purpose of creating a monopoly? To maximize profits. So if you as a monopolist are in a conspiracy to charge higher prices, what happens when you realize that you can make huge profits at the expense of your co-conspirators by undercutting the monopoly prices?

Look up the term chiseling. It happens in every conspiracy to monopolize a market that the government does not control (and sometimes even when they do).

And when businesses attempt to form monopolies it is a product of there being concentration in the market, there are few businesses offering the good or service. This is usually the product of the barriers of entry into the market being too great, almost always a product of onerous government regulation of an industry, vastly increasing the cost of starting a business.

You are also unaware of libertarian philosophy.

Private property is paramount to libertarianism. If you as a factor owner dump your waste onto my property, ruining it, I will sue you out of business for doing that. If I didn't shoot you for breaking onto my property in the first place.

There is no incentive to pollute but there are an inordinate amount of disincentives to pollute. This is because people care much more about property that they personally own than "collectively owned" property that "everyone owns."

I've also seen you make this drinking water claim before and it still doesn't make sense. You claim corporations are only interested in profits. People obviously want clean water but corporations or other business would sell something people do no want because....

The Corporations stayed away from Ron Paul because Ron Paul actually believes in Capitalism. While the hot shot in the Corporation believe in Corpratism and abhor Capitalism. They do not want to compete with other businesses, they want to buy a politician who will make laws and regulations which will destroy or prevent anyone from competing with them, so they don't have to worry about competition.

I met Ron Paul at 2 different grass roots Libertarian rallies. I donated probably 100 bucks to his campaign. Still got the t-shirt and bumper sticker.

Now i think Libertarianism is misguided, because for all that voting and spending and advertising, the rEVOLution didn't actually DOOOOO anything. Furthermore, our country is in pretty good shape relative to the rest of the world.

I used to think freedom was more important than life itself. Now I think saving little starving kids and not blowing people up is more important than freedom.

BRB being a slave to all my capitalistic possessions. (Guess wat, we just as enslaved as communist peoples, the difference is, we waste time voting)

Those things are perfectly consistent with libertarianism.

The difference is that libertarians don't think it's okay to hold a gun to someone's head and demand a portion of their income because they want to save starving children.

[Fist-Of-Freedom]

You're in desperate need of an economics lesson.

First, how do corporations exist? No. They exist because the government grants them the status which affords the protections by treating them as an individual.

Second, what is the purpose of creating a monopoly? To maximize profits. So if you as a monopolist are in a conspiracy to charge higher prices, what happens when you realize that you can make huge profits at the expense of your co-conspirators by undercutting the monopoly prices?

Look up the term chiseling. It happens in every conspiracy to monopolize a market that the government does not control (and sometimes even when they do).

And when businesses attempt to form monopolies it is a product of there being concentration in the market, there are few businesses offering the good or service. This is usually the product of the barriers of entry into the market being too great, almost always a product of onerous government regulation of an industry, vastly increasing the cost of starting a business.

You are also unaware of libertarian philosophy.

Private property is paramount to libertarianism. If you as a factor owner dump your waste onto my property, ruining it, I will sue you out of business for doing that. If I didn't shoot you for breaking onto my property in the first place.

There is no incentive to pollute but there are an inordinate amount of disincentives to pollute. This is because people care much more about property that they personally own than "collectively owned" property that "everyone owns."

I've also seen you make this drinking water claim before and it still doesn't make sense. You claim corporations are only interested in profits. People obviously want clean water but corporations or other business would sell something people do no want because....

The Corporations stayed away from Ron Paul because Ron Paul actually believes in Capitalism. While the hot shot in the Corporation believe in Corpratism and abhor Capitalism. They do not want to compete with other businesses, they want to buy a politician who will make laws and regulations which will destroy or prevent anyone from competing with them, so they don't have to worry about competition.



Those things are perfectly consistent with libertarianism.

The difference is that libertarians don't think it's okay to hold a gun to someone's head and demand a portion of their income because they want to save starving children.

And this ladies and gents, is how it's done.

[Dummkopf]

Convince me to be a Libertarian.

You would actually have to get a job and get off of welfare

It would be hard pressed to instill the values of hard work into you

In turn it would also force you to stop training ufc, which is obviously some sort of a complex, think Napoleon.

[Mr._Arcane]

monopolies...


