Republicans or Democrats?

[PrinceofLowLight]

If I have to choose from the parties that matter instead of Libertarians, I'd have to say Democrats. I find the freedoms they want to take away from me marginally less offensive than the ones Republicans do.

[TrailerParkJawa]

Good. I've been in nuclear power plants and I've been in coal-fired power plants, and I'll tell you right now that I would much rather work in a nuclear power plant. You have to see a coal-fired power plant to realize what an ecological and sanitary disaster it is. I don't even want to live near one of those fucking things.

Dont forget the impact modern coal mining has on the environment. They cut the top off hills and it seriously impacts the local streams and home owners. If you protest for better mining practices you are obviously a commie.

[Captain Murphy]

If I have to choose from the parties that matter instead of Libertarians, I'd have to say Democrats. I find the freedoms they want to take away from me marginally less offensive than the ones Republicans do.

Prince... or is it Artist?... sorry, heh. Exact ditto to your post, except change Democrats to Republicans.

What the hell are we doing voting for these two parties?, let's vote libertarian! but since Mr. facist is forcing us CHOOSE... *sniff*, fine, Republican for me. I think we'll find that our leaning toward one side or another is based on what are parents believe in. Take for instance, me, I am a full on libertarian (who in no way would equate that to being liberal or concervative) believing that each person should be able to do whatever they want as long long as it doesn't impact other people without their approval. For a perfect example of what a Libertarian is... check out this 10 minute flash movie - http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf . You can also test yourself with this 10 question quiz to see where you stand politicly - http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html . I don't know if the test is biast at all, but in good faith I'll assume that it fairly places you in the correct spot, the flash animation however makes a really good point.

So I'm one example, leaning toward the right, then I can name other examples who's parent's lean towards Democrats, but they will remain unnamed. It's a legacy we continue in a war between two parties who don't truely know their ultimant goals. At the moment the belief is, if Republicans had their way, the government would be nothing but more of a police state ensuring our security (there goes our freedom) while the Democrats would have each and every person controlled by a federal program (there goes our freedom). So what's your lesser of two evils?

It's all fine to throw facts back and forth because when it comes to normal intelectual battles, we all spout off some times hypocritical, sometimes just plain bullshit facts. But even if the sources check out... who knows if their biast, or just telling you SOME information, or even plain wrong? Who REALLY knows what is happening to things happening in this world. Not everything is documented, not every angle is covered, and many times... there are alot of secrets. I implore you all to at least use some common sense to see that and instead of just pure facts, that you must use some common sense and seek either a common ground, or agree to disagree stating not only what you think is fact, but more importantly, what your opinion is AND why your opinion is the way it is.

[Hamel]

That quiz is a well-known propaganda piece. See it destroyed here.

The libertarian party is no better than the demos and repubs. They're far worse in same cases. Every now and then, the LP reveals how fucking moronic their free-market-above-all-else believe system is. Check their views on rolling back civil rights to pre-1964 legality for business:

Consequently, we oppose any government attempts to regulate private discrimination, including choices and preferences, in employment, housing, and privately owned businesses. The right to trade includes the right not to trade -- for any reasons whatsoever; the right of association includes the right not to associate, for exercise of the right depends upon mutual consent.

From the Libertarianism Makes You Stupid essay

[Xenophobe3691]

The libertarian party is no better than the demos and repubs. They're far worse in same cases. Every now and then, the LP reveals how fucking moronic their free-market-above-all-else believe system is. Check their views on rolling back civil rights to pre-1964 legality for business:

Consequently, we oppose any government attempts to regulate private discrimination, including choices and preferences, in employment, housing, and privately owned businesses. The right to trade includes the right not to trade -- for any reasons whatsoever; the right of association includes the right not to associate, for exercise of the right depends upon mutual consent.

Really. Then how the hell do they explain the huge financial crash that happens when people refuse to do any business with France, blacks, Jews, or anyone who isn't a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant?

[Hamel]

Really. Then how the hell do they explain the huge financial crash that happens when people refuse to do any business with France, blacks, Jews, or anyone who isn't a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant?

You're assuming this crash would occur. Pre-civil rights era, business did fine with racist policies.

[Darth Wong]

Libertarians suffer from the insanely naive belief that, when freed of government regulation, people will tend to do the right thing for their own reasons.

[Hamel]

Libertarians suffer from the insanely naive belief that, when freed of government regulation, people will tend to do the right thing for their own reasons.

