IGX

Please forgive me and be patient. For I am simply a Gentile and do not yet know the Truth that Mises brought down from the mountain to let our people free.

I am an ignorant man, for I still believe in "evolution", and science, and *chuckle* falsifiable theories.

I am brainwashed, and have not yet heard the Good Word that there was born of the virgin Margaret a Son who would one day shine a light of truth and freedom throughout the land, and also habitually serve as the U.S. Representative for Texas's 14th congressional district.

But one day, I will experience the evil of Satan all around us. I will see the need to strike again and again at the devil known as the Federal Government. At first, it will feel right to strike back against evil. But then, once it becomes inchorent and absurd, only then will I feel the true might of the Lord, Rothbard, hallowed be His name.

For Thine is the definitely-not-a-kingdom, the power of property, and the arrogant glory, forever and forever, amen.

What are you pleaing for?

About 30 seconds, depending on how well you read

You can condense Libertarian thinking into the following phrase, Bux...

"Mind your own business".


Nothing religious about it. Easy to observe and understand.

It's funny, because some of us who identify as libertarian, or who have libertarian leanings, think the "other side" (whatever side that is) is arrogant.

Anyway, I think Radley Balko made a good point when he said that libertarianism "happens" to people.

I think Friedman does a pretty good job of explaining economics and liberty than most. Well, he did. He's dead as fuck now and would have been 100 last month.

Sounds like somebody needs to get back to reading their new age gobbledygook book about not knowing anything

Baffled, I don't know if you have libertarian friends on Facebook or other places but there seems to be no such thing as "libertarian leanings" - you're either in or you're an ignorant statist.

What gets me, is that some of my friends and colleagues have wholly adopted even the most radical libertarian ideas in a matter of weeks or months. I'll give you two examples:

1. Hard core libertarians would, tomorrow, allow a diner on Main St in Whitusville Mississippi to limit entrance to their establishment to all of the public except black people - market forces would take care of their racism since progressive folks would not dine there. Now the libertarian logic in this matter is sound. But logic isn't reason, and it is unreasonable to not take into account that humans have been oppressing other humans forever, and our country oppressed a certain race for hundreds of years. So, I'm not ready to support this policy, and I'm definitely not dead certain it's going to work.

2. Hard core libertarians can't help but support Akin. Life is life and there's no exception to defending life just because the mother-to-be was raped. Again, sound logic, but fucking retarded.

Herv, I'm certain I don't know what you mean

I think Libertarianism is a great philosophy on the individual level. Let people make their own decisions about how they live their lives, and let them face the consequences for their actions when those actions harm someone else. We have the police and the courts to make the recipient of destructive behavior whole again. And we have laws to prohibit actions that are proven blatantly harmful to others, i.e drunk driving, speeding, armed robbery.

Want to smoke a joint or do a line of coke? Fine with me, right up to the point that you get behind the wheel while high or commit a crime to get your drugs.

Where libertarianism breaks down for me is when the ability to do harm is far beyond the ability to ever have the wronged party made whole again. This is the case at the corporate or government level. The Libertarian would say that government regulations preventing fracking for NG removal are an unneeded bureaucratic hurdle to getting energy from the ground, and that any harm done will fall on the oil companies to fix. But their ability to fuck up the environment is far beyond their ability to repair and make whole again, and no amount of money paid in fines and damages through lawsuits can ever replaced a contaminated groundwater supply that ruins a farm community.

BucketHead wrote:Baffled, I don't know if you have libertarian friends on Facebook or other places but there seems to be no such thing as "libertarian leanings" - you're either in or you're an ignorant statist.

What gets me, is that some of my friends and colleagues have wholly adopted even the most radical libertarian ideas in a matter of weeks or months. I'll give you two examples:

1. Hard core libertarians would, tomorrow, allow a diner on Main St in Whitusville Mississippi to limit entrance to their establishment to all of the public except black people - market forces would take care of their racism since progressive folks would not dine there. Now the libertarian logic in this matter is sound. But logic isn't reason, and it is unreasonable to not take into account that humans have been oppressing other humans forever, and our country oppressed a certain race for hundreds of years. So, I'm not ready to support this policy, and I'm definitely not dead certain it's going to work.

2. Hard core libertarians can't help but support Akin. Life is life and there's no exception to defending life just because the mother-to-be was raped. Again, sound logic, but fucking retarded.

