even though i believe Your post was done with a good intention2hidh which sounds me so, i should correct 2 miss understood points:

1. any real Libertarian can't support bailouts in any mean and call Him/Herself is a Libertarian, Because it's totally wrong when You look at from anarchocapitalist aka Free market economics aspect.

2. what You do Your body or what you do to it is Your business not other's, the only discussion here is are You a pro life or a pro choice when it comes to abortion issue?

However either side's arguements mostly comes from "when Life actually starts" discussion as far as i know.

so saying the otherwise is wrong since Libertarianism is known to be havving the most pro choice ideas between clasical Liberal based ideologies

Right around 1988 Ron Paul voted for the strategic defense initiative otherwise known as 'Star Wars' during the Reagan administration, possibly one of the biggest money wasting military industrial complex programs of all time. You know, the lasers that were, in the words of Ronald Reagan, supposed to ?render these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.?


Texas is ranked second among states in the value of defense contracts won -$39,480,651,081 in 2007. Third this year. What state is Ron Paul in again?


So aside from government money for defense contracts it's every man for himself.


Ron Pauls motto should be: United in war we stand, Divided in peace we fall.

Are there Ron Paul fans in the bible belt? I would think that his libertarian stance about drugs (which I agree with) would pretty much alienate any religious nuts who want to rule our lives from morning 'til evening.

Yes back to common sence.

Ron Paul runs for President for one single purpose... fundraising. His anti-government rhetoric appeals to a lot of people. Every time he runs, the party fucks him over... but he will never run as an independent and he has been clear on hundreds of occasions that he is a Republican. He is not a Libertarian and never has been... he is a John Birch Society/Ayn Rand variety Republican pure and simple. He just isn't the typical Corporate Republican (Romney) or Evangelical Fundamentalist (Perry, Santorum and Bachmann) or a Paranoid Delusional Republican like Gingrich. He also isn't a pandering bitch like Herman Cain who takes every side of every issue.

Ron Paul couldn't win the Presidency... his positions on the Voting Rights Act of 1964 and 'states rights' is a giant red flashing light for anyone who knows anything about desegregation... and the majority of Americans are not neo-liberals.

Sure, haven't you ever seen a tea party rally?

http://i53.tinypic.com/4h3zpd.jpg
http://i51.tinypic.com/2eatczm.jpg
http://i54.tinypic.com/160abgy.jpg

You must be kidding me, Tea party movement is poppilist, not Libertarian, as far as i know they oppose gay and lesbian couples to be married and actually conservative, So unfortunately You're wrong :2 cents:

Yes and No, I believe he is one of the last politicians with any amount of integrity. He honestly believe what he thinks is correct for the country. I just happen to disagree with his political views. I am an extreme liberal whereas he is a libertarian

The tea party likes to think they're libertarians. Unfortunately, most of them couldn't even tell you what it means to be a libertarian. Libertarianism is a selfish idealogy. It is a selfish, mean spirited philosophy doomed to failure, any culural anthropologist will tell you that all people within a society are interdependent upon one another. Life is a balancing act and calls for checks and balances to keep it healthy. Sometimes calls for a focus on the individual to effectuate the greatest good. Other times call for a bolstering of the health of the collective to keep things humming in the general direction toward progress. Make one the ultimate master of the other and a shit storm will follow.


It promotes division between the haves and have-nots. The only welfare offered by the quintessential libertarian is that in times of need, pray harder and good luck. Economically it is survival of the fittest, and ignores the fact that humanity is endowed with more than a lizard?s brain. Love and compassion for humanity and our planet don?t fit into the libertarian minset from what I can tell.


Unless you're a fucking multi-millionare you shouldn't be a libertarian, and even then you should question your morals, really evaluate yourself and think about what kind of legacy you'd like to leave behind when you die.

honnestly i still like the idea.

If you're a libertarian than you should be aware that wasteful government spending flies in the face of everything that you stand for. Maybe you should go read Atlas Shrugged if you haven't already. That seems to be the libertarian bible. Shit, your hero Ron Paul named his son after the author who coincidentally collected social security in her old age. Hypocritical cunt that she was.

