What is a Libertarian?

[Ordie]

April 7, 2010
What Am I?

By John Stossel
I used to be a Kennedy-style "liberal." Then I wised up. Now I'm a libertarian.

But what does that mean?

When I asked people on the street, half had no clue.

We know that conservatives want government to conserve traditional values. They say they're for limited government, but they're pro-drug war, pro-immigration restriction and anti-abortion, and they often support "nation-building."

And so-called liberals? They tend to be anti-gun and pro-choice on abortion. They favor big, powerful government -- they say -- to make life kinder for people.

By contrast, libertarians want government to leave people alone -- in both the economic and personal spheres. Leave us free to pursue our hopes and dreams, as long as we don't hurt anybody else.

Ironically, that used to be called "liberal," which has the same root as "liberty." Several hundred years ago, liberalism was a reaction against the stifling rules imposed by aristocracy and established religion.

I wish I could call myself "liberal" now. But the word has been turned on its head. It now means health police, high taxes, speech codes and so forth.

So I can't call myself a "liberal." I'm stuck with "libertarian." If you have a better word, please let me know.

When I first explained libertarianism to my wife, she said: "That's cruel! What about the poor and the weak? Let them starve?"

I recently asked some prominent libertarians that question, including Jeffrey Miron, who teaches economics at Harvard.

"It might in some cases be a little cruel," Miron said. "But it means you're not taking from people who've worked hard to earn their income (in order) to give it to people who have not worked hard."

But isn't it wrong for people to suffer in a rich country?

"The number of people who will suffer is likely to be very small. Private charity ... will provide support for the vast majority who would be poor in the absence of some kind of support. When government does it, it creates an air of entitlement that leads to more demand for redistribution, till everyone becomes a ward of the state."

Besides, says Wendy McElroy, the founder of ifeminists.com, "government aid doesn't enrich the poor. Government makes them dependent. And the biggest hindrance to the poor ... right now is the government. Government should get out of the way. It should allow people to open cottage industries without making them jump through hoops and licenses and taxing them to death. It should open up public lands and do a 20th-century equivalent of 40 acres and a mule. It should get out of the way of people and let them achieve and rise."

David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, took the discussion to a deeper level.

"Instead of asking, 'What should we do about people who are poor in a rich country?' The first question is, 'Why is this a rich country?' ...

"Five hundred years ago, there weren't rich countries in the world. There are rich countries now because part of the world is following basically libertarian rules: private property, free markets, individualism."

Boaz makes an important distinction between equality and absolute living standards.

"The most important way that people get out of poverty is economic growth that free markets allow. The second-most important way -- maybe it's the first -- is family. There are lots of income transfers within families. Third would be self-help and mutual-aid organizations. This was very big before the rise of the welfare state."

This is an important but unappreciated point: Before the New Deal, people of modest means banded together to help themselves. These organizations were crowded out when government co-opted their insurance functions, which included inexpensive medical care.

Boaz indicts the welfare state for the untold harm it's done in the name of the poor.

"What we find is a system that traps people into dependency. ... You should be asking advocates of that system, 'Why don't you care about the poor?'"

I agree. It appears that when government sets out to solve a problem, not only does it violate our freedom, it also accomplishes the opposite of what it set out to do.

Source:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/04/07/what_am_i_105075.html

[wilhelm]

Good article Ordie. I have always been a libertarian. I've never lost sight of the fact that government is just a group of our peers elected by us to serve us for a limited period of time. We seem very much to have lost our way, all over the globe.

[pocoloco]

What about giving the means to people to be able to work hard and such? What's the libertarian standpoint on that? And "there were no rich countries 500 years ago..." he must mean like in the spooky dark middle ages and such?

Oh well, can't ask people to know all. Yes, I know all.

[CMNot]

So the Gov't has a responsibility to give and provide "the means to people to be able to work hard"? Is that not the role of private enterprise?

[merk666]

maoism and libertarianism - two ways for disappointed in democracy. let they discuss.
i dislike libertanian private money, private police and private law. finally you ll depend on someones private justice, uncontrolled and furious.

[thecdn]

I've always like PZ Myers take on libertarianism, "that reactionary political movement that seeks to elevate greed and selfishness as a ruling principle"

That was taken from his comments on Ron Paul - http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/why_is_ron_paul_so_popular.php#more

[merk666]

"that reactionary political movement that seeks to elevate greed and selfishness as a ruling principle"
yes...exactly

[Kaapeli]

Liberal still equals libertarian in most parts of the world outside the USA.

I hate it how the US politics are abusing the term by using it when actually mean social democrats.

[tluassa]

Why cant People from english speaking countries differenciate between liberalism and socialism, that is what I ask myself.

PS: to the author:

"I wish I could call myself "liberal" now. But the word has been turned on its head. It now means health police, high taxes, speech codes and so forth."

Advice: Use the word "liberal" anyway, and call everybody that connects "health police, high taxes" and stuff like that with the word "liberal" what they are: too stupid to understand the difference between socialism and liberalism.

