Is Libertarianism Ready for Primetime? - GoFuckYourself.com

$5 submissions · 01-06-2011, 02:35 PM

Interesting LIBERAL review of the current wave of libertarianism.

Source: http://nymag.com/print/?/news/politi...82/index5.html

Quote:

For all the talk about casting off government shackles, libertarianism is still considered the crazy uncle of American politics: loud and cocky and occasionally profound but always a bit unhinged. And Rand Paul?s dad is the craziest uncle of all. Ron Paul wants to ?end the Fed,? as the title of his book proclaims, and return the country to the gold standard?stances that have made him a tea-party icon. Now, as incoming chairman of the subcommittee that oversees the Fed, he?ll have an even bigger platform. Paul Sr. says there?s not much daylight between him and his son. ?I can?t think of anything we grossly disagree on,? he says.

There?s never been a better time to be a libertarian than now. The right is still railing against interventionist policies like TARP, the stimulus package, and health-care reform. Citizens of all political stripes recoil against the nanny state, which is nannier than ever, passing anti-smoking laws, banning trans fats, posting calorie counts, prohibiting flavored cigarettes, cracking down on Four Loko, and considering a soda tax in New York. All that, plus some TSA agent wants to handle your baggage.

u-Bob · 01-06-2011, 03:24 PM

Life without the Fed: The Suffolk System

Quote:

Suppose for a moment that Republican Congressman Ron Paul's fondest wish came true, and the Federal Reserve Bank was not only audited but closed down. As far-fetched as such a notion may seem, it would not be the first time in our nation's history that a central bank has been shuttered. For all the Fed's imposing grandeur, Ben Bernanke is running our third (albeit longest-running) try at a central bank. This country has lived without a central bank before and, if given the chance, could do so again. Most every American (led by Paul Krugman), though, would be horrified at the thought.

There are certain functions that, due to their nature, many would argue can only be provided by the political authorities — police and fire protection are the prime examples that come to mind. To the majority of modern men, central banking is without any doubt another. Yet, history tells us that it need not be a government-run affair — private individuals acting outside the bounds of political control have proven entirely capable of providing much the same functions as a central bank, and at a far lower cost, no less.[1] Such was the case with the Suffolk banking system, operated out of Boston from 1824 to 1858.

Before the rise of the system, Boston and its environs had suffered from the same monetary confusion as the rest of our Union. Numerous state-chartered banks issued paper bank notes in profusion, with common criminals and (in some cases) the issuing banks themselves counterfeiting freely. For a merchant in Boston and for any city banker who accepted the notes of distant country banks, the risk that a note might not be worth the paper it was printed on was ever present.

The relatively poor quality of the country-bank-issued versus the city-bank-issued bank notes triggered Gresham's law — bad money drove out the good. To combat this problem a consortium of seven Boston banks formed the Suffolk banking system, and they invited every city and country bank within the New England area to join.

Operations commenced on March 24, 1824, with every member bank required to maintain a permanent, non–interest bearing account at Suffolk, along with an additional account with enough of a balance to clear all paper bank notes presented for redemption. Eventually (and much to the profit of Suffolk) the notes of member banks would be cleared against each other, and loans would be granted for "overdrafts."[2] The system accepted paper notes from all member banks of good standing at par. All paper notes of nonmember banks were immediately sent back to the issuer for redemption in gold.[3]

The original purpose was not to police the currency markets of Boston — that would only come about due to a happy, unintended consequence of the system's operation. The Boston city banks simply wished to broker all the paper notes of the country banks (returning them for redemption in gold) in order to decrease their circulation within Boston proper and open the market for themselves.

While they did not succeed in that endeavor, they did succeed in ridding Boston of its infestation by counterfeit or otherwise worthless paper bank notes, so much so that, within the city, notes issued by country banks that joined the Suffolk system began trading at par to those issued by the city banks. The Suffolk Bank itself, upon taking responsibility for the entire system in 1825, rose to become the most profitable bank in Boston.

There are some historians who claim Suffolk cannot be labeled a central bank, due to its "lack of quantitative control" over the money supply, but this is not correct.[4] The system most certainly did have control over the money supply; else it would have been entirely ineffective. Unlike the modern central banks, though, the Suffolk system was specifically designed to restrict excess circulation of paper bank notes.[5] The directors would frequently threaten any member bank with redemption of their paper notes for the promised gold if they believed that bank to be inflating beyond the bounds of safety. They were aware of an important economic truth — it is the quality rather than the quantity of money that matters.

Contemporaries pointed to the greatest contribution the system made to the people of New England: because it forced all members to maintain a "high ratio of specie to net demand liabilities" the New England banks avoided the carnage experienced elsewhere in the banking industry during the Panic of 1837. The Bank Commission of Maine would later claim that, "The Suffolk System … has proved to be a great safeguard of the public."[6]

By 1858 Suffolk was clearing over $400 million worth of notes per year (ten times the entire money supply of New England[7]) and paying out a higher dividend (and enjoying a higher stock price) than any of her peers.[8] Naturally, this meant things were soon to come to an inglorious end. Upon the entry of a competitor (the Bank of Mutual Redemption) into a market Suffolk had previously held all to itself, the Suffolk Bank grabbed its ball and walked off the field in a huff. It was not forced out of business; it simply quit the note-clearing business.

In a research piece published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis in 2000, the authors ended with the question, "Is there a need for a government-sponsored central bank?"[9] Considering the fact the Suffolk system "grew up without any act of the legislature" we have our answer: "not at all."[10]

http://mises.org/daily/4902

Vendzilla · 01-06-2011, 03:41 PM

Liberatarian party is looking better and better.

I can't buy fruit flavored rolling papers anymore

Can't buy raw milk in california either

BestXXXPorn · 01-06-2011, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u-Bob

Life without the Fed: The Suffolk System

http://mises.org/daily/4902

I <3 me some Mises :D

BestXXXPorn · 01-06-2011, 03:59 PM

I am a Libertarian and here's the thing about Libertarians (the good ones who have a complete understanding anyway).

I know of many party hoppers repub/demo/socialist/greenies/etc...

Once you land on Libertarian you never jump again if you have a complete understanding.