/thread

Rothbard and Friedman (i'm assuming if you're spraying about libertarianism, you know these men) had no real solution for the ultimate end of laissez faire that is the monopolization of industry.

Here's the real thing. In nature the strongest survive, but we've evolved, if you will, beyond the piftalls of bio-evolution. We are lucky enough as a species to be in a position base our society on things like humanism, loyalty, and love for our fellow man.

Do what I do, and consider federal income tax "lucky tax". Your ass could have been born in fukkin Chechnya.

Myth of Monopoly:



We have NOT evolved past evolution, we are continuing to evolve. http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine...-Grow--4823-1/

[codhead]

Agree with this. This is what I meant with the fact that people trust gov't more, because they are somewhat controlled by the people and responsible to the people, not a lot, but a little. On the other hand, the rich don't care for anyone but themselves. If you make the gov't small, you'll have a bunch of mega rich warlord like untouchables running the country and the gov't will be there just in name.

Haha...Wall St. didn't steal trillions of dollars from us. It was given to them by those who are supposed to "protect" us from them. Does that not piss you off in the least? Do you not feel like you've been had? We literally have congressmen having buttsex with board members of financial institutions, and they're supposed to be protecting us from banks? Wtf were they gonna do to you anyway?
Even the most "libertarian" of all libertarians do not believe government shouldn't enforce the laws to protect our property ($trillions), whether from banks or a simple street crook. But it was taken by the only people who legally can take it in this country. There is nothing you can do about it.
On the same note, how do you think banks would act if they didn't know they would be bailed out? We just had our 95th bank failure this year, out of literally thousands of them. But of the largest, possibly all of them would have failed.....(I don't think we'll ever know for sure) But Goldman says thanks for the record profits.

[Resonator]

Again, how did we establish these rights? How are new rights brought about? I'll answer, the government. We can not get away from the government. And all these "natural right" nut huggers seem to think we can. Unless you want all out anarchy government will have its hands in many things.

Isn't this arguing semantics more than anything? When it boils down to it, of course natural rights don't exist. If you don't want to become a Libertarian because of this, then that makes no sense. It's understandable if you don't agree with the proposed set of natural rights that are commonly accepted among most Libertarians, but if you do agree with their proposed natural rights, what other reason do you have for not becominng one?

BTW, most Libertarians aren't anti-government, they're mainly for a minimalist form of government. They would be anarchists if they were anti-government.

[JAGERBOY]

Isn't this arguing semantics more than anything? When it boils down to it, of course natural rights don't exist. If you don't want to become a Libertarian because of this, then that makes no sense. It's understandable if you don't agree with the proposed set of natural rights that are commonly accepted among most Libertarians, but if you do agree with their proposed natural rights, what other reason do you have for not becominng one?

I never said I didn't want to be a libertarian because of that. Its just what the libertarians in this thread have presented doesn't make sense and isn't consistent.

BTW, most Libertarians aren't anti-government, they're mainly for a minimalist form of government. They would be anarchists if they were anti-government.

Right. And thats why we are having this discussion. I point blank asked what exactly they felt government control was necessary in. And one of the answers was "to protect our natural rights". And round and round we go.

[maynardjames]

I'm seriously curious. I don't get how anyone could WANT the government to control you more and more and more.


in b4 grup

less government and more corporate control over your life???
I'll ask you the same thing:

How the heck can YOU BE A LIBERTARIAN??

'elected officials' versus a a coven of inbred capitalist oligarchs??

How are you a 'libertarian' in this day and age is beyond me!!
You in love with the banksters and the corporate inbred tyrants??

[maynardjames]

^^^
just wanna add that i don't believe in the society of 'elected officials' either but at least that's more compatible with human rights and democratic control...

I personally believe in Direct democracy and more social control of the means of production and Exchange by workers themselves..

[Resonator]

I never said I didn't want to be a libertarian because of that. Its just what the libertarians in this thread have presented doesn't make sense and isn't consistent.



Right. And thats why we are having this discussion. I point blank asked what exactly they felt government control was necessary in. And one of the answers was "to protect our natural rights". And round and round we go.

What is the problem exactly? Figuring out what the established natural rights would be?

[JAGERBOY]

What is the problem exactly? Figuring out what the established natural rights would be?

