patrick.net

socal2 says

Dan8267 says

If the U.S. population were to half over the next 50 years, it would not be a

bad thing.

So dumb it hurts.

How pray tell are we going to continue to prop up our Ponzi Scheme entitlement programs if our population is cut in half over the next 50 years?

Look how fucked our entitlement liabilities are now just trying to deal with the Boomer population. Look at all the bankrupt cities in California (let alone Detroit) who are suffering as their towns are hollowed out by generational Democrat mismanagement and there is no one left to pay the pensions.

Do Libs have even a basic grasp of simple math?

True, but that's why we have to do away with an entitlement/retirement system that is based on endless population explosion (aka ponzi-scheme).

dublin hillz says

Russia has always had an authoritarian history. In a way, they have not been sufficiently prepared to handle democracy especially considering the unique blend of authoritarianism and corruption that they demonstrate. If a democracy experiment were to be fully conducted over there, it would result in a middle-east lite outcome. The only improvement would be lack of suicide bombings....sans the chechens of course.

America is authoritarian too, same damn thing here, just dressed up differently.

Vicente says

(abortion and premarital sex are effectively against the law in the name of the free market)

This fragment reveals that the author is full of shit.

zzyzzx says

CL says

We have plenty of unpopulated land.

True, but where is the water and oil going to come from?

Were they not going to need water or oil where they were born? Or are we only worried about "ours"? Or are we worried that as a poor person becomes more prosperous that they will inherently use more of these resources?

Where do we get our oil and water now? What will we do about shortages? Annex Canada?

And if you were really worried about it, why not just have a one-child policy since native-borns will also consume those resources?

CaptainShuddup says

That's not how you get support or acceptance from those who you claim are intolerant, as it were.

Is support something that a citizen has to ask for from the majority? Do they have to do it a certain way, and say please? Yes ma'am?

Put another way, if this were a majority gay country and you were a hetero minority, would you feel that it would be acceptable for you to be straight, but only in the way the gay majority proscribed? What if they didn't want you acting all hetero in public....dressing THAT way, holding hands, kissing.

FortWayne says

America is authoritarian too, same damn thing here, just dressed up differently.

Indeed, but not in the way you probably mean. See above.

FortWayne says

dublin hillz says

Russia has always had an authoritarian history. In a way, they have not been sufficiently prepared to handle democracy especially considering the unique blend of authoritarianism and corruption that they demonstrate. If a democracy experiment were to be fully conducted over there, it would result in a middle-east lite outcome. The only improvement would be lack of suicide bombings....sans the chechens of course.

America is authoritarian too, same damn thing here, just dressed up differently.

Where he's right, he's right.

mell says

True, but that's why we have to do away with an entitlement/retirement system that is based on endless population explosion (aka ponzi-scheme).

Don't think anyone is advocating "endless population explosion" just replacement level birth rates to maintain stable populations to support the tax base.

It seems like it is mainly Lefties who advocate "explosive population reduction" as seen by some of the dopey comments on this thread.

The future belongs to the people who bother to show up.

socal2 says

How pray tell are we going to continue to prop up our Ponzi Scheme entitlement programs if our population is cut in half over the next 50 years?

Don't. The longer Ponzi Schemes go on, the more damage they do.

socal2 says

Do Libs have even a basic grasp of simple math?

Honey, my math skills are beyond your imagination, much like my love making skills.

socal2 says

The Malthusians Chicken Littles have been predicting this shit for over 50 years and have been shown to be completely wrong by history.

Someone makes a claim that if exponential increases in CO2 levels continue indefinitely, eventually the world's climate will become inhospitable to human life. You call this claim false based on the fact that it hasn't happen yet. And I'm the one without basic math skills?

Socal2's "thinking":
Liberals say that wearing your seat belt keeps you from dying in a car crash. Well, I've never worn my seat belt and I'm still alive. Therefore seat belts are worthless.