There's a key difference in Libertarians that set themselves apart from every other party. Every other party will tell you that their way is the correct way and they're willing to enforce that via taxation and legislation. They will force you into their way of thinking no matter what because what they believe is the only correct way and everything else and everyONE else is wrong.

Libertarians will tell you that there is no correct way, that's why the absence of so much regulation. Libertarians believe that a government is there to protect your inalienable rights as a human being and no more and no less. They do not want freedoms stripped away and they do not believe there is one "correct set of morals".

It is also the only form of proposed government that can be proven by logic and reason. That is why it is so heavily based on personal / property rights. The object is to remove all emotional driven reactions and decisions and replace them by reason and logic. With everything stemming from person property rights it is easy to see who is violating whose rights. In the case of things like prostitution and drug use, you have no person's rights or property being violated, as long as the drug use and prostitution was voluntary. Therefor you have no crime...

Laws aren't (shouldn't be) based on subjective fucking opinion about whether it's "good" or "bad"... And everyone is (should be) forced to take full responsibility for themselves and their own actions ;)

EDIT: There's also a reason for Libertarians rejecting Keynesian economics... the idea that a small body of people is able to predict the market and make adjustments in order to "stabilize" the market is a fucking joke. If that were the case then they should be on Wall St making more cash then they know what to do with!

Libertarians lean heavily towards the Austrian school of economics which states that is is impossible to determine the future actions of a market because they are so random. Therefor interjecting into the market and regulating it will always cause boom and bust scenarios as the powers that be struggle to balance their own fuck ups, LOL

Actually, here's a great rap that sums it up:

Agent 488 · 01-06-2011, 04:26 PM

libertarians are the mirror image of doctrinaire marxists.

The Demon · 01-06-2011, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u-Bob

Life without the Fed: The Suffolk System

http://mises.org/daily/4902

My favorite website.

$5 submissions · 01-06-2011, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BestXXXPorn;17825624
[youtube

d0nERTFo-Sk[/youtube]

Here's an awesome video about one of the BEST economists ever--F.A. Hayek

brandonstills · 01-06-2011, 05:13 PM

Never really seen a definition of what the Tea Party stands for but I agree with pretty much everything Ron Paul says. I just finished reading "End the Fed" yesterday. Made a lot of sense. Seems like he got most of his philosophy from Austrian economics and the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) philosophy, in particular Atlas Shrugged.

dyna mo · 01-06-2011, 05:23 PM

it seems to me that ron paul's justification for going back on a gold standard is inflation, but not everyone agrees we are in an inflationary period. i don't claim to understand economics well-enough to have an opinion either way but if there's debate about it, i tend to not side with sensationalizing the issues. also, i don't see how the current world economy could be supported by the current amount of gold. especially if it comes to individuals having to own gold for transactions.

but again, it's a complex topic i haven't completely immersed myself in.

brandonstills · 01-06-2011, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BestXXXPorn

It is also the only form of proposed government that can be proven by logic and reason. ...
Laws aren't (shouldn't be) based on subjective fucking opinion about whether it's "good" or "bad"
...
the idea that a small body of people is able to predict the market and make adjustments in order to "stabilize" the market is a fucking joke. If that were the case then they should be on Wall St making more cash then they know what to do with!

Just saw that rap yesterday on Mises. Wonder how many actually understand it.

brandonstills · 01-06-2011, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

it seems to me that ron paul's justification for going back on a gold standard is inflation, but not everyone agrees we are in an inflationary period. i don't claim to understand economics well-enough to have an opinion either way but if there's debate about it, i tend to not side with sensationalizing the issues. also, i don't see how the current world economy could be supported by the current amount of gold. especially if it comes to individuals having to own gold for transactions.

but again, it's a complex topic i haven't completely immersed myself in.

Those in power want you to believe it is complicated. It is really quite simple. Take something that you bought. What did it cost 10 years ago? Is it more or less? More=inflation, less=inflation.

Politics is sensationalized but real economics is not. It is about the facts and deductive reasoning.

Don't pay any attention to the CPI. It's bullshit. Inflation is different for each person since each person spends their money on different things and different things change prices at different rates.

The reason for gold is so that currency actually has real value and so gov't and those in power can't cheat the economy and steal from the general public by inflating the currency.

By printing money everyone who has money has been robbed. Their money is now worth less than it was before. This has a greater affect on the poor and middle class because the rich now how to move their assets to inflation protected assets.

The amount of gold in circulation is irrelevant. It wouldn't have any effect. All prices of goods and labor would go up or down unilaterally based on the amount of gold. It is all relative. If you got paid half as much but everything is half the price has anything really changed?

Transactions don't have to be done in tangible gold, just so much that the currency is 1-to-1 with the amount of gold. You can use electronic transfers, checks, and credit cards just like we currently do.

Busts like the housing crisis are the result of fiat currency and fractional reserve systems. Gold would solve that problem. There are other issues too but that is the main thing.

I encourage you to look into the issues objectively. They are really quite simple and easy to understand. It is just that society has been brainwashed that makes it so confusing.

dyna mo · 01-06-2011, 05:56 PM

i appreciate the econ 101 lesson, those are all concepts i learned in my college econ courses. but the fact remains that even economists can't agree on economics and what is right or wrong.

brandonstills · 01-06-2011, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by $5 submissions

Here's an awesome video about one of the BEST economists ever--F.A. Hayek

Those comments on youtube are hillarous.

Quote:

If she wants to get screwed, economically speaking she'd be better off with Keynes.

I bet she doesn't use a vibrator because Austrians hate artificial stimulus!

Vendzilla · 01-06-2011, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BestXXXPorn

I am a Libertarian and here's the thing about Libertarians (the good ones who have a complete understanding anyway).

I know of many party hoppers repub/demo/socialist/greenies/etc...

Once you land on Libertarian you never jump again if you have a complete understanding.

There's a key difference in Libertarians that set themselves apart from every other party. Every other party will tell you that their way is the correct way and they're willing to enforce that via taxation and legislation. They will force you into their way of thinking no matter what because what they believe is the only correct way and everything else and everyONE else is wrong.

Libertarians will tell you that there is no correct way, that's why the absence of so much regulation. Libertarians believe that a government is there to protect your inalienable rights as a human being and no more and no less. They do not want freedoms stripped away and they do not believe there is one "correct set of morals".

