patrick.net

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.

Vicente says

Once I did understand it, I had to leave.

Again, there not much substance.

Vicente says

ibertarian ideology is it allows financiers and other fraudsters

Really?? I thought they are all liberals wanting to get free bailouts for the sake of greater good.

You are too critical of libertarianism. Sure it has it's pitfalls, but so does everything else.

gsr says

Really?? I thought they are all liberals wanting to get free bailouts for the sake of greater good.

Rick Santelli and many other finance people like libertarianism. Well at least the parts that say they deserve piles of money any way they can come by it, as long as they aren't initiating force. It's very freeing to repeat "greed is good" and "fraud doesn't really exist" after all, really helps you sleep.

Vicente says

gsr says

Really?? I thought they are all liberals wanting to get free bailouts for the sake of greater good.

Rick Santelli and many other finance people like libertarianism.

You are spreading misinformation. Rick Santelli did not support the bailout as far as I can see.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/I-1g0OZJIdk

Vicente says

It's very freeing to repeat "greed is good" and "fraud doesn't really exist" after all, really helps you sleep.

You are arguing against a straw man.
I don't think anyone believes that "fraud does not exist". The biggest fraudsters are under protection of the state.

gsr says

You are spreading misinformation. Rick Santelli did not support the bailout as far as I can see.

Rick Santelli's employer, CNBC, is owned by General Electric, which received $139 billion in loan guarantees from the federal government to remain in business.

The taxpayers are paying Rick Santelli's salary.

gsr says

You are spreading misinformation. Rick Santelli did not support the bailout as far as I can see.

Santelli was fine with bailouts as long as it went to his friends in finance. When GE Capital Corp got many billions in loans to keep the lights on, was he ranting on-air about that? NOOOPE! He only went Full Teabagger when it started to be expanded to citizens next door.

El HydroCabron says

Rick Santelli's employer, CNBC, is owned by General Electric, which received $139 billion in loan guarantees from the federal government to remain in business.

That was true at the time of his rants, but is no longer true. In 2011, NBCUniversal became 51% owned by Comcast, with GE retaining 49%, and in 2013, it became completely owned by Comcast.

Comcast, of course, has several government regulations that protect its business and raise high barriers to entry to competitors.

Of course, the overall point of HydroCabron (great alias, btw) and Vicente is that Santelli is a cheap hack. He was fine with bailouts for corporate entities but just wanted to ensure the little guy got fucked. According to Santelli, a deal is a deal except when it involves some big bankster.

El HydroCabron says

The taxpayers are paying Rick Santelli's salary.

This is like saying all people in bread lines of a communist society believed in communism.

Vicente says

Santelli was fine with bailouts as long as it went to his friends in finance.

I think 99% of CNBC folks supported bank bailouts, and even more so than Rick Santelli. They always side with big banks, and their frauds.

Vicente says

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

Exactly! For example, some people even claim that Krugman referred to Social Security as a "Ponzi Scheme." They are wrong! He never referred to it as a "Ponzi Scheme," He referred to it as a "Ponzi Game." It is an important distinction in the eyes of those who deny it is any such thing...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/paul-krugman-social-security-ponzi-scheme-and-will-soon-be-over

Vicente says

Former Libertarian here

Oh? I thought you were a former "Staunch Republican?"

corntrollio says

Libertarianism taken to its logical extreme is anarcho-capitalism.

Today's "liberalism" and "progressivism" in the US, taken to its "logical extreme" is complete central government control over the entire economy - totalitarianism.

Vicente says

Rick Santelli and many other finance people like libertarianism. Well at least the parts that say they deserve piles of money any way they can come by it

They ignore the part of Libertarianism that states people can do what-the-fuck-ever they want to as long as they aren't infringing on other people's rights. For example, Libertarianism means that thirty guys can have a butt-fucking orgy in public while a lesbo midget pulls an American flag out of her vag and then blows her nose into it.

Libertarianism says that there should be no rules about either economic or social behavior except those that explicitly protect people's rights.

Republicans who claim Libertarian values only embrace the "no rules for economic" behavior part.

Paralithodes says

Vicente says

Former Libertarian here

Oh? I thought you were a former "Staunch Republican?"

Back in the day I also called myself "independent" sometimes. You know when you are firmly committed to FREEDOM you want to pretend you don't doggedly follow a party. It was strictly COINCIDENCE that I voted for Republicans and was registered as a Republican. Once in a while there was actually a Libertarian on a ballot and maybe I got to throw my vote away there. In retrospect I was staunch Republican with Libertarian crunchy topping, and plenty of hypocrite sauce.

Found a box of Ayn Rand books as well as a bunch of Cato literature in the garage, thinking to toss them in the recycle rather risk spread of the infection therein.

Vicente says

Back in the day I also called myself "independent" sometimes. You know when you are firmly committed to FREEDOM you want to pretend you don't doggedly follow a party. It was strictly COINCIDENCE that I voted for Republicans and was registered as a Republican. Once in a while there was actually a Libertarian on a ballot and maybe I got to throw my vote away there. In retrospect I was staunch Republican with Libertarian crunchy topping, and plenty of hypocrite sauce.

Found a box of Ayn Rand books as well as a bunch of Cato literature in the garage, thinking to toss them in the recycle rather risk spread of the infection therein.

Whats the point of it all, when the only 2 options are full of "hypocrite sauce". Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Pick your poison and stick to it?