Point 1) Agreed. Logic isn't reason. Liberty ought to be the default setting and I'm of the mind that laws breaking down segregation allow more liberty than not. I probably wouldn't be too warmly received at a Roscoe's Chicken and Waffles, just like Malik or whatever wouldn't be too warmly received at Jim Bob's Ho Down or whatever. If the owner of these two fine establishments happened to be a closet race traitor, then laws ensuring desegregation allow market forces, for lack of a better term, to be exhibited better than laws allowing for segregation.

I used a lot of commas and probably some incorrect terminology, but you get the point.

Point 2) Again, agreed. Akin is a fucking idiot. Abortion is a touchy subject, and it's not just hardcore libertarians who are sticking up for him on the issue.

I personally think, and figure a fair number of other libertarians probably (hopefully?) do too, that there is enough debate still open on the point of when life starts that pro-choice is a reasonable position to take. I'm no fan of abortion, but I'm less of a fan of a little zygote being carried to full term when it isn't wanted because of rape, incest or some other issue.

The hardcore libertarians are just as close minded and ignorant/arrogant as the folks on the other side of things. Both sides mock each other and think they'll ensure the destruction of society. Both sides are probably right.

Alfred_E._Neuman wrote:I think Libertarianism is a great philosophy on the individual level. Let people make their own decisions about how they live their lives, and let them face the consequences for their actions when those actions harm someone else. We have the police and the courts to make the recipient of destructive behavior whole again. And we have laws to prohibit actions that are proven blatantly harmful to others, i.e drunk driving, speeding, armed robbery.

Want to smoke a joint or do a line of coke? Fine with me, right up to the point that you get behind the wheel while high or commit a crime to get your drugs.

Where libertarianism breaks down for me is when the ability to do harm is far beyond the ability to ever have the wronged party made whole again. This is the case at the corporate or government level. The Libertarian would say that government regulations preventing fracking for NG removal are an unneeded bureaucratic hurdle to getting energy from the ground, and that any harm done will fall on the oil companies to fix. But their ability to fuck up the environment is far beyond their ability to repair and make whole again, and no amount of money paid in fines and damages through lawsuits can ever replaced a contaminated groundwater supply that ruins a farm community.

Lack of regulation so you can destroy the environment is greed and irresponsibility, not libertarianism. Libertarians are okay with laws if they are preventing infringing upon the rights of others. I.e. stealing is illegal because it infringes upon someone's right to property (assuming they are legal owner).

There is no terrain in the US that isn't owned by someone or some entity. If you ruin someone's terrain/land/environment, you are infringing on their right to own that property. Essentially it's property damage.

BucketHead wrote:Hard core libertarians can't help but support Akin. Life is life and there's no exception to defending life just because the mother-to-be was raped. Again, sound logic, but fucking retarded.

Why? If their assumption is that the fetus is an unborn child, and therefore possessing rights and entitled to protection by society's laws-- what is inconsistent about that from their libertarian perspective?

And FWIW, I'm not a libertarian, so I approach the subject differently.

Restaurants without niggers, sounds like a plan that would work to me

Alfred_E._Neuman wrote:I think Libertarianism is a great philosophy on the individual level. Let people make their own decisions about how they live their lives, and let them face the consequences for their actions when those actions harm someone else. We have the police and the courts to make the recipient of destructive behavior whole again. And we have laws to prohibit actions that are proven blatantly harmful to others, i.e drunk driving, speeding, armed robbery.

Want to smoke a joint or do a line of coke? Fine with me, right up to the point that you get behind the wheel while high or commit a crime to get your drugs.

Where libertarianism breaks down for me is when the ability to do harm is far beyond the ability to ever have the wronged party made whole again. This is the case at the corporate or government level. The Libertarian would say that government regulations preventing fracking for NG removal are an unneeded bureaucratic hurdle to getting energy from the ground, and that any harm done will fall on the oil companies to fix. But their ability to fuck up the environment is far beyond their ability to repair and make whole again, and no amount of money paid in fines and damages through lawsuits can ever replaced a contaminated groundwater supply that ruins a farm community.

edit: You can just skip what I wrote below and say what kreator said.

I would go farther up the chain and say that libertarianism is best on a federal level, with regulations being best on the state and local level. The feds can never properly understand communities in order to propose an across the board "fix". The state and local government stands a far greater chance of enacting laws, regulations and safety nets that will actually benefit and, when necessary, even protect the people affected. I think it's especially true with the environment.

In a nutshell, I don't think the feds have much business other than ensuring states don't put up trade barriers with each other, raising a reasonably sized military for common defense, and maybe some stuff like space.