Communists can't get away with their perfect world assumptions, but after browsing old usenet and other debate forums, I find that libertarians seem to get away with it all the time.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Libertarians suffer from the insanely naive belief that, when freed of government regulation, people will tend to do the right thing for their own reasons.

No, we do not. We think that government is a force which inherently tries to increase it's power--just like people do. The best laws in the world, after all, are ultimately made by people and will reflect that. So the only way to balance out the power of government is make sure that the people have real power which can be exercised to check it. Otherwise the inevitable result--if often over a very long term--will be an accumulation of government power until there is a form of tyranny. The alternative in the other direction, of course, is anarchy, which is equally possible.

One of the best governments in the world, undoubtably better than the United States of today and what should be a model for countries everywhere, is Switzerland.

[Captain Murphy]

Libertarians know where it's at.

To start answering these statements.

1. A Libertarian government isn't free of all regulations. It's not anarchy, it just doens't interfear with peoples lives unless they're interfearing with other's lives.

2. Libertarians are Naive? Who cares about the right thing. The right thing is due to interpetation by each individual. The lesser government system lets you define what your own intepretation of the right thing is. Whether you're a Satan worshiper or a Mormon, the Government doesn't interfear with your life unless you press yourself onto others.

3. With a government which holds its main powerbase in the people for whom it protects, there is no ramant corruption like in every other system. Granted, people will always be self serving, that is the beauty of liberarianism... they can be self serving all they want, they just can't step on you, whether it's the, or a large group of them looking to fullfill a "betterment of the greater good".

4. Why the hell am I numbering this, besides to try and make this simple to read? The fact is, the libertarian society is beautifull because it holds its own checks and balances within its most inner self. Personal freedom is the highest order, doesn't that mean something to each and every one of you? You can express yourself, do what you want, be who you want to be, love what you want to love without being pushed one way or another unless... you WANT to be pushed on way or another. Government takes care of basic needs... security, (these next two are my beliefs that not all other libertarians share) medical and schooling. Past those primary cares, there is no other purpose for government. If you don't want to have the security of the government, hire your own. If you don't want the medical or schooling the government provides, pay to get it from an outside source. People can take care of themselves if you give them a chance. If not, people also have the freedom to come and go. Go means they can choose to go to a socialized state if they wish. Do you really want other's generalizing about you and those around you in order to decide how to best control you?

[Hamel]

1. A Libertarian government isn't free of all regulations. It's not anarchy, it just doens't interfear with peoples lives unless they're interfearing with other's lives.

The "we don't believe in initiation of force" bullshit. Like anyone else, you believe initiation of force is fine, if the application follows your own morals.

Rational people aren't fooled by this nonsense. Libertarianism boils down to one thing: business.

2. Libertarians are Naive? Who cares about the right thing. The right thing is due to interpetation by each individual. The lesser government system lets you define what your own intepretation of the right thing is. Whether you're a Satan worshiper or a Mormon, the Government doesn't interfear with your life unless you press yourself onto others.

Nonsensical propaganda. A polluting factory built near your house, not obliged to any regulations, would not be initiating force according to libertarian dogma.

3. With a government which holds its main powerbase in the people for whom it protects, there is no ramant corruption like in every other system. Granted, people will always be self serving, that is the beauty of liberarianism... they can be self serving all they want, they just can't step on you, whether it's the, or a large group of them looking to fullfill a "betterment of the greater good".

They can't step on you... in a perfect world.

4. Why the hell am I numbering this, besides to try and make this simple to read? The fact is, the libertarian society is beautifull because it holds its own checks and balances within its most inner self. Personal freedom is the highest order, doesn't that mean something to each and every one of you? You can express yourself, do what you want, be who you want to be, love what you want to love without being pushed one way or another unless... you WANT to be pushed on way or another.

"Today, Judge Rand ruled that the so-called "child-slavery" provision of the standard employment contract between MegaCorp and all employees was valid. As parents have the control of their children until eighteen, the signing-over of their labor until age 18 to MegaCorp was ruled a valid exercise of parental authority. Judge Rand, in his opinion, stated "The government is not to interfere with economic arrangements, absent a showing of fraud or force, as per the Fundamental Law of Libertopia. All parties with the legal right to contract consented, and that is the sole standard of evaluation. The fact that MegaCorp said it would fire any worker who did not agree to this provision is of no consequence, as that is entirely the right of MegaCorp."

Thanks to Seth Finklestein for the quote.