The problem is, there is always going to need to be some sort of legislative/authoritative body if you don't want anarchy. Who makes laws? Who enforces them? If not the government, then who? Who decides what should be considered a "natural right"? If I don't agree with your set of natural rights, but you happen to be in the majority, then your majority rule is imposing on my personal freedoms and "natural rights". And isn't that what we are trying to avoid with big government? We exchange one imposing force with another. You can't escape it. So which one seems more efficient? Which is the lesser of two evils?

[Fist-Of-Freedom]

less government and more corporate control over your life???
I'll ask you the same thing:

How the heck can YOU BE A LIBERTARIAN??

'elected officials' versus a a coven of inbred capitalist oligarchs??

How are you a 'libertarian' in this day and age is beyond me!!
You in love with the banksters and the corporate inbred tyrants??

That isn't true capitalism.

[addiction543]

thought i'd post this video......I don't think libertarianism is perfect, but it sure would be a lot better than the system we have now and the way our country is headed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1buym2xUM

can someone embed....i must not have enough posts

[An hero]

thought i'd post this video......I don't think libertarianism is perfect, but it sure would be a lot better than the system we have now and the way our country is headed

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1buym2xUM\"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PMJmqxl_eqM" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[voltio8836]

Question for you libertarians:

Do you think it is possible that in an unregulated capitalist world, the entire market of all industries would be dominated by a few huge corporations. An then slowly those few corporations would slowly merge into a single enormous corporation that provides everything?

e.g. the car u drive, the food you eat, the movie you watch would eventually be provided by 1 single company

[maynardjames]

That isn't true capitalism.

lol, what is then??
Is it some idealist figment in some mid-twentieth century economist's imagination.....

Capitalism for the past three hundred years has bred nothing but hunger, misery, death, destruction, famine etc. for the MAJORITY of mankind.
The fact that you belong to the top 5% who actually benefit from all this exploitation and oppression doesn't make it less of a **** system...


Oh and it doesn't matter what some deluded idiot like Mises or kirzner say...
They were paid puppets of the capitalst-industrial Western establishment....
They hated 'mathematics' for goddsakes lol...that tells you a lot about their 'research'...

[codhead]

Question for you libertarians:

Do you think it is possible that in an unregulated capitalist world, the entire market of all industries would be dominated by a few huge corporations. An then slowly those few corporations would slowly merge into a single enormous corporation that provides everything?

e.g. the car u drive, the food you eat, the movie you watch would eventually be provided by 1 single company

Is it possible? I don't know. However, there is no precedent example of that happening. The opposite seems to be true.

On the other hand, in order for it to happen via regulation would be absolutely simple.

[voltio8836]

Is it possible? I don't know. However, there is no precedent example of that happening. The opposite seems to be true.

On the other hand, in order for it to happen via regulation would be absolutely simple.

wtf it is not happened because the evil government has been actively trying to eliminate monopoly. I draw examples such as AT&T, standard oil, Microsoft (government has been suing it for years)

[codhead]

lol, what is then??
Is it some idealist figment in some mid-twentieth century economist's imagination.....

Capitalism for the past three hundred years has bred nothing but hunger, misery, death, destruction, famine etc. for the MAJORITY of mankind.
The fact that you belong to the top 5% who actually benefit from all this exploitation and oppression doesn't make it less of a **** system...


Oh and it doesn't matter what some deluded idiot like Mises or kirzner say...
They were paid puppets of the capitalst-industrial Western establishment....
They hated 'mathematics' for goddsakes lol...that tells you a lot about their 'research'...

Hmmm...when I see the words mid 20th century, hunger, misery, death, destruction, famine, etc. I immediately think of the Soviet Union. But that's just me.

[codhead]

wtf it is not happened because the evil government has been actively trying to eliminate monopoly. I draw examples such as AT&T, standard oil, Microsoft (government has been suing it for years)

Sorry, but your post did read unregulated capitalist world

[voltio8836]

Sorry, but your post did read unregulated capitalist world

Yes so in an unregulated capitalist world, why can't this possibly happen:

A super efficient company dominates 1 market and then does predatory pricing blahblah to weed out small business start ups to keep the market

then they merge with another company to benefit each other and this goes on until all markets are dominated by 1 single huge entity.

[An hero]

this thread has provided the lulz. surprising how many people are against personal liberty

[voltio8836]

Another question

Am I correct here:

In an unregulated capitalist world, I should have to freedom to kill you and you should have the freedom to kill me.