It is also the only form of proposed government that can be proven by logic and reason. That is why it is so heavily based on personal / property rights. The object is to remove all emotional driven reactions and decisions and replace them by reason and logic. With everything stemming from person property rights it is easy to see who is violating whose rights. In the case of things like prostitution and drug use, you have no person's rights or property being violated, as long as the drug use and prostitution was voluntary. Therefor you have no crime...

Laws aren't (shouldn't be) based on subjective fucking opinion about whether it's "good" or "bad"... And everyone is (should be) forced to take full responsibility for themselves and their own actions ;)

EDIT: There's also a reason for Libertarians rejecting Keynesian economics... the idea that a small body of people is able to predict the market and make adjustments in order to "stabilize" the market is a fucking joke. If that were the case then they should be on Wall St making more cash then they know what to do with!

Libertarians lean heavily towards the Austrian school of economics which states that is is impossible to determine the future actions of a market because they are so random. Therefor interjecting into the market and regulating it will always cause boom and bust scenarios as the powers that be struggle to balance their own fuck ups, LOL

Actually, here's a great rap that sums it up:

Good read, thank you

brandonstills · 01-06-2011, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

i appreciate the econ 101 lesson, those are all concepts i learned in my college econ courses. but the fact remains that even economists can't agree on economics and what is right or wrong.

Those who predicted the past and those who make logical sense have a higher probability of being right in the future. That's how I look at it. The fact that others disagree doesn't concern me. Majority vote is not an accurate epistemology (means of obtaining truth).

Keynes makes sense at first but not when you look into it more. Hayek came around and showed why Keynes was wrong. It is the same throughout the history of science.

First the sun revolving around the earth. Then that was proven wrong in favor of the sun and other bodies having perfect orbits around the earth. Then elliptical orbits. Then Newton's laws, then Einstein and relativity. Now even to this day we know Einstein was wrong and they are looking into string theory.

I don't see how anyone can RATIONALLY study both Keynesian economics and Austrian economics and not see the gaping holes former. I think Keynes gets favored because lots of people get a free lunch at the expense of taxpayer and those in power have the most to gain and they are the ones in control of the gov't and education. Austrian is also newer so it hasn't circulated as much. How many people have heard of E=MC^2 vs string theory?

There was a time when people thought the earth was flat. It's just a matter of time until "we aren't all Keynesians now".

dyna mo · 01-06-2011, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandonstills

Those who predicted the past and those who make logical sense have a higher probability of being right in the future. That's how I look at it. The fact that others disagree doesn't concern me. Majority vote is not an accurate epistemology (means of obtaining truth).

Keynes makes sense at first but not when you look into it more. Hayek came around and showed why Keynes was wrong. It is the same throughout the history of science.

First the sun revolving around the earth. Then that was proven wrong in favor of the sun and other bodies having perfect orbits around the earth. Then elliptical orbits. Then Newton's laws, then Einstein and relativity. Now even to this day we know Einstein was wrong and they are looking into string theory.

I don't see how anyone can RATIONALLY study both Keynesian economics and Austrian economics and not see the gaping holes former. I think Keynes gets favored because lots of people get a free lunch at the expense of taxpayer and those in power have the most to gain and they are the ones in control of the gov't and education. Austrian is also newer so it hasn't circulated as much. How many people have heard of E=MC^2 vs string theory?

There was a time when people thought the earth was flat. It's just a matter of time until "we aren't all Keynesians now".

i don't disagree that keynesian economics is flawed. but that doesn't mean that ron paul is right re: a return to the gold standard. i'm not saying he's wrong, far from it. but relying on the scare tactics that he does, it comes across as politics as usual. i am unable to forget the simple fact that ron paul is a part of the system, moreover, he's a career politician.

brandonstills · 01-06-2011, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

i don't disagree that keynesian economics is flawed. but that doesn't mean that ron paul is right re: a return to the gold standard. i'm not saying he's wrong, far from it. but relying on the scare tactics that he does, it comes across as politics as usual. i am unable to forget the simple fact that ron paul is a part of the system, moreover, he's a career politician.

I suppose it could be interpreted that way but he does explain himself if you look into it more.

Is telling a child don't put your hand on the stove because you will get burnt a scare tactic though? And even if it is, does it negate the truth? Also, if you want to affect change, the sad fact is, people respond more to emotions than facts. If a smart person wanted to effect change they would present both an emotional and a rational case, with the greater part dedicated to the former; because that seems to be what works the best.

Ultimately you have to look at what is presented and not how it is presented when trying to find truth and come to your own opinion.

If you are interested, this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Rich-Dads-Advi...4364503&sr=8-1

gives a more objective explanation on the problems with fiat currency and why gold is necessary.

Historical evidence and reason seem to be on the side of a gold standard. Public opinion seems to be on the side of fiat currency. Take your pick.

dyna mo · 01-06-2011, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandonstills

I suppose it could be interpreted that way but he does explain himself if you look into it more.

Is telling a child don't put your hand on the stove because you will get burnt a scare tactic though? And even if it is, does it negate the truth? Also, if you want to affect change, the sad fact is, people respond more to emotions than facts. If a smart person wanted to effect change they would present both an emotional and a rational case, with the greater part dedicated to the former; because that seems to be what works the best.

Ultimately you have to look at what is presented and not how it is presented when trying to find truth and come to your own opinion.

If you are interested, this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Rich-Dads-Advi...4364503&sr=8-1

gives a more objective explanation on the problems with fiat currency and why gold is necessary.

Historical evidence and reason seem to be on the side of a gold standard. Public opinion seems to be on the side of fiat currency. Take your pick.

thanks for the book recommendation. and i agree about fiat currency. i also see pauls' point that historically no paper currency has ever lasted. but i also don't see it as being so simple to revert back to the gold standard. i mean one day we are on paper money and a loaf of bread is $3 the next day all transactions world wide are done with gold backed transactions and a loaf of bread is all the sudden .49c, i don't see it happening that way.

brandonstills · 01-06-2011, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

thanks for the book recommendation. and i agree about fiat currency. i also see pauls' point that historically no paper currency has ever lasted. but i also don't see it as being so simple to revert back to the gold standard. i mean one day we are on paper money and a loaf of bread is $3 the next day all transactions world wide are done with gold backed transactions and a loaf of bread is all the sudden .49c, i don't see it happening that way.