Government takes care of basic needs... security, (these next two are my beliefs that not all other libertarians share) medical and schooling. Past those primary cares, there is no other purpose for government. If you don't want to have the security of the government, hire your own. If you don't want the medical or schooling the government provides, pay to get it from an outside source. People can take care of themselves if you give them a chance. If not, people also have the freedom to come and go. Go means they can choose to go to a socialized state if they wish. Do you really want other's generalizing about you and those around you in order to decide how to best control you?

Do you understand what perfect world assumptions are?

[Joe]

The "we don't believe in initiation of force" bullshit. Like anyone else, you believe initiation of force is fine, if the application follows your own morals.
Rational people aren't fooled by this nonsense. Libertarianism boils down to one thing: business.

Keep humping that strawman.

Nonsensical propaganda. A polluting factory built near your house, not obliged to any regulations, would not be initiating force according to libertarian dogma.

And that factory released pollutants onto your property, it would be a tort. Libertarians (not anarchists) are not in favor of eliminating tort law.

"Today, Judge Rand ruled that the so-called "child-slavery" provision of the standard employment contract between MegaCorp and all employees was valid. As parents have the control of their children until eighteen, the signing-over of their labor until age 18 to MegaCorp was ruled a valid exercise of parental authority. Judge Rand, in his opinion, stated "The government is not to interfere with economic arrangements, absent a showing of fraud or force, as per the Fundamental Law of Libertopia. All parties with the legal right to contract consented, and that is the sole standard of evaluation. The fact that MegaCorp said it would fire any worker who did not agree to this provision is of no consequence, as that is entirely the right of MegaCorp."

Strawman, again.

Do you understand what perfect world assumptions are?

Of course. I resent your attempt to lump in libertarians with crock utopians.

[Iceberg]

And that factory released pollutants onto your property, it would be a tort. Libertarians (not anarchists) are not in favor of eliminating tort law.

Under what laws? It's not violating any laws by releasing pollutants, so by what legal means have you any recourse against the factory, since what it's doing, regardless of the amount of harm it causes you, is not illegal?

[Darth Wong]

And that factory released pollutants onto your property, it would be a tort. Libertarians (not anarchists) are not in favor of eliminating tort law.

Bullshit. For a tort, you have to show financial damages. Until somebody actually gets sick, you can't do that.

[Vympel]

Can someone update me on libertarianism? Are they opposed to statute law (the common law wouldn't be much help unless you can show injury as Mike points out)- unless you get some activist judges in there who want to shake things up a bit and further dismantle the 'common law hasn't changed since England was invaded 1,000 years ago farce')?

[Darth Wong]

Can someone update me on libertarianism? Are they opposed to statute law (the common law wouldn't be much help unless you can show injury as Mike points out)- unless you get some activist judges in there who want to shake things up a bit and further dismantle the 'common law hasn't changed since England was invaded 1,000 years ago farce')?

They're opposed to regulations limiting the Free Market. All hail the Free Market. Infallible God of wisdom!!!! Perfect arbiter of social justice!!!!

[Vympel]

They're opposed to regulations limiting the Free Market. All hail the Free Market. Infallible God of wisdom!!!! Perfect arbiter of social justice!!!!

There's an absurd idea- would limits on the Free Market include Fair Trading legislation? (known in the US as 'anti-trust'- though our Trade Practices Act is divided into parts dealing both with competition between corporations and the way corporations conduct themselves to consumers).

[Joe]

And that factory released pollutants onto your property, it would be a tort. Libertarians (not anarchists) are not in favor of eliminating tort law.

Bullshit. For a tort, you have to show financial damages. Until somebody actually gets sick, you can't do that.

Public/private nuisance.

[Peregrin Toker]

Government takes care of basic needs... security, (these next two are my beliefs that not all other libertarians share) medical and schooling. Past those primary cares, there is no other purpose for government.

I thought that a great deal of libertarians believed that the state only had the business of maintaining law and order, not providing schooling and medical care?

They're opposed to regulations limiting the Free Market. All hail the Free Market. Infallible God of wisdom!!!! Perfect arbiter of social justice!!!!

That also describes some conservatives, so that description's hardly adequate. As I implied earlier in my post, libertarianism's core belief is that the government shouldn't interfere in the economy nor in social matters. Some describe the libertarians as supporters of a minimal state.

[Peregrin Toker]

Otherwise the inevitable result--if often over a very long term--will be an accumulation of government power until there is a form of tyranny.

But if the economy is left totally on its own, wouldn't this lead to corporations accumulating power until they end up having as much political influence as governments?

[Joe]

Otherwise the inevitable result--if often over a very long term--will be an accumulation of government power until there is a form of tyranny.