I'm french and in thing that in less than 10 years France will have a planified economy...

Honnestly i have no opinion, i just want to live my life (nothing more).
If i'm too poor, it is not good for me if nobody helps me, so i'm not really libertarian.
If other people decide for me how i have to live my life (religion), it is not good too...

(right now it sucks a little bit to live in france)

I like about 90% of what Ron Paul stands for, but at least this much is true.. When Ron Paul says he'll do something, he's going to do it. At least you know where the guy stands, unlike the rest of these lying globalist funded political whores.


The establishment is running scared.

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/3...npaulmedia.jpg

At the end of the day he is still a CAREER POLITICIAN. :2 cents:

Great point. :thumbsup

Ron Paul is:

- a CAREER POLITICIAN who has never voted for a congressional pay raise.

- a CAREER POLITICIAN who does not take part in the congressional pension program.

- a CAREER POLITICIAN who as President, will take a salary of $39,336, which is approximately equal to the average income of the American worker. Unlike the $400,000 salary it is today.

Your position is that society only takes care of its people when it's forced to by its government, which I don't think is true at all. In my opinion older people are treated better by their families in poor countries, because not having a social net forces families to stay together and deal with their problems. Kids live at home longer. Parents stay married longer.

Without the government bloat, how many extra dollars would actually make it to the projects that do good? All government monies come from the people, and they've done a shit job of handling that money, in just about every country on earth, no matter what political party or type of government it is.

The only solution to that problem is to have a smaller government with less responsibilities.

The cost of government isn't just the income tax. It's the debt burden on all their purchases and programs. They have too many opportunities to put things on our tab.

Ron Paul is a fucking lunatic and a crackpot. To say that you agree with the sheer IDIOCRACY that is Libertarianism is to say ONLY this: 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 up by affluent racists so they can stop helping poor people, namely black people, and stop paying federal taxes and end public schools, and public police departments and public fire departments 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! Good Plan!

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 FAR right. The only middle or lower class segments of society who would ever embrace such policies, as in the case of the backward inbred Teabagger crowd, would do so drastically against their own best interests, and would only be duped into this crap by the exploitation of their uneducated fear of government and deep rooted racism.

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 Blacks 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 is too poor to afford cops? no 911 for you pal.. oh another lynching in Alabama? - 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.. And 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.

The fact that resident rambler Slutboat doesn't like him is practically an endorsement. :2 cents:

Well that should knock the deficit down. :thumbsup :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Nope, but this could: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issue...store-america/

Slutboat you don't understand libertarian theory and policy - but thats not uncommon, almost none of the people who call themselves libertarian actually ARE libertarian, not can they describe libertaraian theory and policy.

However, some year ago a fairly famous article was written, Why Libertarians Can't Govern, which does a good job of describing why libertarianism can't work in a society like ours.

Basically, libertarianism requires a well educated population with roughly equal access to good and accurate information - and our society is the exact opposite of that, we are incredibly poorly educated, and our economy and media and social systems all depend on UN-equal access to information.

So, libertarians can't govern. We'd have to spend 50 years just to prepare our society for the simpler kinds of libertarian governance.

But, we could incorporate some libertarian principles into our current system to some benefit.

Thing is, we won't - probably ever - because doing so would take government handouts away from the military industrial complex and the prison industrial complex and other deeply corrupted anti-libertarian government/private collusions, and the corruption there goes too deep for them to allow libertarian principles to be passed into law or enforced.

But, Ron Paul is not libertarian - so that pretty much is that.

Slow down cowboy, You don't have to spit offf Your ignorance all over here, You live in a country with freest constitution all around the globe which is written/made by American founding fathers who wher kinda Libertarians of their time.

Racism? fuck that, Your blackness or whiteness can not be an excuse to act like an asshole.

if you can't be a respected person with a propper work thats Your problem, blame Yourself not Your skin colour.

i don't even live in Your country, we Turks are white too, however we don't have any blood ties wwith the so called whites in Usa, maybe i m scared gettho blacks get paid with my tax liras to? and that could be the reason i have Libertarian views?