Better thinking:
Pollution is a form of theft. It should be tolerated no more than any other form of theft. People who are pro-pollution are pro-theft by definition. The rest of us believe in law and order. We don't tolerate criminals that burn other people's houses down because it violates property rights. Pollution violates public property rights, no different from trashing your neighbor's house.

North Korea is the Democrat's paradise.

Somalia is libertarian paradise:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/7QDv4sYwjO0

zzyzzx says

North Korea is the Democrat's paradise.

Correction: North Korea is the paradise of the imaginary versions of Democrats in the heads of Republicans.

No Democrat has every advocated North Korea as a roll model. In contrast, the very first post in this thread was FortWayne says

At the rate we are going, Russia is winning.

zzyzzx says

North Korea is the Democrat's paradise.

There is more truth in Republican yearning for Nazi Germany than in that statement. Hell, there's more truth in Democrats yearning for Nazi Germany than that statement.

The Democrats believe in a slightly less laissez-faire free-market Capitalism than the Republicans CLAIM to. That's hardly command and control.

CL says

zzyzzx says

North Korea is the Democrat's paradise.

There is more truth in Republican yearning for Nazi Germany than in that statement. Hell, there's more truth in Democrats yearning for Nazi Germany than that statement.

Hell, there's more truth in Democrats yearning for three-way with Madeleine Albright and Helen Thomas than in that statement.

zzyzzx says

North Korea is the Democrat's paradise.

Paradise? Hardly, but a prime example of what unrestrained republican authoritarianism would turn into, yes.

You right wingers have tried numerous things already, such as:
Homeland Security
airport scanners and 'pat downs'
eavesdropping of every imagineable kind
the Patriot Act
Gitmo
waterboarding
questioning people's patriotism
etc., etc.,..................................

upisdown says

zzyzzx says

North Korea is the Democrat's paradise.

Paradise? Hardly, but a prime example of what unrestrained republican authoritarianism would turn into, yes.

You right wingers have tried numerous things already, such as:

Homeland Security

airport scanners and 'pat downs'

eavesdropping of every imagineable kind

the Patriot Act

Gitmo

waterboarding

questioning people's patriotism

etc., etc.,..................................

That's just Obamas partial accomplishment list.

FortWayne says

That's just Obamas partial accomplishment list.

Yawwwnnnnnnn.

upisdown says

FortWayne says

That's just Obamas partial accomplishment list.

Yawwwnnnnnnn.

No, FortWayne is actually right on that one. Granted, most of that stuff was also Bush's and Republican's agenda, but Obama has full-heartedly embraced and expanded on that agenda.

Dan8267 says

No, FortWayne is actually right on that one. Granted, most of that stuff was
also Bush's and Republican's agenda, but Obama has full-heartedly embraced and
expanded on that agenda.

While mostly true, it's the republican want for domination over others, just look at how they act here and when you put them in their place, they bitch and moan endlessly and take up their default victim routine.

Undoing their BS is a lot tougher than the initial resistance to their push for those things that I listed, especially when you factor in the numbers of their base and other gullible idiots that fall for their fear and hate tactics.

Obama is no angel, and he's let a lot of people down by not undoing or reversing those things, but it's a hell of a lot better than going full throttle with more of the same with McCain and the moron, or even worse with Romney and his mini-me.

Dan8267 says

Hell, there's more truth in Democrats yearning for three-way with Madeleine Albright and Helen Thomas than in that statement.

Yeah, that's more likely to be my personal thing than ALL Democrats. A man can dream.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

Wow, guys, now this is just getting strange.

And you know it is when you're the one wigged out!

corntrollio says

Somalia is libertarian paradise:

A country where the rule of law is not enforced has nothing to do with Libertarianism. If it has no laws at all to enforced then that is anarchy. So this is completely misguided, don't watch everything you believe!

Dan8267 says

Don't. The longer Ponzi Schemes go on, the more damage they do.

Well duh.

But how do you fix the existing Ponzi Schemes government entitlement programs when you advocate MASSIVELY shrinking the US population?

This is why I believe you have a very bad grasp of basic math.