However, you and me and everyone else have decided to sacrifice that "freedom" to the government so that you would worry less about being killed.

[An hero]

another question

am i correct here:

In an unregulated capitalist world, i should have to freedom to kill you and you should have the freedom to kill me.

wat

[voltio8836]

wat

for you guys who love to preach ideologies and utopias, how come you are not able to think abstractly?

[Resonator]

The problem is, there is always going to need to be some sort of legislative/authoritative body if you don't want anarchy. Who makes laws? Who enforces them? If not the government, then who? Who decides what should be considered a "natural right"? If I don't agree with your set of natural rights, but you happen to be in the majority, then your majority rule is imposing on my personal freedoms and "natural rights". And isn't that what we are trying to avoid with big government? We exchange one imposing force with another. You can't escape it. So which one seems more efficient? Which is the lesser of two evils?

Every Libertarian I've met said the government should exist to deal with aggressors. The government would exist to handle the courts, police, and military, but it wouldn't do things like the welfare we have now. There would have to be a set of natural rights that are generally agreed upon. Big government would be avoided in the sense that it only has a few roles, unlike now where they subsidize corporations and offer social security checks. Basically, it would be using as little coercive force as possible in order to maintain society, but leaving everything else up to individuals. It definitely has philosophical flaws but it's appealing mainly because it uses as little force as possible, aside from anarchy.

[randomhero97]

All I hear in this thread is, "if there is no government the corporations are going to get us man." Well, who the fukc do you think created corporations? Who do you think runs the government now?

source link: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/0...-to-democrats/

September 29, 2009, 2:09 PM ET Lobbyists, PACs Donate More to Democrats

Brody Mullins and T.W. Farnam report on campaign finance.

Less than a year into Democrats? dominance of Washington, money is following power.

New campaign finance data shows that Democrats now receive far more campaign cash from lobbyists and corporate fund-raising arms than Republicans.

Lobbyists have donated twice as much to Democrats as Republicans this year -? and corporate PACs have sent 60% of their money to Democrats, according to the data. That?s a reversal from just a few years ago when Republicans controlled Congress and the White House.

The change has left Democratic candidates for Congress with far more money than Republicans as they prepare for the 2010 midterm elections. Democratic candidates raised $153.5 million in the first six months of the 2009-10 election cycle, about 62% more than Republican candidates, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

The party that controls Washington nearly always receives a most of the donations from lobbyist and corporate PACs because the majority party has more ability to write the law.

So far this year, lobbyists have made 70% of their donations to Democrats ?- up from 37% in 2006, according to the data.

Democrats? share of corporate PAC money is also climbing. Democrats now receive 65% of PAC donations, including a majority of the donations from all nine industry sectors. In the first six months of the 2005-06 election cycle, Democrats received 44% of the donations from corporate PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Only one of the nine industries tracked by the Center -? lawyers and lobbyists -? gave a majority of its money to Democrats.

Take health care. Since Democrats took over Washington, the health care industry has nearly doubled the share of PAC donations it gives to Democrats. This year, Democrats have received 66% of the donations from health care PACs. Pfizer Inc. has donated 69% of its PAC donations to Democrats this year, up from 31% in 2006. The PACs of other pharmaceutical companies have followed a similar trend.

Spokesmen for the companies say they donate to politicians who support their priorities. Ron Rogers, a spokesman for Merck, said that the company donates more to Democrats now because ?there are more Democrats that there used to be.?

So far this year, the Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee have received an average of $100,000 each in political donations from the healthcare industry. That?s twice as much as the industry has donated to committee Republicans. Four years ago, when Republicans were in charge, the industry gave twice as much money to Republicans than Democrats.

All is not lost for Republicans. There?s more than a year remaining before the 2010 midterm elections and there the money tide could be turning: Fund-raising reports show that the Republican National Committee raised more than the Democratic National Committee in August.

[An hero]

for you guys who love to preach ideologies and utopias, how come you are not able to think abstractly?

Because what you said had nothing to do with capitalism. And obviously, you have the right to do pretty much anything AS LONG AS YOU DON'T INFRINGE ON OTHER PEOPLES' RIGHTS. Which would pretty quickly negate the "right" to murder people.

[Resonator]

for you guys who love to preach ideologies and utopias, how come you are not able to think abstractly?

Capitalism is based on voluntary transactions between people. If I shoot you, is it voluntary on your part?