Sorry but You sound to me an obsessive person who got problem with His skin colour and i oppologise from all the other black friends here due to i had to say this.

for the side note: i wouldn't mind if a restaurant puts a sign saying Turks can not come in, it's better than bunch of neonazis attacking me due to my ethnic identity :2 cents:

and fuck all the ethnic identities and races btw.

Your post saved my time a lot, Thank You...

while a bit bombastic, slutload is right. that is the america that would happen if libertarian principles were applied.

and since extreme libertarianism would increase every gap - education, information access, class, etc. your theory is inherently flawed.

My position is that government is necessary to redress some of the inequities of the marketplace. I'm not going to advocate removing social safety nets on the off chance that people will somehow be more inclined to give to charity because we both know that that's a completely unrealistic view. I can't believe you're actually holding up third-world countries as an example of what we should aspire to be. That just further proves my point that libertarianism is a regressive form of government.


Like I said, selfishness lies at the core of the average libertarian's mindset. Some of them will try to quote some ivory tower intellectuals from the Ludwig Von Mises institute or Ayn Rand, pseudo-economists and a sociopathic author, the type of people that think every complex problem in the world can be broken down and solved in a two paragraph article. The type of people who seem to be completely disconnected from reality. All it is is a weak attempt to justify their own selfishness, IMO. Good thing it's only a fantasy that will never become a reality.


I agree that government can be trimmed down in certain areas, but here in The United States the so-called libertarian Republicans go after The Department of Education and the Enviromental Protection Agency, meanwhile you won't hear them say a word about the enormous military industrial complex. What kind of message is that to send? Basically what they're telling us is that bullets, bombs and guns are more important than children's education and the environment.

This wasn't an issue You samplified Tea partiers tı be a Libertarian and i told You they're not.

is Libertarianism a selfish philosophy? depends from which aspect You look it from, however Lots of Humans are selfish natured creatures too, since Libertarianism reflects the most natural desires of Humanity which is freedom from boath social and economic sides, it's normal to sound to be selfish.

on the other hand i have to call what You said about collectivism is a miss conception, Libertarian ideas does not oppose volantary collective fundings and actually offers it as an alternative to welfare state and that's called volantary society which You probabely know.

Yes we got better developped brain than Lizards do and thats why we need a Libertarian system to perform our own potencial.

Lastly You don't need to be a multy millionare to be a Libertarian, every one pay taxes including Middle class and people with low income, think about it, what wil happen when You get taxt around 1% to 10%,? prices will drop and wouldn't it be affecting pourchussing power in a positive way?

and also i don't think only rich need individual Liberties but all of us right?

[QUOTE=Shotsie;18509806]Like I said, selfishness lies at the core of the average libertarian's mindset. Some of them will try to quote some ivory tower intellectuals from the Ludwig Von Mises institute or Ayn Rand, pseudo-economists and a sociopathic author, the type of people that think every complex problem in the world can be broken down and solved in a two paragraph article. The type of people who seem to be completely disconnected from reality. All it is is a weak attempt to justify their own selfishness, IMO. Good thing it's only a fantasy that will never become a reality. /(quote)







i don't think Things could be solved with 2 paragraph articals though Libertarians mostly take the realistic events as base, See Murray Rotbard Man is not Nostradamus yet he knew the today's banking system's situation around 20 years ago, it may tell you something :w cents:

you can't teach gfy'ers anything they don't aready know...they are experts at everything and masters of nothing.

You're right, but what amuzes me is none of them actually brought up something intellectual yet some claim us to be unrealistic.

i should admit thats highly ironic for me because we were calling communists to be utopic and i m not using this arguement since a long time and saw how i've done correct to not use it anymore :2 cents:

LOL!

That is so stupid!

If 99 out of 100 people believe a certain thing and "call" themselves a "Libertarian"...well guess what? THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A LIBERTARIAN!

It doesn't matter what some guy wrote as a theory of what Libertarian means. What matters is what the majority of folks who identify themselves as Libertarians believe and how they live their lives.

That's one of the problems with shit. When you have people TELLING me what I am and what I'm not all according to some book or article.

NO! It doesn't work that way in real life! Only in fantasyland.