[SoftLion]

Good article. The "dependency" references are right on in my book. Continuing to facilitate and expand dependency sure as hell is not a recipe for motivation or ambition. However, I would think it imbues the dependent with a sense of obligation towards the hand that feeds them, kind of a false devotion.

[seraosha]

The meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word “selfishness” is not merely wrong: it represents a devastating intellectual “package-deal,” which is responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral development of mankind.
In popular usage, the word “selfishness” is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment.
Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern with one’s own interests.
This concept does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interests is good or evil; nor does it tell us what constitutes man’s actual interests. It is the task of ethics to answer such questions.

link (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/selfishness.html)

This is a good starting point in regards to our agreed definition of "selfishness"...as I disagree with the assumption that looking out for myself, my family and my friends is somehow wrong...that I am under some moral obligation to look after you, your family, and your friends.

[bryanleu2002]

What is a Libertarian?

A Libertarian is a Rabbit with a shotgun in between two Wolves having a democratic vote on what to have for lunch!

[Hollis]

It stills gets back to people. Good people do good things, bad people do bad things. Yep, that is a simple view but I have found good and bad people in any group that I have met. People like to point to groups as the problem, but to me it is the people in that group that makes the group good or bad. If people think you can create a better group, people will be better and do better things, they are partially correct. If the good people maintain control, then that can happen. With humans, problems can be simple things like complacency, apathy, to busy doing something else, their own personal greed for wealth or power, etc. A lot of people are just willing to give control of their lives to other people, the leaders. There is a quote about not putting your faith in people or governments. The best person to represent your interests is you. The other sad part, there are just dishonest or inherently evil people who will doing anything to take control. Communism failed not because of its proposed humanitarian values, but because people are corruptible and nothing corrupts as well as power. Libertarianism has some great concepts, but people have to work them, maintain them and most of all do the right thing.

[Glaz]

It stills gets back to people. Good people do good things, bad people do bad things. Yep, that is a simple view but I have found good and bad people in any group that I have met. People like to point to groups as the problem, but to me it is the people in that group that makes the group good or bad. If people think you can create a better group, people will be better and do better things, they are partially correct. If the good people maintain control, then that can happen. With humans, problems can be simple things like complacency, apathy, to busy doing something else, their own personal greed for wealth or power, etc. A lot of people are just willing to give control of their lives to other people, the leaders. There is a quote about not putting your faith in people or g overnments. The best person to represent your interests is you. The other sad part, there are just dishonest or inherently evil people who will doing anything to take control. Communism failed not because of its proposed humanitarian values, but because people are corruptible and nothing corrupts are well as power. Libertarianism has some great concepts, but people have to work them, maintain them and most of all do the right thing.
And, that's the problem with libertarianism. I like John Stossel, and do agree with many libertarian viewpoints. But, not unlike some other isms, on paper, great stuff. In practice, this country would fall on it's ear. The premise relies heavily on the individual to willingly contribute beyond his own immediate interests for the good of society, which is simply unrealistic.

Take this for example: "Government should get out of the way. It should allow people to open cottage industries without making them jump through hoops and licenses and taxing them to death...It should get out of the way of people and let them achieve and rise."

How about I open my own pharmacy in my garage. No hoops to jump through, no licenses to acquire, no government intrusion of any kind. For all you know, I could pouring motor oil in that cough elixir you're buying for junior. That certainly was the case a couple centuries ago, before the FDA, when snake oil men peddles all sorts of crap billed as medicine.

The libertarian idea of replacing taxes with donations given willingly is retardulous at best. Donations will not maintain the roads, will not support police and fire departments, will certainly not fund national defense (needed more than ever after the libertarians will open the borders).

[Mu-Meson]

link (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/selfishness.html)

This is a good starting point in regards to our agreed definition of "selfishness"...as I disagree with the assumption that looking out for myself, my family and my friends is somehow wrong...that I am under some moral obligation to look after you, your family, and your friends.


X2. If there is a moral obligation to help others (and I believe there is), then it must be organic and come naturally from the moral order of society. For the govt to try and control it, this twists charity and assistance into a dark shadow of what it should be.

Here's a good article on libertarianism I just read:

http://reason.com/archives/2010/04/06/up-from-slavery/

[seraosha]

And, that's the problem with libertarianism. I like John Stossel, and do agree with many libertarian viewpoints. But, not unlike some other isms, on paper, great stuff. In practice, this country would fall on it's ear. The premise relies heavily on the individual to willingly contribute beyond his own immediate interests for the good of society, which is simply unrealistic.

Take this for example: "Government should get out of the way. It should allow people to open cottage industries without making them jump through hoops and licenses and taxing them to death...It should get out of the way of people and let them achieve and rise."

How about I open my own pharmacy in my garage. No hoops to jump through, no licenses to acquire, no government intrusion of any kind. For all you know, I could pouring motor oil in that cough elixir you're buying for junior. That certainly was the case a couple centuries ago, before the FDA, when snake oil men peddles all sorts of crap billed as medicine.