Ah, yes, I probably didn't understand what you were getting at. That is indeed a big transition and I'm not sure either how we could make that transition possible. I think the first hurdle is convincing people that it must happen. Once there is more agreement on that I imagine some innovative ideas on how we can do that will start to pop up.

Bill8 · 01-06-2011, 07:57 PM

I've been registered libertarian for all but two of the last 30 years.

sadly, however, I recognize that libertarians can't govern, by definition, in any society than even vaguely resembles our own.

because libertaranism requires a well educated and well informed citizenry - and this is impossible in a consumer society, who wouldn't consume all this tripe if they were well educated and well informed.

libertarianism also requires a society of equals, with equal access to the machinery of justice. this is impossible in a consumer society, which requires a perpetually expanding consumer class which is lower in power and information access than the plutocratic producer class.

the corrupted form of non-libertarian libertarianism proomoted by people like Ron Paul is a cover for just another plutocracy.

however, it would be hilarious to see Ron Paul get the nomination for reoublican presidential candidate, and I dearly hope you republicans and non-libertrian libertarians are able to pull it off.

I'd even vote for him. as a way to hasten the collapse of this ponzi scam of a society.

Slutboat · 01-17-2011, 04:47 AM

You guys crack me up. To say that you agree with the sheer LUNACY that is Libertarianism is to say one thing: You want the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.

Seems none of you realize that the whole Libertarian phylosophy is cooked by affluent racists so they can stop helping poor people, namely black people, and stop paying federal taxes and end public schools and social security and all social programs. Great let's let the crazy Libertarian nut jobs isolate locally into their tight white and right little communities so the inner city ghettos fall deeper into shit holes, old people get thier electricity turned off and poor people can make some nice tent cities to live in.

Libertarianism is the most vile and anti American doctrine of our age and it will never gain any widspread traction outside of the fringe wacko rich right. The only middle or lower class people who would ever embrace such policies, as in the case of the backward inbred Teabagger crowd, that would be so drastically against their interests would only do by being duped into this crap by the exploitation of their fear of government and deep rooted racism.

wig · 01-17-2011, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandonstills

Those in power want you to believe it is complicated. It is really quite simple. Take something that you bought. What did it cost 10 years ago? Is it more or less? More=inflation, less=inflation.

Economics is not simple. First, it is not a hard science so it is not possible to conclude absolute truths in most instances. If you find that it is simple, it is probably a sign that you are reading the simpleton version of it.

Second, I assume you meant ?less=deflation?. Mainstream economists and policy makers all agree that moderate inflation is the target. This is because ideal inflation (0%) is virtually impossible to achieve and the risk and consequences of deflation are purposely trying to be avoided.

The reason 1-2% inflation is the usual target is because it encourages investment and production, and results in a growing economic environment. If prices are falling (deflation) investors, producers and consumers are tempted to avoid investing, producing and consuming because they anticipate that prices will be even cheaper if they postpone.

Quote:

Politics is sensationalized but real economics is not. It is about the facts and deductive reasoning.

I don't believe there is much room for long chains of deductive reasoning in economics.

Quote:

Don't pay any attention to the CPI. It's bullshit. Inflation is different for each person since each person spends their money on different things and different things change prices at different rates.

Only conspiracy theorists think the CPI is bullshit. Just because individuals vary on where they spend their money, does not mean that the CPI is not a real reflection of prices contained within the CPI. Your statement is a non-sequitur.

Quote:

The reason for gold is so that currency actually has real value and so gov't and those in power can't cheat the economy and steal from the general public by inflating the currency.

Incorrect. Gold backed money (commodity money) can lose value just like fiat money. The problem is compounded because it is less predictable and less stable, and not in control of the gov't. Example: A new gold mine opens up and the value of your commodity money plunges.

And there are more problems... Gold backed money has been tried before and it has been abandoned. That in and of itself should tell you something (and hopefully it?s not some CT conclusion that involves Jewish bankers and the illuminati). It was abandoned because commodity backed money constricted the money supply, causing deflation and preventing a recovery.

Furthermore, the US would need to fix the dollar to roughly $10,000/oz. so that there would be more than enough gold to support the current economy. There would be extreme economic dislocation, HOWEVER the main point to keep in mind is that you can only do it ONCE.

Any countries that went back on the gold standard would be at the mercy of speculators as well as external events and unable to keep their economies from crashing.

Quote:

By printing money everyone who has money has been robbed. Their money is now worth less than it was before. This has a greater affect on the poor and middle class because the rich now how to move their assets to inflation protected assets.

The rich will always have an advantage over the middle class / poor, but everyone has the opportunity to choose assets that benefit in a normal economy.

Quote:

The amount of gold in circulation is irrelevant. It wouldn't have any effect. All prices of goods and labor would go up or down unilaterally based on the amount of gold. It is all relative. If you got paid half as much but everything is half the price has anything really changed?

It is absolutely relevant as I explained above.

Quote:

Transactions don't have to be done in tangible gold, just so much that the currency is 1-to-1 with the amount of gold. You can use electronic transfers, checks, and credit cards just like we currently do.

After the deflationary collapse, perhaps.

Quote:

Busts like the housing crisis are the result of fiat currency and fractional reserve systems. Gold would solve that problem. There are other issues too but that is the main thing.

How do you explain past bubbles like Tulip mania, the South Sea Bubble, etc?

Quote:

snip YouTube videos

I don't think YouTube videos are an adequate source. Do you have any other material (books perhaps) that you think better argue for a return to the gold standard?

Quote:

I encourage you to look into the issues objectively. They are really quite simple and easy to understand. It is just that society has been brainwashed that makes it so confusing.

It seems that society is being brainwashed to believe economics is a simple subject when it is not. It is hard to find highly educated economists who agree on everything, which should tell you something.

JC Maldini · 01-17-2011, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slutboat

You guys crack me up. To say that you agree with the sheer LUNACY that is Libertarianism is to say one thing: You want the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.

Seems none of you realize that the whole Libertarian phylosophy is cooked by affluent racists so they can stop helping poor people, namely black people, and stop paying federal taxes and end public schools and social security and all social programs. Great let's let the crazy Libertarian nut jobs isolate locally into their tight white and right little communities so the inner city ghettos fall deeper into shit holes, old people get thier electricity turned off and poor people can make some nice tent cities to live in.