Either that - or you just spout out shit without thinking things through.

socal2 says

Ponzi Schemes government entitlement programs

Many people misuse the label Ponzi Scheme. You have lots of company.

socal2 says

But how do you fix the existing Ponzi Schemes government entitlement programs when you advocate MASSIVELY shrinking the US population?

Let the Baby Boomers pay the check for the first time in their life.

Dan8267 says

Let the Baby Boomers pay the check for the first time in their life.

You mean pay for their own healthcare or something?

mell says

A country where the rule of law is not enforced has nothing to do with Libertarianism. If it has no laws at all to enforced then that is anarchy

Libertarianism taken to its logical extreme is anarcho-capitalism.

How do you propose enforcing the rule of law in a libertarian government, exactly? Reputation?

corntrollio says

mell says

A country where the rule of law is not enforced has nothing to do with Libertarianism. If it has no laws at all to enforced then that is anarchy

Libertarianism taken to its logical extreme is anarcho-capitalism.

How do you propose enforcing the rule of law in a libertarian government, exactly? Reputation?

http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/libertar.htm

" Libertarians are not anarchists. While it is true that some individuals favor a political system of competing vigilante committees, and refer to this position as "anarcho-capitalism" (a view formerly held by libertarian economist Murray Rothbard), this is a confusing misnomer based on an apparent failure to clearly distinguish between the nature of market institutions (which do not involve the use of coercion at all, either initiatory or retaliatory) and the nature of coercive entities (criminal or legal). Actually, libertarianism rests on the concepts of individualism, self-ownership, private property, & voluntary (market) exchange. Classical anarchism not only opposed the political state, but also some voluntary organizations of which it disapproved. Most importantly, true anarchists opposed private property - without which no voluntary relationships are possible. Today's libertarians are in the classical liberal tradition of Algernon Sidney, John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Edmund Burke, Herbert Spencer, and Frederic Bastiat - not the anarchist tradition of Proudhon, Kropotkin, and Bakunin. Virtually all the major thinkers and writers which inspired the libertarian cause -- Frederic Bastiat, Herbert Spencer, Auberon Herbert, Henry Hazlitt, F. A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Leonard Read, Ayn Rand, George Reisman -- whatever differences they may have had, they all supported the libertarian position of advocating a general policy of laissez faire be imposed on government -- and they all opposed anarchy and anarchism as antithetical to liberty. "

You enforce the law with a police force that is strictly checked by the judicative branch and the constitutional rights.

corntrollio says

Libertarianism taken to its logical extreme is anarcho-capitalism.

If you want to understand principles behind anarcho-capitalism, I would recommend watching this long video. No country has this, and definitely not Russia by any stretch of imagination.

http://agoratelegraph.com/2013/02/22/anarchy-means-without-rulers-not-without-rules/

gsr says

If you want to understand principles behind anarcho-capitalism

Former Libertarian here, and it's all PoliSci college bullshit that is little different than Marxism. In the sense that it's a lot of theory that is largely divorced from PEOPLE and political realities. People are fickle, and want contradicting things. They say they want something then they get it, no they aren't happy with that, they want something else. They take your nice theories about Marxism and turn it into Leninism. Or more contemporary like Rick Santelli or Rand Paul they are "kind of Libertarian" except.... well except when it matters and then all the theory bullshit goes right out the window because they need money.

Vicente says

Former Libertarian here, and it's all PoliSci college bullshit that is little different than Marxism.

Except your regular tagline, I do not see anything of substance in this post. You have to work hard if you want converts.

Vicente says

like Rick Santelli or Rand Paul they are "kind of Libertarian" except.... well except when it matters and then all the theory bullshit goes right out the window because they need money.

Citations please? Not that care deeply about what they think anyway.

Vicente says

People are fickle, and want contradicting things. They say they want something then they get it, no they aren't happy with that, they want something else.

Who says libertarians are against people wanting things? Hey, I want things too.

gsr says

Except your regular tagline, I do not see anything of substance in this post. You have to work hard if you want converts.

Ditto.