The libertarian idea of replacing taxes with donations given willingly is retardulous at best. Donations will not maintain the roads, will not support police and fire departments, will certainly not fund national defense (needed more than ever after the libertarians will open the borders).

I think you are confusing "libertarianism" with "anarchism".
Less government does not mean no government.

[Hollis]

I think you are confusing "libertarianism" with "anarchism".
Less government does not mean no government.

I think Libertarianism, does have that element to it, in that government should not be involved in much. So it can come across that way. I think that would be in the ideal libertarian society. Probably most libertarians are more pragmatic on this issue and support a certain amount of government intrusion. Libertarianism does point out to some of the problems within our society.

[merk666]

If there is a moral obligation to help others (and I believe there is), then it must be organic...
it is strange to listen it in moderated forum. remove moderation and you ll see what asshole the forum would be. this is the simplest experiment of the rules of nature.

[BlackFlag]

Like any political ideology, the idea of pure libertarianism is not possible. Too many variables attributed to people just being people. I'm a fan of a realistic sort of Libertarianism however. Face it we NEED institutions like the FDA, FAA, etc. However we don't need social legislation on a Federal level. It should not be the Federal governments job to tell the people if Abortions are moral, or what types of firearms are legal to own. That should be left up to the States, or if possible municipal governments.

I don't know, I wish I could think up a better written response, but I'm experiencing a bit of a brain overload today.

[SoftLion]

And, that's the problem with libertarianism. I like John Stossel, and do agree with many libertarian viewpoints. But, not unlike some other isms, on paper, great stuff. In practice, this country would fall on it's ear. The premise relies heavily on the individual to willingly contribute beyond his own immediate interests for the good of society, which is simply unrealistic.

"Simplty unrealistic"? To say it is unrealistic to think that Americans would willingly contribute beyond their own immediate interests is to ignore the billions of dollars charitably donated every year. That doesn't mean this notches in perfectly with Libertarian ideals, but you seem to suggest Americans are not charitably inclined.

As an aside, I am charitably inclined, but against forced charity, which is an oxymoron. Standing against Uncle Sam forcing you to help others does not mean you lack sympathy, empathy, or charitable inclinations. It just means you damn well don't want to be told to whom or what group you must direct your charity towards.


Take this for example: "Government should get out of the way. It should allow people to open cottage industries without making them jump through hoops and licenses and taxing them to death...It should get out of the way of people and let them achieve and rise."

How about I open my own pharmacy in my garage. No hoops to jump through, no licenses to acquire, no government intrusion of any kind. For all you know, I could pouring motor oil in that cough elixir you're buying for junior. That certainly was the case a couple centuries ago, before the FDA, when snake oil men peddles all sorts of crap billed as medicine.


Is that truly what you envision the Libertarian concept to embrace? You seem to be taking your examples beyond extreme, all the way to foolish. Centuries ago? Really?

[Glaz]

I think you are confusing "libertarianism" with "anarchism".
Less government does not mean no government.
Define "less government". And then, nail down the united libertarian consensus on the term. You won't be able to, because it runs the gamut from merely less tax dollars going toward social welfare programs, to, yep, essentially anarchy.

Full disclosure Seraosha, I actually know quite a bit about libertarianism. My buddy's buddy was the Illinois's chapter head honcho for the LP. He got us both got fairly interested in it, attending some meetings, debating online with naysayers, all that stuff. I can't say I've grown disillusioned with the entire premise, there's definitely some rational thinking that warrants consideration.

[Uglymug]

Like any political ideology, the idea of pure libertarianism is not possible. Too many variables attributed to people just being people. I'm a fan of a realistic sort of Libertarianism however. Face it we NEED institutions like the FDA, FAA, etc. However we don't need social legislation on a Federal level. It should not be the Federal governments job to tell the people if Abortions are moral, or what types of firearms are legal to own. That should be left up to the States, or if possible municipal governments.

I don't know, I wish I could think up a better written response, but I'm experiencing a bit of a brain overload today.

Never have I read any literature about libertarianism that included the idea of no government. That is anarchy, and the distinction is generally made pretty clear.

It seems selective reading takes it up a notch. American-conservative ideology is constantly suggesting less government, although it rarely gets associated with anarchism. I think libertarianism still has many, many hoops to jump through before it puts down a significant footstep in Western society.

I believe, that the West will for a bit to come, bounce back and forth between the two heavy-weight ideologies: modern-liberalism and conservatism.

[Rictor]

How about I open my own pharmacy in my garage. No hoops to jump through, no licenses to acquire, no government intrusion of any kind. For all you know, I could pouring motor oil in that cough elixir you're buying for junior. That certainly was the case a couple centuries ago, before the FDA, when snake oil men peddles all sorts of crap billed as medicine.

Word would spread very quickly. Within a week you would have no customers. And anyone disabled by your crap would be perfectly free to sue you. See? Even in extreme cases, there is a simple, organic solution.

Besides, the irony is that exactly the same thing can and does happen now, only that the amount of money needed to peddle snake-oil and have it approved by the FDA is such that you and I can't do it. Drug companies still do.