Libertarianism is the most vile and anti American doctrine of our age and it will never gain any widspread traction outside of the fringe wacko rich right. The only middle or lower class people who would ever embrace such policies, as in the case of the backward inbred Teabagger crowd, that would be so drastically against their interests would only do by being duped into this crap by the exploitation of their fear of government and deep rooted racism.

Thank you! I needed a good laugh to start my week. You might want to expand your awareness before letting everyone know...exactly how little you know

Slutboat · 01-17-2011, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JC Maldini

Thank you! I needed a good laugh to start my week. You might want to expand your awareness before letting everyone know...exactly how little you know

Bullshit I'm very well informed and have very extensive knowledge of the Libertarian Party, it's history, the various platforms it stands for and the current surge (scourge) in it's popularity due to the rise of the ultra-racist all white (nearly) Tea Party. And it certainly is no "Wave" of popularity just because some inbred Kentucky hillbilly got elected to congress. Rand Paul.. what a joke, he wants to let restaurant owners put up signs that say "No Nggers Allowed" is that the America you want to return to?

The Libertarian philosophy is the biggest pile of horseshit ever to dump its steaming right wing crap on this nation. Hey great you want individual PROPERTY RIGHTS for ultimate freedom for land owners! Too bad if you don't own property or are on public assistance. This is the same crowd that wanted total freedom for slave owners - Hey you want no government interference in your total freedoms! This is the same bullshit the south was saying about the "aggression" or the north prior to the civil war. You guys are such vile anti-American assholes - your wacko ideals would be scary if they weren't so irrelevant as to be almost meaningless.

The Libertarinuts want to abolish all social programs including social security, medicare, medicade, and any public assistance and health care for the poor - you want to abolish the public school system and let the "free market" determine who gets educated - are you fuckers NUTS? Yea great idea - lets let 95 percent of all the kids in the inner cities grow up illiterate! Cool! Watch the ghettos double or triple in size in the first decade, watch crime spiral out of control and the murder rate skyrocket.

The Libertaricunts want to privatize and localize all fire departments and get rid of publicly funded emergency rooms, hey great idea guys! You didn't pay your local fire safety fees? Sorry gotta let your house burn! Don't cry about it slacker!

Libertarians want to privatize and localize all police departments and let them make up their own local laws and enforce only those that they wish to - uh oh your area too poor to afford cops, no 911 for you pal.. oh another lynching in Bama - the cops don't have to do shit because there is only local oversight.. great idea clowns!

So you don't like Unions - get rid of em! Who needs a middle class right? Oh and fair trade, fuck that! No dirty federal government should try to force the SACRED CORPORATION to keep it's factories in the US though any stinking tariffs right?

Abortion? Oh thats a local matter - if your local council doesn't want to allow abortion then let them force 14 year old girls to have their cherry poppin fathers baby right! Thats a local issue, no feds can interfere... it's all about FREEDOM.

Oh and bring on the Militias and we better have them well armed! In case those dirty stinking feds try to come around our FREE LANDS.. haAnd NO government restrictions on the Holy Corporation's right to pollute the environment, of course polluting the environment is bad for business so the free market will make sure things stay clean right? Gimme a fucking break.

The nice thing about Libertarianism is that it exists only as pure fantasy, not even the mildest form of it could ever exist, in this country at least, so go ahead and shake your white fist at the clouds in anger at having to pay taxes to help your fellow poor black man get outta the hood you fucking greed mongers, the Fed aint going away anytime soon.

Slutboat · 01-18-2011, 10:35 PM

Brandon let's hear your take on the effect on the economy that the destruction of the social programs that Libertarians advocate for would have. It's well documented that this money is actually spent by poor people and thus injected back into the economy. The Libertarian theory is the tax savings individuals would get would allow for voluntary local programs and charitable orginizations to help the poor and old and sick. Can anyone say with a straight face that this is anything but pure fantasy? That money would just be horded into the savings of the affluent and pulled from the economy - Libertarianism is nothing less than an upward redistribution of weath to the privliged.

Barry-xlovecam · 01-19-2011, 03:58 AM

The majority of the American people are not in favor of Libertarianism. Libertarians cannot buy enough TV time to convince them ...

I saw it on TV (now the Internet) so it must be true!

Cynical but realistic I am afraid.

slavdogg · 01-19-2011, 04:18 AM

wig, its nice to see you posting again and teaching gfyers some common sense.

slavdogg · 01-19-2011, 04:20 AM

wig, whats your opinion of Libertarianism ?

TCLGirls · 01-19-2011, 04:39 AM

I once heard a Libertarian speaker advocate for abolishing tax payer funded law enforcement/police, and instead having those services provided exclusively under private contract.

If this is a commonly held belief among Libertarians, then they really are wacko and a danger to society. Because in such a scenario, only the people who pay for police protection/services will actually receive it. Furthermore, the payers will be able to use the police as their private "enforcement agency" against the non-payers regardless of the law. Money rules. Non-payers, be prepared to be harassed to no end.

bl4h · 01-19-2011, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

I once heard a Libertarian speaker advocate for abolishing tax payer funded law enforcement/police, and instead having those services provided exclusively under private contract.

If this is a commonly held belief among Libertarians, then they really are wacko and a danger to society. Because in such a scenario, only the people who pay for police protection/services will actually receive it. Furthermore, the payers will be able to use the police as their private "enforcement agency" against the non-payers regardless of the law. Money rules. Non-payers, be prepared to be harassed to no end.

I wouldnt recommend that for POLICE. but realistically, I could get Chinese food delivered faster than a police response in my city in most cases

wig · 01-19-2011, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slavdogg

wig, whats your opinion of Libertarianism ?

Hi Slav,

I guess someone would need to provide a definition first since there seems to be so many versions.

I think I can agree to the general idea of people being free to think and act in such ways as he/she likes as long as he/she respects the rights of other individuals.

I think in this sense I have a streak of libertarianism, but perhaps that's where it stops. I suppose someone could offer other attributes of libertarian thinking that I would subscribe to.

Contrariwise, radical dismantling of the government and regulation, a return to the gold standard, abolition of the FED in favor of crackpot alternatives, etc. are all lunacy, based mostly on conspiracy theory beliefs and/or sheer ignorance, IMHO.