Ron Paul is mostly Libertarian in his views (and I'm talking about REAL LIFE libertarian, not something you read about). He has always ran as a Republican because unless you are a Republican or a Democrat it's almost impossible to even get on a ballot to be voted for.

So goddamn stupid! lol

People are all individuals. Everybody has differing views on different issues and subjects according to what it affects in their lives.

There really isn't and "average" anything in this world. Well...except perhaps the intelligence of people making proclamations about "Democrats", "Republicans", and "Libertarians" all being monolithic and not having individual wants and needs.

Ron Paul is the only guy running that can save the Republic. I would love to hear from the trolls about which candidate they think can save the country? Obama? Clinton? LOL. Ok. We will see what happens when the economy crumbles... then all the morons will learn their lesson and know what needs to be done to fix things.

Why would it? let's see how well you understand the theory.

Here's a place to start - what are the legitimate roles of government in classic libertarian theory?

(There are a number of different schools of libertariansm, and as I said many people who call themselves libertarian are NOT libertarian - but all the legitimate schools of libertarianism tend to agree on the legitimate roles of government model.)

No, it's not. By definition. You are imposing an incorrect definition. Calling yourself libertarian does not make you a libertarian, the policies do.

Ron Paul is not libertarian, he's a republican, with some libertarian views in his polliices.

The libertarian views you can indentify in his poliicies most easily are - end the war on drugs, because government does not have a legitimate interest in controlling people's bodies or entertainment choices. And end the corporate wars, because government does not have a legitimate interest in wars that are not for defense.

Wars of aggression and adventure are not legitimate in libertarian policy.

However, as I said, libertarians can't govern a society like ours.

So, there is some truth to your objection, because if someone like Ron Paul, a republican with some libertarian views, both got elected, and swept the congress and replaced a majority with other republicans with some libertarian views, what we would end up with is a mustated form of republicanism, which would be essentially an oligarchy, a plutocracy even worse that what we have now.

However, it's silly to propose this, Ron Paul won't be allowed to run for president, and even if he did, congress on both sides would block him, so what we would end up with is the worst deadlock we've ever seen.

By WHO'S definition is my point.

As I already said...if 99% of the people who state they are Libertarian believe a certain thing. And that thing goes against what some article/book says that a Libertarian SHOULD believe...then which is correct?

Well, here in the real world, that would be the living, breathing Libertarians.

And I'm not arguing that Ron Paul is a "by the definition" Libertarian.

But like ALL Libertarians (remember, they don't FOLLOW the "rules") he has many viewpoints that argue that a man should be FREE, and that the govt. doesn't have the right to control us.

I think we can agree that Ron Paul's views are more in line with what a person who thinks of himself as "Libertarian" would identify with as opposed to the other Republican candidates.

It does sound crazy to eliminate the Dept. of Education. I mean, Education? Cutting that sounds almost as bad as not voting to renew the "Patriot" Act. :1orglaugh But let's think about this for a moment...

The Department of Education was not created until 1979. We put a man on the moon a decade before that, and built the world's first atomic weapons even earlier. What exactly has this department done to improve education since 1979, and why is it's existence absolutely necessary today?

The fact is that serious budget cuts need to be made if we want to bring the U.S. economy in for an emergency landing instead of a violent crash. I think the average American is beginning to realize this.

Also, Ron Paul certainly falls into the "so-called libertarian Republicans" group which you spoke of when claiming, we "won't hear them say a word about the enormous military industrial complex." However, a simple YouTube search proves this claim to be false:

https://youtube.com/results?searc...rial+comp lex

Libertarians actually have a fairly strict set of rules. Not following rules means you are an anarchist, not a libertarian.

Anarchism also has a lot to be said for it as political theory - but that's neither here nor there.

No, Paul says a few things that have libertarian qualities - he never says certain things that are characteristic policies of either classic libertarianism or any of it's modern variants.

Libertarians do NOT say that individuals have the right to be free, they say that government's roles should be limited in specific ways. It is up to the individuals to manage their own lives and economies within the environment of limited government roles.

There is a litmus test that can be applied to all claims of libertarian theory and policy - and I have yet to read a single person in this thread mention the legitimate role of government that colors that litmus test.

Very few people here seem to understand libertarian theory.