[Glaz]

... you seem to suggest Americans are not charitably inclined.
No, that's not what I'm suggesting. I'm merely pointing out that a very libertarian idea of doing away with taxes and replacing them with charitable donations is unrealistic. Are you saying I'm wrong?


Is that truly what you envision the Libertarian concept to embrace? You seem to be taking your examples beyond extreme, all the way to foolish.
I was merely providing one example (it was foolish how, exactly?). I could offer more.

[JRT]

Liberal still equals libertarian in most parts of the world outside the USA.

I hate it how the US politics are abusing the term by using it when actually mean social democrats.

... and with socialists they mean social democrats as well. "Obama is a socialist". "Democrats are socialists". Heh. If any US democrat politician was brought to Europe he would be seen as far right, and it's a pretty long way from socialism one could witness over this side of the Pond some 20 years ago.

[Glaz]

Word would spread very quickly. Within a week you would have no customers. And anyone disabled by your crap would be perfectly free to sue you.
Really, word would spread? You mean, around the city block? The neighborhood? Perhaps the city? Oh, but this is the global age...I sell my sh*t beyond state borders, all the way to distant lands, yo. Somebody really needs to do something about me. But, what to do, what to do? Certainly no legal recourse other than to take me to court. But then, it's your word over mine, no? Who's to say motor oil does not work for sore throats? Perhaps you could bring in a medical expert. I'll bring mine. Neither board certified, coz there ain't no board to certify nothing. See how that works?

[seraosha]

Define "less government". And then, nail down the united libertarian consensus on the term. You won't be able to, because it runs the gamut from merely less tax dollars going toward social welfare programs, to, yep, essentially anarchy.

Full disclosure Seraosha, I actually know quite a bit about libertarianism. My buddy's buddy was the Illinois's chapter head honcho for the LP. He got us both got fairly interested in it, attending some meetings, debating online with naysayers, all that stuff. I can't say I've grown disillusioned with the entire premise, there's definitely some rational thinking that warrants consideration.

I'd define "less government" as anything that annoys me, beyond the state level of governement.
Subject to change without prior notice ;)

And I bet you know a lot more about "libertarianism" than I do, thanks for the "full disclosure"...so school us!

[Kaplanr]

But once upon a time in the United States, we didn't legislate labor hours, collective bargaining, child labor or food & drug content. Market forces didn't eradicate children in the mines or mills for 10-14 hours per day. Take a look at Jacob Riis's photos of turn of the century urban America and we see ample evidence that our better natures don't always shine through. Jump ahead 40 years to Dorothea Lange's photos of the Depression in rural America and finally Bobbie Kennedy's trip through Appalachia in the 1960s; there's a sociological hole that independent or individual charity and boot-strapping can't accommodate. Would market forces have electrified what the TVA did?

[Glaz]

I'd define "less government" as anything that annoys me, beyond the state level of governement.
Subject to change without prior notice ;)
Ok, there endeth the lesson. Welcome to the libertarian party. There is really no consensus on these things, and they are very open to interpretation.

Essentially, that's wassup with the party. You corner a libertarian, and you'll get an earful about no government oversight beyond national security and protecting life and property, no to most taxes, nearly nothing government run, all replaced by contractors and private corporations. The sharp corners get smoothed more and more as the conversation progresses and points are brought up by you about consumer protection, public safety, the infrastructure, etc. Eventually, if the conversation is honest, you just might hear something along the lines of, "we should have everything we have in place now, but only less of it."

[Rictor]

Really, word would spread? You mean, around the city block? The neighborhood? Perhaps the city? Oh, but this is the global age...I sell my sh*t beyond state borders, all the way to distant lands, yo. Somebody really needs to do something about me. But, what to do, what to do? Certainly no legal recourse other than to take me to court. But then, it's your word over mine, no? Who's to say motor oil does not work for sore throats? Perhaps you could bring in a medical expert. I'll bring mine. Neither board certified, coz there ain't no board to certify nothing. See how that works?

The Apple iPad was released 3 days ago, and yet I already know that it has a multitude of problems, including with wifi. However, I don't know anyone who has bought have, nor have I been within 10km of an Apple store. Nor have I specifically sought out reviews. In the global age, word spreads quickly and very broadly, yo!

As someone already pointed out, you're talking about no government, not less government. But even in your hypothetical world, there would be some sort of private board(s) to certify doctors, simply because it is in their best interest. The MPAA, for example, is a private organization, yet nearly every film that is released has a rating. Same with ESRB and a million other examples. If the manufacturers didn't create one, consumers would.

In the case of your motor-oil, if more than 10 people showed adverse affects that would be enough for almost any jury to rule against you. And if you want to get really hypothetical and make the courts disappear, some grieving father would show up at your door and bust a cap in your ass. So it all works out in the end.

[Glaz]

The Apple iPad was released 3 days ago, and yet I already know that it has a multitude of problems, including with wifi. However, I don't know anyone who has bought have, nor have I been within 10km of an Apple store. Nor have I specifically sought out reviews. In the global age, word spreads quickly and very broadly, yo!
As can counter-word. Matter of fact, it's in my interest to hire a bunch of neighborhood kids to get online and bombard the net with praise of my motor oil cough syrup. Now what?