But if the economy is left totally on its own, wouldn't this lead to corporations accumulating power until they end up having as much political influence as governments?

Technically speaking, you can't have the limited liability corporation without the government. It is a legal entity.

That said, I'm not in favor of eliminating the corporate model, nor are most libertarians.

[Captain Murphy]

Government takes care of basic needs... security, (these next two are my beliefs that not all other libertarians share) medical and schooling. Past those primary cares, there is no other purpose for government.

I thought that a great deal of libertarians believed that the state only had the business of maintaining law and order, not providing schooling and medical care?

Your thought was accurate and I would hope it to be so since it was stated in the very quote you're questioning. Within the brackets it reads.... "these next two are my beliefs that not all other libertarians share" the next two being medical and schooling. Not every libertarian is a hardcore one. Just like not every Rebuplican or Democrat is a hardcore one like stated in the opening post of this thread concerning what his general concensous of the people who post here are.

And that factory released pollutants onto your property, it would be a tort. Libertarians (not anarchists) are not in favor of eliminating tort law.

Under what laws? It's not violating any laws by releasing pollutants, so by what legal means have you any recourse against the factory, since what it's doing, regardless of the amount of harm it causes you, is not illegal?

We're not talking about a lawless society, that's anarchy. Laws would protect enviroment and people's health. A factory releasing polutants onto your land is a risk to your health (security). A factory like that is like a neibor shooting you in the leg from his property, in an anarchy you'd have to get to your gun and shoot back. A Libertarian society would handle the problem much like it would be handled today.

Otherwise the inevitable result--if often over a very long term--will be an accumulation of government power until there is a form of tyranny.

But if the economy is left totally on its own, wouldn't this lead to corporations accumulating power until they end up having as much political influence as governments?

Technically speaking, you can't have the limited liability corporation without the government. It is a legal entity.

That said, I'm not in favor of eliminating the corporate model, nor are most libertarians.

Yes corperations would be able to accumulate alow of power, however the government still has dominion over the security of the people within its boarders. This government would be small except for the size of the nessisary security force which it would need to keep such as army and police. It would be highly stupid of a corperation to mess with a government who allows it to do what it wants except interfear with human rights. Corperations, or bodies of people are treated the same as individuals and have no right to press themselves onto other. For a good example of this, click on the flash animation link from my first post and learn (http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf).

Hamel you seem to just be throwing shit onto the libertarian ideal with no real backing for his claims, I don't believe I'm flaming, I'm just asking for a nice thick thoughtout rebuttle. First off, human rights are foremost in the libertarian ideal. People are not FORCED to not be racist and they're not FORCED to be racist. People are, who they are and they choose who they wish to associate with. Current society treats people like children, and even forces its ideas and current mindset onto them. You cannot commit hate crimes in a libertarian society, but you also don't have to hire anyone you don't want too, it's your choice who you associate with. So if you want to call if racism, fine an individual can be a racist pig if he wants, and if he owns a buisiness he can... say he's black, he can hire a full staff of black people if he so chooses, and that's fine, because it's his money and his choice. Now my personal stance on that would be to not buy from that company which is my choice, so I would not be helping that in any way. Wouldn't you say the government pushes some "ideals" on people instead of letting them choose?

[Darth Wong]

Of course the government pushes ideals upon people. That's part of its mandate, since (contrary to libertarian pie-in-the-sky naive idealist bullshit) people are too fucking stupid to choose wisely, people are going to do a lot of very bad things if given the freedom to do so, and the free market will not correct any of this because people don't actually know what a corporation is up to unless the government forces them to report everything (not to mention the fact that the wealthiest individuals and corporations will quickly run things on a cartel basis so that consumers effectively lose the freedom of choice).

The free market is democracy with dollars, and it suffers from the same problems as democracy with votes, only magnified because some people have more "votes" than others, and corporations have the most "votes" of all. It is well-balanced against government, but left to its own devices it will quickly go to shit, libertarian naivete notwithstanding.

[Joe]

Yes corperations would be able to accumulate alow of power,

No, they could not. The limited liability corporation is a business model that cannot exist without the government allowing it to do so. Period.

[Darth Wong]

Yes corperations would be able to accumulate alow of power,

No, they could not. The limited liability corporation is a business model that cannot exist without the government allowing it to do so. Period.

In the absence of government power, the corporation would simply call itself something else. In the old days, they were called serfdoms. You act as though the removal of government regulations on corporations would make the corporation cease to exist; this is just silly. The owners would still be able to make people do their bidding by paying them (or threatening to stop doing so), and the corporation would continue to exist.