I'm kind of a-political anyway -- meaning I don't know enough to hold a strong position or maintain any political alliance. I guess I'm the tired blend of fiscally conservative (in good times) and socially liberal, with a streak of libertarianism.

How about you?

CaptainHowdy · 01-19-2011, 05:45 AM

Looks like a big fat "no"...

Slutboat · 01-19-2011, 09:21 AM

Did someone say crackpot? Bingo.

Libertarianism would be easy to dismiss for the crackpot idiology that it is if it weren't for this present flare up of right wing fear and anger being fabricated by the Teapublicans and inflicted on the US like a disease.

You want a nice chuckle read the platform of these goons and read between the lines of what they are advocating for which is basically amounts to pure class seperatist, IE WHITE seperatist nonsense.

http://www.lp.org/platform

slavdogg · 01-19-2011, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wig

Hi Slav,

I guess someone would need to provide a definition first since there seems to be so many versions.

I think I can agree to the general idea of people being free to think and act in such ways as he/she likes as long as he/she respects the rights of other individuals.

I think in this sense I have a streak of libertarianism, but perhaps that's where it stops. I suppose someone could offer other attributes of libertarian thinking that I would subscribe to.

Contrariwise, radical dismantling of the government and regulation, a return to the gold standard, abolition of the FED in favor of crackpot alternatives, etc. are all lunacy, based mostly on conspiracy theory beliefs and/or sheer ignorance, IMHO.

I'm kind of a-political anyway -- meaning I don't know enough to hold a strong position or maintain any political alliance. I guess I'm the tired blend of fiscally conservative (in good times) and socially liberal, with a streak of libertarianism.

How about you?

yeah i'm in agreement with you on all points.
I suspect libertarianism is kinda like the early conservative movement prior to Raegon. Most people dont understand what it stands for, but most are finding something they like about it. I once took an online test for libertarianism and i was way off, but i still find major aspects about it i like and support.

Fed, Treasury, Police, Fire should all stay as is, everything else can be privatized IMO

Bill8 · 01-19-2011, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slutboat

Did someone say crackpot? Bingo.

Libertarianism would be easy to dismiss for the crackpot idiology that it is if it weren't for this present flare up of right wing fear and anger being fabricated by the Teapublicans and inflicted on the US like a disease.

You want a nice chuckle read the platform of these goons and read between the lines of what they are advocating for which is basically amounts to pure class seperatist, IE WHITE seperatist nonsense.

http://www.lp.org/platform

libertarians can't govern, there is no doubt of that. and the "official" platforms one sees are an exercise in the inability to govern.

but, libertarians wouldn't engage in wars of agression and adventure - which means pretty much all the wars of the last 50 years. the "war on drugs" would be shut down, as would the sex wars, marriage wars, and all the victimless crime persecutions.

under classic libertarian theory the weak would need less protection from the strong, because under classic libertarianism the primary role of government is to provide strong fair courts, unlike the plutocratic court system we have now. the theory is, strong courts and completely fair access to the rule of law makes the role of government as special protector of the weak (and the corruption that invites) irrelevant.

I'm sure the flaw in that concept is obvious - who makes the plutocrats give up their priviledged access to courts and government?

the type of libertarianism one commonly sees these days is a clownish caricature of classic libertarianism.

and classic libertarianism can't work, as I said, because it requires an educated populace.

If either party, the dems or the republicans, ended the wars on victimless crimes, and ended wars of adventure and military empire to support the multinational corporations, they'd have integrated enough libertarianism to satisfy most people.

$5 submissions · 01-19-2011, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill8

under classic libertarian theory the weak would need less protection from the strong, because under classic libertarianism the primary role of government is to provide strong fair courts, unlike the plutocratic court system we have now. the theory is, strong courts and completely fair access to the rule of law makes the role of government as special protector of the weak (and the corruption that invites) irrelevant.

THIS!

$5 submissions · 01-20-2011, 03:14 PM

I'm not so sure about privatizing the police. There's corruption and conflict of interest in the prviate sphere as well. Also, as Milton Friedman concedes, there are EXTERNALITIES that can't be fixed by normal market forces. For EXTERNALITIES we need government.

Bill8 · 01-20-2011, 04:14 PM

privatizing police isn't all that common a libertarian concern. it's one of the cartoons used to dismiss the moral arguments of libertarianism.

because fair courts are a strong and nearly universal libertarian concern, and ending the war on drugs and the outlawing of consensual adult behaviors is a nearly universal libertarian concern, much of the "work" that police, courts, lawyers, prisons, and the whole crime industry do on taxpayer money would be ended, and police would be focused on investigating violence and property crime.

police departments would dramatically shrink, and the multi billion dollar a year crime industry would dramatically shrink, saving taxpayers trillions over time.

which is what libertarian theory says they should be doing.

then, individuals and communities can contract out extra private police services if they chose. They shouldn't have to do so as much, without the crime industry to promote crime.

just as providing for the common defense is considered a legitmate role of government (but NOT wars of adventure), most classic libertarians say having a much reduced police force for investigating REAL crimes (not the artificial ones created by government decree, typically based covertly on enforcing a religious precept, like the war on drugs or prostitution and other moral "crimes") is part of governments legitimate role.

now the flaw in this theory is also obvious - who enforces the rulings of the courts? if the rich can buy private armies, how does the court protect the weak?

of course none of his can happen, because the crime industry (police, courts, prisons, lawyers, psychologists, and all teh institutions) is rich and powerful, and they aren't going to give up their cash cow.

libertarians can't govern, and even a small amount of thinking will reveal why.

arock10 · 01-20-2011, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill8

libertarians can't govern, there is no doubt of that. and the "official" platforms one sees are an exercise in the inability to govern.

but, libertarians wouldn't engage in wars of agression and adventure - which means pretty much all the wars of the last 50 years. the "war on drugs" would be shut down, as would the sex wars, marriage wars, and all the victimless crime persecutions.

under classic libertarian theory the weak would need less protection from the strong, because under classic libertarianism the primary role of government is to provide strong fair courts, unlike the plutocratic court system we have now. the theory is, strong courts and completely fair access to the rule of law makes the role of government as special protector of the weak (and the corruption that invites) irrelevant.