But even in your hypothetical world, there would be some sort of private board(s) to certify doctors, simply because it is in their best interest. The MPAA, for example, is a private organization, yet nearly every film that is released has a rating. Same with ESRB and a million other examples. If the manufacturers didn't create one, consumers would.Corporations, free of any government intervention, could just as easily set up their private boards, with better funding and more authoritative-sounding expertise. The masses (the easily-manipulated asses that they are), could easily be swayed. At least a sizeable proportion of them.


In the case of your motor-oil, if more than 10 people showed adverse affects that would be enough for almost any jury to rule against you. And if you want to get really hypothetical and make the courts disappear, some grieving father would show up at your door and bust a cap in your ass. So it all works out in the end.Not if my "expert witness" attributes it to something else, such as improper administration.

Your grieving father scenario is entirely retarded. What if I shoot first? Is that part of your "it all works out in the end" theory?

[SoftLion]

No, that's not what I'm suggesting. I'm merely pointing out that a very libertarian idea of doing away with taxes and replacing them with charitable donations is unrealistic. Are you saying I'm wrong?

That's all well and good. That is not what you said. You said, "The premise relies heavily on the individual to willingly contribute beyond his own immediate interests for the good of society, which is simply unrealistic." To which I replied that Americans contribute billions of dollars to charity each year, to illustrate that the concept of people willingly contributing to others outside of their immediate interests for the good of society is alive and well, as opposed to unrealistic.

If you post what you really mean the first time, then I don't have to exercise telepathic powers to imagine what it is you are trying to "merely point out".



I was merely providing one example (it was foolish how, exactly?). I could offer more.

You don't think the quoted text below is foolish/totally unrealistic/no one except you actually believes it to be a possibility? I guess we have different definitions of "foolish".

"How about I open my own pharmacy in my garage. No hoops to jump through, no licenses to acquire, no government intrusion of any kind. For all you know, I could pouring motor oil in that cough elixir you're buying for junior. That certainly was the case a couple centuries ago, before the FDA, when snake oil men peddles all sorts of crap billed as medicine."

And on another topic, your continued use of "merely" is superfluous. Just sayin'.

[California Joe]

He's merely trying to show he's a man of the people.

[SoftLion]

He's merely trying to show he's a man of the people.

Hogwash, nothing more than superfluoustic-expealadociousity. He believes I'm an easily swayed ass of the masses. I am now wary of his intellect and philosophical uber-ness, as opposed to my simple neolithic grunts and club threats.

I shall retreat to my day job as tail gunner on the space shuttle.

[Glaz]

That's all well and good. That is not what you said. You said, "The premise relies heavily on the individual to willingly contribute beyond his own immediate interests for the good of society, which is simply unrealistic." To which I replied that Americans contribute billions of dollars to charity each year, to illustrate that the concept of people willingly contributing to others outside of their immediate interests for the good of society is alive and well, as opposed to unrealistic.

If you post what you really mean the first time, then I don't have to exercise telepathic powers to imagine what it is you are trying to "merely point out".
My sincerest apologies for not clarifying. Perhaps now that you understand what I meant, we could move on.


You don't think the quoted text below is foolish/totally unrealistic/no one except you actually believes it to be a possibility? I guess we have different definitions of "foolish".

"How about I open my own pharmacy in my garage. No hoops to jump through, no licenses to acquire, no government intrusion of any kind. For all you know, I could pouring motor oil in that cough elixir you're buying for junior. That certainly was the case a couple centuries ago, before the FDA, when snake oil men peddles all sorts of crap billed as medicine."Still waiting on you to explain why it's such a foolish premise.


He believes I'm an easily swayed ass of the masses.Hey, I was talking about the other masses. You, you seem like one of them rocket scientists, not easily swayed by slick advertising or the supposed expert opinion of a talking head.

[SoftLion]

Still waiting on you to explain why it's such a foolish premise.


You really believe that is a plausible premise, like really? Garage-run, unlicensed, unregulated pharmacies with motor oil in the cough syrup? This is truly how you think Libertarians would want it if they had their way? Foolish indeed.

You could be the progeny of the author of this documentary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZdhcNegZgU&feature=PlayList&p=BA7FA379A8F148A2&playnext_from=PL&index=0&playnext=1



Hey, I was talking about the other masses. You, you seem like one of them rocket scientists, not easily swayed by slick advertising or the supposed expert opinion of a talking head.

Don't mince my words you son of a bitch - I explicitly indicated my position as tail gunner on the space shuttle already.

[Glaz]

You really believe that is a plausible premise, like really? Garage-run, unlicensed, unregulated pharmacies with motor oil in the cough syrup?
So, what do you find so preposterous? That it's garage-run, unlicensed/unregulated, or that I'm putting motor oil in it? The first two, that's right out of the libertarian playbook. But ok, if the motor oil is making you squeamish, how about just canola oil poured into 4 oz bottles and sold as cough syrup. While I'm at it, vaseline squeezed into tubes and labeled as antibacterial ointment. How about water with a dash of table salt in it, poured into 15ml vials and marked as eye drops. All manufactured in and distributed from Glaz Laboratories, located in that small square building (with the overhead door) behind my house, facing the alley. Happy now?