And who said I wanted to win converts?

I handed out enough copies of Atlas Shrugged in my 20+ years of Glibertopian Randism. I'm all done with that.

bgamall4 says

The first national gun control law passed on the heels of the JFK and MLK assassinations, was introduced prior to the deaths of both men by a Zionist congressman

MLK and JFK were killed by a zionist congressman? I never knew that.

mell says

You enforce the law with a police force that is strictly checked by the judicative branch and the constitutional rights.

Thank you for the one step down from Wikipedia explanation of libertarianism -- and yes, I'm familiar with all those people you wish to name-drop.

Vicente says

Or more contemporary like Rick Santelli or Rand Paul they are "kind of Libertarian" except.... well except when it matters and then all the theory bullshit goes right out the window because they need money.

Yeah, exactly -- it really comes down to being selfish. Most people grow out of this stuff after high school or college and realize that it doesn't actually answer any important questions.

The reality is that most libertarians are essentially advocating for a feudal system. Largely, they have the selfish belief that if only they got the government off their back, they'd be feudal lords instead of in whatever state they live in now. It's nonsense, because most libertarians would similarly thrive in our system if they would thrive in their utopian system.

The best discussion of libertarianism is the one I've seen here:

http:/s.randi.org/showthread.php?t=136113

Vicente says

I handed out enough copies of Atlas Shrugged in my 20+ years of Glibertopian Randism. I'm all done with that.

I don't think you ever understood the meaning of libertarianism. The fundamental principle of libertarianism is non-aggression.
There is clearly a need to have a rule of law to keep the non-aggression principle. But remember, enforcer(s) can violate the same.

Ayan Rand may have influenced libertarianism, and that's about it.

corntrollio says

Yeah, exactly -- it really comes down to being selfish. Most people grow out of this stuff after high school or college and realize that it doesn't actually answer any important questions.

Sometimes a society makes a collective decision, where absolute individual choices are limited. But it is important minimize the size of such society, so that people still have choice.
We all depend on each other. So out of our own selfishness, we should be kind and nice to one another.

There is far more to ethics than non-intervention.

Libertarianism seeks the removal of barriers protecting us from the wealthy. Since we can't intervene in their lives to begin with, this actually increases the potential for humans to harm one another by stripping us of the few defenses we have.

But then the libertarians say "Doesn't matter. You can sue them if they try to screw you." Meanwhile the same libertarians are fighting to cap damages and limit liability exposure for corporate entities.

The term libertarian has been mis-used for the past number of years, mainly in that it became the cover for the Tea Party, whom used it as a clever way to claim they were different from the GOP when in fact all of their actions were and are very much pro-GOP. But since they claim to be libertarian, they can sit back and go- " see? we're different!"

corntrollio says

The best discussion of libertarianism is the one I've seen here:

http:/s.randi.org/showthread.php?t=136113

That is a good thread, thanks for the link. One page down, 68 to go- bookmarked for now.

gsr says

I don't think you ever understood the meaning of libertarianism. The fundamental principle of libertarianism is non-aggression.

There is clearly a need to have a rule of law to keep the non-aggression principle. But remember, enforcer(s) can violate the same.

Ayan Rand may have influenced libertarianism, and that's about it.

Mormons and Formons. The "exes" always hear the same thing "oh you didn't REALLY understand it in the first place!". The dogmatic adherents have a reliable refrain.

Once I did understand it, I had to leave. It's another crackpot set of contradictory political theories with little basis in real governance. It is more respectable and low-key than LaRouche or Randists. But only by a little. The primary utility of Libertarian ideology is it allows financiers and other fraudsters to wrap a cloak of ideology around themselves as they carry off their criminal chicanery.

El HydroCabron says

Meanwhile the same libertarians are fighting to cap damages and limit liability exposure for corporate entities.

I think that goes against the private property rights. Free giveaways to large corporation at the expense of poor with the help of government is not libertarianism. OTOH, those corporations also have a choice. They could move their businesses elsewhere if they do not like terms.