I'm sure the flaw in that concept is obvious - who makes the plutocrats give up their priviledged access to courts and government?

the type of libertarianism one commonly sees these days is a clownish caricature of classic libertarianism.

and classic libertarianism can't work, as I said, because it requires an educated populace.

If either party, the dems or the republicans, ended the wars on victimless crimes, and ended wars of adventure and military empire to support the multinational corporations, they'd have integrated enough libertarianism to satisfy most people.

ok to summarize libertarianism is an unattainable fantasy?

CaptainHowdy · 01-20-2011, 06:04 PM

Any Green Party advocates??

Bill8 · 01-20-2011, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arock10

ok to summarize libertarianism is an unattainable fantasy?

in any pure form, yes.

some of the conceptual principles could be alloyed into either democrat or republican policy, and tested.

this could give that party a strong political advantage.

the problem of course is that we live in a covert plutocracy, so neither the dems or the repubs have any actual power to shape their own policies.

the plutocrats decide what happens. the parties are just bread and circuses whose purpose is to provide a cover for the actual decisionmaking.

which is another reason why libertarians can't govern. they have no response to plutocracy, and plutocracy isn't part of the theory.

plutocrats like having a cover government with a massive cash flow and the power to redistribute wealth the ways the plutocrats want. so they see no benefit in adding libertarian principles.

so no worries, libertarianism is not ever going to happen. that makes it a perfect voter registration for whacked out internet free thinkers like me.

Bill8 · 01-20-2011, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy

Any Green Party advocates??

I like the greens. their policy platforms make them unelectable tho, now.

if the global temps continue to rise, and fossil carbon prices continue to rise, that will change.

theking · 01-20-2011, 06:35 PM

In answer to the OP's question...no.

01-06-2011, 03:41 PM	#3
Vendzilla Biker Gnome Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: cell#324 Posts: 23,200	Liberatarian party is looking better and better. I can't buy fruit flavored rolling papers anymore Can't buy raw milk in california either __________________ Webair died? Carbon is not the problem, it makes up 0.041% of our atmosphere , 95% of that is from Volcanos and decomposing plants and stuff. So people in the US are responsible for 13% of the carbon in the atmosphere which 95% is not from Humans, like cars and trucks and stuff and they want to spend trillions to fix it while Solar Panel plants are powered by coal plants think about that

01-06-2011, 03:59 PM	#5
BestXXXPorn Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Asheville, NC Posts: 2,277	I am a Libertarian and here's the thing about Libertarians (the good ones who have a complete understanding anyway). I know of many party hoppers repub/demo/socialist/greenies/etc... Once you land on Libertarian you never jump again if you have a complete understanding. There's a key difference in Libertarians that set themselves apart from every other party. Every other party will tell you that their way is the correct way and they're willing to enforce that via taxation and legislation. They will force you into their way of thinking no matter what because what they believe is the only correct way and everything else and everyONE else is wrong. Libertarians will tell you that there is no correct way, that's why the absence of so much regulation. Libertarians believe that a government is there to protect your inalienable rights as a human being and no more and no less. They do not want freedoms stripped away and they do not believe there is one "correct set of morals". It is also the only form of proposed government that can be proven by logic and reason. That is why it is so heavily based on personal / property rights. The object is to remove all emotional driven reactions and decisions and replace them by reason and logic. With everything stemming from person property rights it is easy to see who is violating whose rights. In the case of things like prostitution and drug use, you have no person's rights or property being violated, as long as the drug use and prostitution was voluntary. Therefor you have no crime... Laws aren't (shouldn't be) based on subjective fucking opinion about whether it's "good" or "bad"... And everyone is (should be) forced to take full responsibility for themselves and their own actions ;) EDIT: There's also a reason for Libertarians rejecting Keynesian economics... the idea that a small body of people is able to predict the market and make adjustments in order to "stabilize" the market is a fucking joke. If that were the case then they should be on Wall St making more cash then they know what to do with! Libertarians lean heavily towards the Austrian school of economics which states that is is impossible to determine the future actions of a market because they are so random. Therefor interjecting into the market and regulating it will always cause boom and bust scenarios as the powers that be struggle to balance their own fuck ups, LOL Actually, here's a great rap that sums it up: __________________ ICQ: 258-202-811 \| Email: eric{at}bestxxxporn.com Last edited by BestXXXPorn; 01-06-2011 at 04:09 PM..

01-06-2011, 05:13 PM	#9
brandonstills Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Chatsworth, CA Posts: 1,964	Never really seen a definition of what the Tea Party stands for but I agree with pretty much everything Ron Paul says. I just finished reading "End the Fed" yesterday. Made a lot of sense. Seems like he got most of his philosophy from Austrian economics and the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) philosophy, in particular Atlas Shrugged. __________________ Brandon Stills Industry and programming veteran [email protected] \| skype: brandonstills \| ICQ #495-171-318

01-17-2011, 04:47 AM	#22
Slutboat Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 2,388	You guys crack me up. To say that you agree with the sheer LUNACY that is Libertarianism is to say one thing: You want the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. Seems none of you realize that the whole Libertarian phylosophy is cooked by affluent racists so they can stop helping poor people, namely black people, and stop paying federal taxes and end public schools and social security and all social programs. Great let's let the crazy Libertarian nut jobs isolate locally into their tight white and right little communities so the inner city ghettos fall deeper into shit holes, old people get thier electricity turned off and poor people can make some nice tent cities to live in. Libertarianism is the most vile and anti American doctrine of our age and it will never gain any widspread traction outside of the fringe wacko rich right. The only middle or lower class people who would ever embrace such policies, as in the case of the backward inbred Teabagger crowd, that would be so drastically against their interests would only do by being duped into this crap by the exploitation of their fear of government and deep rooted racism. __________________ The Slut Boat soon will be making another run The Slut Boat promises something for everyone Last edited by Slutboat; 01-17-2011 at 04:57 AM..