This is truly how you think Libertarians would want it if they had their way?It's not about what libertarians want. It's what the end result would be from these wants turning into policy. Don't even get me started on their call for all drug legalization.

[Glaz]

He's merely trying to show he's a man of the people.Like me, everybody's got a brain. It ain't my fault that some don't exploit the little motherf*cker to it's full potential.

[realityexists]

It's not about what libertarians want. It's what the end result would be from these wants turning into policy. Don't even get me started on their call for all drug legalization.

Within many political parties I think there are varying degrees of "wants" for public policy. Not all Republicans think alike, and not all Democrats think alike; so they do not all desire the same policies. The same can be said of those who fall in the Libertarian camp. Thus, to say that Libertarians favor or would push for policies that "allow" your example to happen is to mistake, I believe, what the majority of Libertarians desire for public policy.

I favor a lot of the ideological positions of Libertarians, however, a lot of Libertarian ideas are unlikely to become politically popular unless there is a significant cultural change in our society. We live in a society that pays more attention to sports and celebrities than we do to political issues.

[Glaz]

I favor a lot of the ideological positions of Libertarians, however, a lot of Libertarian ideas are unlikely to become politically popular unless there is a significant cultural change in our society.
That's where I'm at.

I own my own business. I run it with ethics in mind, dictated by law or otherwise. Coz I'm cool like that. I'm not for sure that could be said for everyone, though. Hence, I'm glad there is governmental oversight in place to more or less enforce these ethics. Same goes with everything, zoning enforcement, public nuisance laws, you name it. These things aren't set up to hold the honest man back, but rather to at least attempt to keep the unscrupulous from screwing the public over.

[SoftLion]

@ Glaz -
everything in your last response was preposterous, at least in the space ship tail gunner world I inhabit. Someone brain****ed you along the way.

[Thugut]

"It might in some cases be a little cruel," Miron said. "But it means you're not taking from people who've worked hard to earn their income (in order) to give it to people who have not worked hard."

Fact: In America every single person earns the exact amount of money according to the work he did.


roflroflrofl

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/R1f8QpeWgTI/AAAAAAAAC_4/P6MSDT8fbb8/s400/college.bmp

[Glaz]

You seem to be taking your examples beyond extreme, all the way to foolish.


You don't think the quoted text below is foolish/totally unrealistic/no one except you actually believes it to be a possibility?



Foolish indeed.


@ Glaz -
everything in your last response was preposterous, at least in the space ship tail gunner world I inhabit. Someone brain****ed you along the way.
Hmm, not too good with the give and take of a message board conversation, are ya.



http://www.hi-lineperformance.com/images/shotgun-u-suck-at-internet.jpg

[Glaz]

Don't mince my words you son of a bitch
Being that I'm kinda new on this board, I could use a quick in-service from the mods. Is calling someone's mom a bitch ok to do here simply because you disagree with their opinion?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not offended, or anything. Personally, I love message board flame wars. Just want to know what the rules of engagement are.

[Thugut]

Being that I'm kinda new on this board, I could use a quick in-service from the mods. Is calling someone's mom a bitch ok to do here simply because you disagree with their opinion?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not offended, or anything. Personally, I love message board flame wars. Just want to know what the rules of engagement are.

Just don't disagree with a mod. If they don't like your opinion, they will let you know, and ask you to stop posting. If you persist, no matter how politely, you will be suspended.

[Kaplanr]

In 1997 (our 20th HS reunion) a friend and I argued the merits of the New Deal in an often rancorous 80 block walk in Manhattan. At some point the conversation became one of political philosophy. His definition of what the role of government should be almost mirrors the beginning of your passage below, except he added "...and enforce contracts."


Ok, there endeth the lesson. Welcome to the libertarian party. There is really no consensus on these things, and they are very open to interpretation.

Essentially, that's wassup with the party. You corner a libertarian, and you'll get an earful about no government oversight beyond national security and protecting life and property, no to most taxes, nearly nothing government run, all replaced by contractors and private corporations. The sharp corners get smoothed more and more as the conversation progresses and points are brought up by you about consumer protection, public safety, the infrastructure, etc. Eventually, if the conversation is honest, you just might hear something along the lines of, "we should have everything we have in place now, but only less of it."

[LineDoggie]

Just don't disagree with a mod. If they don't like your opinion, they will let you know, and ask you to stop posting. If you persist, no matter how politely, you will be suspended.
Been on the recieving end of a lack of situational awareness have you? These guys are the fairest I've seen unless a poster comes here a complete douchebag......

[Glaz]

Just don't disagree with a mod. If they don't like your opinion, they will let you know, and ask you to stop posting. If you persist, no matter how politely, you will be suspended.
Ahh, I see.