There's more to it than that, but that's what comes to mind first, and there are certainly exceptions to all of the above.

baffled wrote: I think it's especially true with the environment.

wrong, as least with regard to electricity generation. burning coal in ohio,etc results in toxic pollution affecting the health of people in downwind states. ohio's interest is not to regulate, thereby keeping costs lower in ohio. as a consequence, the health costs are borne by others downwid. only a federal solution can address this, i.e. hiding costs distorts the market. i.e. only a properly regulated market can send the correct price signals.

water quality provides comparable examples.

being a society means minding the common business.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... -opulence/

dead man walking wrote:

baffled wrote: I think it's especially true with the environment.

wrong, as least with regard to electricity generation. burning coal in ohio,etc results in toxic pollution affecting the health of people in downwind states. ohio's interest is not to regulate, thereby keeping costs lower in ohio. as a consequence, the health costs are borne by others downwid. only a federal solution can address this, i.e. hiding costs distorts the market. i.e. only a properly regulated market can send the correct price signals.

water quality provides comparable examples.

being a society means minding the common business.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... -opulence/

You sue for damages.... real damages, like acid rain, depositing polonium or mercury onto private property.

Not imaginary damages, like "global warming" or asthma.

Turd, I said the logic was sound. What's your point

BucketHead wrote:Turd, I said the logic was sound. What's your point

Why is it retarded?

dead man walking wrote:

baffled wrote: I think it's especially true with the environment.

wrong, as least with regard to electricity generation. burning coal in ohio,etc results in toxic pollution affecting the health of people in downwind states. ohio's interest is not to regulate, thereby keeping costs lower in ohio. as a consequence, the health costs are borne by others downwid. only a federal solution can address this, i.e. hiding costs distorts the market. i.e. only a properly regulated market can send the correct price signals.

water quality provides comparable examples.

being a society means minding the common business.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... -opulence/

Right, an exception.

Turdacious wrote:
Why is it retarded?

Any reasonable assessment of rape based pregnancy, regardless of Faith or lack thereof, would weigh the continued suffering of the mother versus the termination of an unborn fetus. To not seriously contemplate the issue and instead just jump on the logically consistent conclusion is cowardly and retarded. FWIW, most religious leaders I've heard struggle mightily with this subject and I respect their decision process.

Gene wrote:
You sue for damages.... real damages, like acid rain, depositing polonium or mercury onto private property.

Not imaginary damages, like "global warming" or asthma.

a just society would not allow people to shoot neurotoxins into the air. it wouldn't make me sue to protect my health.

Gene is an idiot.

dead man walking wrote:

Gene wrote:
You sue for damages.... real damages, like acid rain, depositing polonium or mercury onto private property.

Not imaginary damages, like "global warming" or asthma.

a just society would not allow people to shoot neurotoxins into the air. it wouldn't make me sue to protect my health.

No just society has ever existed then. Even wood smoke contains neurotoxins.

BucketHead wrote:Baffled, I don't know if you have libertarian friends on Facebook or other places but there seems to be no such thing as "libertarian leanings" - you're either in or you're an ignorant statist.

What gets me, is that some of my friends and colleagues have wholly adopted even the most radical libertarian ideas in a matter of weeks or months. I'll give you two examples:

1. Hard core libertarians would, tomorrow, allow a diner on Main St in Whitusville Mississippi to limit entrance to their establishment to all of the public except black people - market forces would take care of their racism since progressive folks would not dine there. Now the libertarian logic in this matter is sound. But logic isn't reason, and it is unreasonable to not take into account that humans have been oppressing other humans forever, and our country oppressed a certain race for hundreds of years. So, I'm not ready to support this policy, and I'm definitely not dead certain it's going to work.

2. Hard core libertarians can't help but support Akin. Life is life and there's no exception to defending life just because the mother-to-be was raped. Again, sound logic, but fucking retarded.

#2 sounds less Libertarian and more like some kind of Libertarian Fundamentalist hybrid. I think you can make a good Libertarian case for the right of an individual to abort for just about any reason though I'm not strongly schooled in Libertarinism....but you can't write it without writing "Lib" so it's automatically suspect.

Turdacious wrote:

dead man walking wrote:

Gene wrote:
You sue for damages.... real damages, like acid rain, depositing polonium or mercury onto private property.

Not imaginary damages, like "global warming" or asthma.

a just society would not allow people to shoot neurotoxins into the air. it wouldn't make me sue to protect my health.

No just society has ever existed then. Even wood smoke contains neurotoxins.

probably true about just societies.

as for wood smoke, a number of states have regulations re woodburning. and the burn barrel for trash is now outlawed because the smoke from burning plastic, among other things, isn't good for you.