Libertarianism

[Screwtape]

Anybody on wackbag a closet libertariat?

[BIV]

I don't go to libraries.

What? Nothin?

[GLENN_THE_TOOL]

I don't go to libraries.

What? Nothin?

oh, you get something...

http://www.ingenious.carleton.ca/2005-04/photos/Tunnel-Truck-Crash-copy.jpg

[abudabit]

I'm not a libertarian, although I am registered as one and protest vote for them when I really hate both major party candidates.

[Diceman Cometh]

Anybody on wackbag a closet libertariat?

More of a medicine cabinet libertariat, actually.







I should be strangled with piano wire for that joke.

[Coffee Diva]

Big-L or small-l libertarian?

I am generally small-l libertarian in my political outlook, but I belong to the Republican Party because the Libertarian Party is for the most part a bunch of kooks. (Exhibit 1: Selling themselves out to let Hoo Hoo run for governor on their ticket.)

[d0uche_n0zzle]

I'm a libertarian, inching towards anarchism.

[Tommy Ceez]

Small L...but would rather try to push the Repubs back in that direction, rather than vote with the anarchists

[frankjg]

South Park Conservative = libertarian = good old days of conservatism (when they didnt spend a shitload of money on social programs and they stayed the fuck out of peoples business). Maybe we'll get back there.. someday

[FreeTheCricket]

South Park Conservative = libertarian = good old days of conservatism (when they didnt spend a shitload of money on social programs and they stayed the fuck out of peoples business). Maybe we'll get back there.. someday

Yup. Pretty much where I am. Stop telling me what to do, see, hear, eat, smell, fuck, say, spend, drive, drink, smoke, etc. Just let me live my life, pay my fair share of taxes (which, if the gov't would stop telling me all those things, would be WAY less), and I'll be happy. As long as I don't hurt anyone, I should be allowed to do whatever the fuck I feel like doing, whenever the fuck I feel like doing it.

You stay the fuck out of my business and I'll stay the fuck out of yours.

[frankjg]

If anyone here has not already, you should definately read Milton Friedmans Capitalism and Freedom.. it basically lays out the foundation for modern conservatism. What "conservatives" are doing today is a complete bastardization of Friedmans (and Regans) conservatism.

[abudabit]

The problem is the christian conservatives are just too damn organized, and the moderates just plain aren't. When Christian conservatives and loony liberals want to get out the vote, they do it. How often are moderates rallied? Never. You get all these asshats who keep saying shit like "Voting isn't worth it." Fucking vote, fags. These wack job conservatives and liberals are going to keep controlling the two parties until normal people start voting in higher percentatges.

[patbattlefield]

i agree with most of their ideals except open borders. legalizing drugs=good. i believe they are also proponents of the fair tax bill which i also agree with.

[Mommadeez4u]

A Paleo-libertarian. Read anything by Lew Rockwell (http://www.lewrockwell.com/) and I pretty much whole-heartedly agree. Other documents and essays that helped free me (mentally at least) from being chained to The State:

THE ANATOMY OF THE STATE (http://www.mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp)

A Gift for My Daughter (http://harrybrowne.org/articles/GiftDaughter.htm)

Introduction to Ludwig Von Mises (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2708)

Strike The Root (http://www.strike-the-root.com/)

[NikDaSchwugie]

One of my roommates is thinking about becoming a Libertarian, so I borrowed her book "Libertarianism in One Lesson".

It completely changed my mind about switching to that party. Too selfish for me.

[Mommadeez4u]

'Selfish'?

[d0uche_n0zzle]

One of my roommates is thinking about becoming a Libertarian, so I borrowed her book "Libertarianism in One Lesson".

It completely changed my mind about switching to that party. Too selfish for me.

On the surface it may appear that we are heartless bastards, but in reality we do advocate private groups (charity's or churches) helping those who truly do need help.

Most of us are against the use of government 'power' to do those things, it's usually just a huge boondoggle to tax payers who just get the short end of the stick and left holding the bag.

[frankjg]

One of my roommates is thinking about becoming a Libertarian, so I borrowed her book "Libertarianism in One Lesson".

It completely changed my mind about switching to that party. Too selfish for me.

That is the major misconception that most people have of Conservatives, we are not heartless or selfish. We believe that individuals can and should take care of themselves (and their families). The government should not get involved, once that happens people become dependent and lazy and the tax payers continue to foot the bill. Charities, Church Groups, and the like should be enabled to help people, not the government.

Case in point, a report on the most charitable states came out yesterday. Number one was Mississippi, the rest of the top 10 were rounded out by "red" states. So, for all their whining about compassion and helping out the poor and less fortunate, the "blue" states do not put their money where their mouth is.

[Mommadeez4u]

I dunno, color me weird, but to me the definition of 'selfish' is using the monopoly of the use of force (the State) to make other people do what you want.

[d0uche_n0zzle]

And stealing half of their wages through wealth redistribution schemes.

[DoughBoy]

Put me down as a small l also.

Call me a selfish bastard for wanting to spent my hard-earned money on things that *I* choose to spend them on, rather than having half of my wages stolen from me and having most of it given to career politicians to light their cigars with; The majority of the rest used to fund pathetic programs that end up fueling the general decline of society and inability to accept personal responsibility and consequence of their actions/choices.

Forgive me if I'd like to plan and invest in MY future before writing checks to those who don't give a shit enough to invest in theirs.