[California Joe]

It is duly noted that Softie called you a name. Feel free to retaliate in kind if you so desire. Might I suggest "poopy head"?

[Hollis]

Great thread, So far in the sparing between Softie and the Newbie; Softie is ahead by 4 points.

[Glaz]

It is duly noted that Softie called you a name. Feel free to retaliate in kind if you so desire. Might I suggest "poopy head"?
He's a poopy head...who posts with the intelligence of a bratty 5th grader, which may indicate that his mom did him no favors keeping him on the tit till puberty.

[Hollis]

kinda Ok, that is worth a 1/2 point at max, so now Softie is ahead 3.5 points

[Glaz]

In 1997 (our 20th HS reunion) a friend and I argued the merits of the New Deal in an often rancorous 80 block walk in Manhattan. At some point the conversation became one of political philosophy. His definition of what the role of government should be almost mirrors the beginning of your passage below, except he added "...and enforce contracts."
Ah, so he read the libertarian playbook. All that stuff would work great if only man wasn't ****e to be such a self-serving piece of sh*t.
It's the same story with communism. Each according to his needs, all willingly contributing for the common good. Right, dream on, Marx.

[Kaplanr]

I'm more or less in Glaz's corner, I get his arguments and agree with him. For the record I don't think Softlion was going for a 4 pointer, I read it as kind of like John Wayne in True Grit facing down Lucky Ned Pepper. Also how do 250+ posts qualify a newbie?

[JUNKHO]

Damn - and I was just starting to learn stuff. Then member SL goes to work. Sure hope member Glaz doesn't try to take advantage of this:).

[Hollis]

I'm more or less in Glaz's corner, I get his arguments and agree with him. For the record I don't think Softlion was going for a 4 pointer, I read it as kind of like John Wayne in True Grit facing down Lucky Ned Pepper. Also how do 250+ posts qualify a newbie?


Please do not confuse the judge with the facts of matter.

[Glaz]

kinda Ok, that is worth a 1/2 point at max, so now Softie is ahead 3.5 points

What, Im'a here to amuse you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW1oVdOxKko

[Hollis]

What, Im'a here to amuse you?



If the video was embedded properly, yeah.

Loose 1/2 point.

[Glaz]

If the video was embedded properly, yeah.

Loose 1/2 point.
Well Hollis, I'm actually here primarily to amuse myself. I'm a giver though, help yourself to the lolzies I emit.

Yeh, those videos, it's crazy how the embedding works, right? A dude could tell they're two separate videos only if he has an average sized *****, or bigger. Haha, wasn't the second episode funny?

[Digimon]

The first thing to keep in mind is that the philosophical concept got quite abused over the years and its meaning, adapted to different contexts and political agendas, is often ambiguous. But if one abstracts from the common political and ideological caricatures, the idea is fairly simple.

Libertarianism is a normative doctrine with moral and political dimensions. At the core of this doctrine is the idea that every human being has a full ownership of him/her self, which implies the right to full autonomous control of oneself—in other words, liberty.

One’s rights impose duties on others to respect those rights. This forms basis for both political and moral libertarian theory. It is morally wrong to violate one’s right to self-ownership (or control of self) unless this imposition is justified by the protection of the rights to self-ownership of others. The political organization is normatively justified insofar as it makes minimal impositions compatible with the protection of self-ownership.

Libertarianism is critical of modern state because taxation, as defenders claim, essentially amounts to slavery (by taking a part of the gross income, it essentially makes you work for free). The same goes for any other legislation or regulation (e.g. health and safety, limited work hours, ***/race/religion work discrimination, ****** harassment) or public service (education, health care, public infrastructure, roads, transport) that impose limitations on the individual (through taxation or directly), whether for their own sake, the benefit of others, or any reason other than the protection of self-ownership (liberty).

Libertarianism differs from Anarchism, but not dramatically. Locke, who unwittingly laid the foundation to the ideology, was in fact in part responding to Hobbes, who argued for the justification of the state. Locke thought that the state was not necessary to enforce cooperation if the citizens were allowed to defend themselves and exact retribution—it was, however, necessary for impartial resolution of commercial disputes. Anarchism, on the other hand, has a very idealistic view of human beings as cooperative by nature—nature that is perverted by the corrupting influence of the state.

[Hollis]

Well Hollis, I'm actually here primarily to amuse myself. I'm a giver though, help yourself to the lolzies I emit.

Yeh, those videos, it's crazy how the embedding works, right? A dude could tell they're two separate videos only if he has an average sized *****, or bigger. Haha, wasn't the second episode funny?


I am disappoint.

[JUNKHO]

Just don't disagree with a mod. If they don't like your opinion, they will let you know, and ask you to stop posting. If you persist, no matter how politely, you will be suspended.


HOLLiS

I am disappoint.

@Glaz - Careful there chief.

[Glaz]

@Glaz - Careful there chief.
Naw, me and Hollis, we're like this. *makes the "this" sign with fingers* Tell 'im, Hollis.

[JUNKHO]

Naw, me and Hollis, we're like this. *makes the "this" sign with fingers* Tell 'im, Hollis.