01-18-2011, 10:35 PM	#26
Slutboat Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 2,388	Brandon let's hear your take on the effect on the economy that the destruction of the social programs that Libertarians advocate for would have. It's well documented that this money is actually spent by poor people and thus injected back into the economy. The Libertarian theory is the tax savings individuals would get would allow for voluntary local programs and charitable orginizations to help the poor and old and sick. Can anyone say with a straight face that this is anything but pure fantasy? That money would just be horded into the savings of the affluent and pulled from the economy - Libertarianism is nothing less than an upward redistribution of weath to the privliged. __________________ The Slut Boat soon will be making another run The Slut Boat promises something for everyone

01-06-2011, 04:26 PM	#6
Agent 488 Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 22,511	libertarians are the mirror image of doctrinaire marxists.

01-06-2011, 05:23 PM	#10
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 65,042	it seems to me that ron paul's justification for going back on a gold standard is inflation, but not everyone agrees we are in an inflationary period. i don't claim to understand economics well-enough to have an opinion either way but if there's debate about it, i tend to not side with sensationalizing the issues. also, i don't see how the current world economy could be supported by the current amount of gold. especially if it comes to individuals having to own gold for transactions. but again, it's a complex topic i haven't completely immersed myself in.

01-06-2011, 05:56 PM	#13
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 65,042	i appreciate the econ 101 lesson, those are all concepts i learned in my college econ courses. but the fact remains that even economists can't agree on economics and what is right or wrong.

01-06-2011, 07:57 PM	#21
Bill8 Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 1,901	I've been registered libertarian for all but two of the last 30 years. sadly, however, I recognize that libertarians can't govern, by definition, in any society than even vaguely resembles our own. because libertaranism requires a well educated and well informed citizenry - and this is impossible in a consumer society, who wouldn't consume all this tripe if they were well educated and well informed. libertarianism also requires a society of equals, with equal access to the machinery of justice. this is impossible in a consumer society, which requires a perpetually expanding consumer class which is lower in power and information access than the plutocratic producer class. the corrupted form of non-libertarian libertarianism proomoted by people like Ron Paul is a cover for just another plutocracy. however, it would be hilarious to see Ron Paul get the nomination for reoublican presidential candidate, and I dearly hope you republicans and non-libertrian libertarians are able to pull it off. I'd even vote for him. as a way to hasten the collapse of this ponzi scam of a society.

01-19-2011, 03:58 AM	#27
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	The majority of the American people are not in favor of Libertarianism. Libertarians cannot buy enough TV time to convince them ... I saw it on TV (now the Internet) so it must be true! Cynical but realistic I am afraid.

01-19-2011, 04:18 AM	#28
slavdogg Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 3,570	wig, its nice to see you posting again and teaching gfyers some common sense. __________________ Adult Traffic for Sale

01-19-2011, 04:20 AM	#29
slavdogg Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 3,570	wig, whats your opinion of Libertarianism ? __________________ Adult Traffic for Sale

01-19-2011, 04:39 AM	#30
TCLGirls Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: California Posts: 3,068	I once heard a Libertarian speaker advocate for abolishing tax payer funded law enforcement/police, and instead having those services provided exclusively under private contract. If this is a commonly held belief among Libertarians, then they really are wacko and a danger to society. Because in such a scenario, only the people who pay for police protection/services will actually receive it. Furthermore, the payers will be able to use the police as their private "enforcement agency" against the non-payers regardless of the law. Money rules. Non-payers, be prepared to be harassed to no end.

01-19-2011, 05:45 AM	#33
CaptainHowdy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Happy in the dark. Posts: 93,461	Looks like a big fat "no"... __________________ Tjeezers.cam plus all sites $12.000,00. Transfer within 24 hours.

01-19-2011, 09:21 AM	#34
Slutboat Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 2,388	Did someone say crackpot? Bingo. Libertarianism would be easy to dismiss for the crackpot idiology that it is if it weren't for this present flare up of right wing fear and anger being fabricated by the Teapublicans and inflicted on the US like a disease. You want a nice chuckle read the platform of these goons and read between the lines of what they are advocating for which is basically amounts to pure class seperatist, IE WHITE seperatist nonsense. http://www.lp.org/platform __________________ The Slut Boat soon will be making another run The Slut Boat promises something for everyone

01-20-2011, 03:14 PM	#38
$5 submissions I help you SUCCEED Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: The Pearl of the Orient Seas Posts: 32,195	I'm not so sure about privatizing the police. There's corruption and conflict of interest in the prviate sphere as well. Also, as Milton Friedman concedes, there are EXTERNALITIES that can't be fixed by normal market forces. For EXTERNALITIES we need government. __________________ Need a NON-ADULT income stream? We build your YOUTUBE CHANNEL for only $20 per video! For Hire: $3/hour or $400 per month Marketing Specialist Virtual Assistants

01-20-2011, 04:14 PM	#39
Bill8 Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 1,901	privatizing police isn't all that common a libertarian concern. it's one of the cartoons used to dismiss the moral arguments of libertarianism. because fair courts are a strong and nearly universal libertarian concern, and ending the war on drugs and the outlawing of consensual adult behaviors is a nearly universal libertarian concern, much of the "work" that police, courts, lawyers, prisons, and the whole crime industry do on taxpayer money would be ended, and police would be focused on investigating violence and property crime. police departments would dramatically shrink, and the multi billion dollar a year crime industry would dramatically shrink, saving taxpayers trillions over time. which is what libertarian theory says they should be doing. then, individuals and communities can contract out extra private police services if they chose. They shouldn't have to do so as much, without the crime industry to promote crime. just as providing for the common defense is considered a legitmate role of government (but NOT wars of adventure), most classic libertarians say having a much reduced police force for investigating REAL crimes (not the artificial ones created by government decree, typically based covertly on enforcing a religious precept, like the war on drugs or prostitution and other moral "crimes") is part of governments legitimate role. now the flaw in this theory is also obvious - who enforces the rulings of the courts? if the rich can buy private armies, how does the court protect the weak? of course none of his can happen, because the crime industry (police, courts, prisons, lawyers, psychologists, and all teh institutions) is rich and powerful, and they aren't going to give up their cash cow. libertarians can't govern, and even a small amount of thinking will reveal why.

01-20-2011, 06:04 PM	#41
CaptainHowdy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Happy in the dark. Posts: 93,461	Any Green Party advocates?? __________________ Tjeezers.cam plus all sites $12.000,00. Transfer within 24 hours.

01-20-2011, 06:35 PM	#44
theking Nice Kitty Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: The good old USA!!! Posts: 21,053	In answer to the OP's question...no. __________________ When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me! FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html