To clarify - Mod HOLLiS doesn't need me to interpret for him.
In my experience he probably doesn't care about your opinion, but will do a "dam-dam" on you for not taking the video embedding srlsly.

just sayin"/thread

[Glaz]

To clarify - Mod HOLLiS doesn't need me to interpret for him.
In my experience he probably doesn't care about your opinion, but will do a "dam-dam" on you for not taking the video embedding srlsly.

just sayin"/thread
Oh, that. I wish I knew what's the deal with the embedding. I think I'm doing it right, but it always pops out in doubles when I hit the submit button. Somebody be a pal and walk me through that shyte, will ya.

[Digimon]

Oh, that. I wish I knew what's the deal with the embedding. I think I'm doing it right, but it always pops out in doubles when I hit the submit button. Somebody be a pal and walk me through that shyte, will ya.
embed this.... http://www.youtube.com/v/rW1oVdOxKko

[Glaz]

embed this.... http://www.youtube.com/v/rW1oVdOxKko

Yeh, tried it, it worked. How come? I guess it's the link being embedded. How did you get the youtube full screen like that?

[Digimon]

Yeh, tried it, it worked. How come? I guess it's the link being embedded. How did you get the youtube full screen like that?

You were embedding this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW1oVdOxKko; I gave you a slightly edited version: http://www.youtube.com/v/rW1oVdOxKko (http://www.youtube.com/v/rW1oVdOxKko). Just make similar alterations in the future, and you should be fine. Do not forget to put it between the embed tags ... click "Reply With Quote" to see how it looks.

http://www.youtube.com/v/rW1oVdOxKko

[Glaz]

How'd you get the edited version? Or did you edit it yourself?

[SoftLion]

Jeez, I tend to life for a few hours and the thread goes to to pot. Lets see:


Fact: In America every single person earns the exact amount of money according to the work he did.

roflroflrofl
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/R1f8QpeWgTI/AAAAAAAAC_4/P6MSDT8fbb8/s400/college.bmp

Your post only makes sense if you think professors work as hard or harder than college football coaches. They don't. Nor do they have the ability to bring in the revenue of a premium athletic program. But I fear I am heading down the path of rational, fact-based analysis. Which wouldn't jive with ya.



Hmm, not too good with the give and take of a message board conversation, are ya.

The fact that you are the only human being that thinks your "premise" is even remotely legit doesn't mean that I'm wrong. It means that you are the only person that thinks you know what you are talking about on that topic. Thugut doesn't count.


Being that I'm kinda new on this board, I could use a quick in-service from the mods. Is calling someone's mom a bitch ok to do here simply because you disagree with their opinion?


Don't get me wrong, I'm not offended, or anything. Personally, I love message board flame wars. Just want to know what the rules of engagement are.

Hey! Genius! Try once more:



Hey, I was talking about the other masses. You, you seem like one of them rocket scientists, not easily swayed by slick advertising or the supposed expert opinion of a talking head.

to which I replied:


Don't mince my words you son of a bitch - I explicitly indicated my position as tail gunner on the space shuttle already.


But I suppose that went straight over your head. Again. Do your feelings get hurt easy? I will never ignore your feelings. How about this: my ManCrunch username is TubeSteakSmotheredinHotUnderwear - drop me a line anytime.

And my favorite:


He's a poopy head...who posts with the intelligence of a bratty 5th grader, which may indicate that his mom did him no favors keeping him on the tit till puberty.

Sure motor oil cough syrup guy. Growing up with two dads has obvioiusly taken its toll on you.

Tee hee hee hee - sophmoric cut-down exchanges - all in the name of Liberty.....inarianism.

[seraosha]

wow thug...little slow on the edit there, lol.

[Glaz]

Jeez, I tend to blah, yacky yack yack, doodly pick pick in my poopsy, all in the name of Liberty.....inarianism.
You're a poopyhead, and your mom breastfed you into adolescence.

[SoftLion]

You're a poopyhead, and your mom breastfed you into adolescence.

I'm funnier than you. State law, look it up.

[Glaz]

I'm funnier than you. State law, look it up.
Poopy, your mumzy is calling you...



http://terminallaughter.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/grandmother.jpg

"Who's a hungry boy?!"

[Hollis]

From the looks of it, you two are participating in some strange internet dating ritual. :)

[Glaz]

From the looks of it, you two are participating in some strange internet dating ritual. :)
I'm not his type. "Mumzy, I'm hungry" solicits no response from me.

[SoftLion]

Straits of Gibraltor

/thread.

[Glaz]

Straits of Gibraltor

/thread.
??? No clue.

Look poopy, you're clearly a fookin id'jat who's barking up the wrong tree, one with heavy branches that may just fall on your pointy head. Go back inside, to the *****, where it's safe.

[matthew.manhorn]

Leftists have stolen the name of "liberalism" just as how neocons stole the name of "conservatism".

It' sick to see leftists labeling themselves as "liberals" or "progressives" through the mainstream media or seeing evolution-denying, atheist-bashing articles in "Conservapedia".