[turdfrgsn]

i'm a southpark conservative w/anarchist tendencies i still haven't managed to outgrow yet
oh, and i'm decidedly a selfish bastard but i've made my peace w/that

[FreeTheCricket]

Most of us are against the use of government 'power' to do those things, it's usually just a huge boondoggle to tax payers who just get the short end of the stick and left holding the bag.

Katrina relief, maybe? $2000 dollars to career criminals and thugs who ended up spending OUR hard-earned money on beer, porn, and cigarettes. What a bunch of bullshit. Next time, fuck them. They are on their own.

[Coffee Diva]

On the surface it may appear that we are heartless bastards...

*raises hand meekly* Um, I'm a heartless bastard... :icon_mrgr

Okay, not really. But it's fun to watch liberals stroke out when you claim to happily and openly believe in everything they think we believe.

[Coffee Diva]

http://img483.imageshack.us/img483/4238/img12861a9rm.jpg

Why do you only have four bullets? You couldn't even take out a gathering of Air America fans with only four bullets.

[BigDanNOLA]

Case in point, a report on the most charitable states came out yesterday. Number one was Mississippi, the rest of the top 10 were rounded out by "red" states. So, for all their whining about compassion and helping out the poor and less fortunate, the "blue" states do not put their money where their mouth is.

I would like to see this report and who provided it. many "reports" are just manipulated statistics. How did they define being "more charitable". Is it number of people who donated to charity? Is it amount spent per capita? Is it total money spent towards charities? I guarantee you if I made a study and looked at each of these descriptions I would get different results as to which states are "most charitable".

[istink]

I'm a libertarian, inching towards anarchism.

Here here.

[BigDanNOLA]

I am a Democrat who recently considered joining the libertarian party. However, I changed my mind when I heard their stance on the war. They made the claim that the founding fathers wouldnt want us over there. Even if that was the case back then, which I dont believe, the founding fathers could not have imagined people flying airplanes into buildings.

Yes, I support going after terrorists and I actually support a national sales tax. I am a Democrat. The reason I am so is because at the end of the day I would rather pay more in taxes and have some people live off the system then have a government tell me how to live my personal life.

[frankjg]

I would like to see this report and who provided it. many "reports" are just manipulated statistics. How did they define being "more charitable". Is it number of people who donated to charity? Is it amount spent per capita? Is it total money spent towards charities? I guarantee you if I made a study and looked at each of these descriptions I would get different results as to which states are "most charitable".

Here is an excerpt to the report, I included the groups website link below.

Below are the top and bottom rankings for charitable giving based on 2003 IRS data on income and the average itemized charitable contribution. The average household in the United States donated $3,724 of $47,401 income.

The Top 5

1. Mississippi $34,720; $4,770

2. Arkansas $36,882; $4,890

3. South Dakota $37,698; $4,318

4. Oklahoma $38,344; $4,350

5. Tennessee $41,140; $5,564

The Bottom 5

46. Wisconsin $45,188; $2,659

47. Rhode Island $47,585; 2,399

48. New Jersey $60,527; $3,143

49. Massachusetts $58,408; $3,122

50. New Hampshire $50,952; $2,607

Source: Generosity Index 2005, Catalogue for Philanthropy

Edit: Here is the link to the groups website.

http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/generosity_index/

[d0uche_n0zzle]

Actually, I believe when it comes to classic libertarians we look at Washington's wise words regarding foreign affairs, "friendship with all nations, tangled alliances with none." The military should only be used in defense of our country. If our current employees hadn't meddled in so many other nations business we wouldn't be so fucking screwed with another phony war on civil rights, again. (Think Drug War, Terrorism, etc...)

[OnePremier]

South Park Conservative = libertarian = good old days of conservatism (when they didnt spend a shitload of money on social programs and they stayed the fuck out of peoples business). Maybe we'll get back there.. someday

that's me sweetie.

[BruceKellysJunk]

the "generosity index" doesnt take into account cost of living and lets keep in mind that charitable donations also include churches. Donating 10% to your church is different from donating to 10% to groups that give directly to the poor and less fortunate.



my red state came in 37th
probably means nothing.


just sayin'

[BigDanNOLA]

Here is an excerpt to the report, I included the groups website link below....

Here is the problem with the survey, it does not take into consideration population issues. You might say "but its per capita".

Lets create a hypotheical comparing of 2 states. One has 1000 people and one has 10,000 people. If each state has 100 wealthy givers, who give 100 dollars and the rest of the people give a dollar.. the smaller state will have given 10,900 for a per capita giving of 10.9.

The larger state will be have 1.99 per capita giving, and ranked lower even though the state gave more.

[FreeTheCricket]

http://img483.imageshack.us/img483/4238/img12861a9rm.jpg

Why do you only have four bullets? You couldn't even take out a gathering of Air America fans with only four bullets.


4 out of the mag for show. There's 30 in the one in the gun, and 26 in the one next to it. 60 rounds could certainly do some damage to all those awful liberals. :icon_mrgr

[abudabit]

Yeah well none of you 'libertarians' voted, judging by the less than 1%.

[d0uche_n0zzle]

I'm withholding my vote and switching it to my ammo box. It'll will be a lot more effective too. :icon_mrgr

[NikDaSchwugie]

Let me clarify on why I think Libertarianism isn't for me:

According to the book I read, the government should collect no taxes, but instead have a lottery; end unemployment benefits; end corporate regulation; and open our borders to anyone.

I find it hard to believe that we can fund the entire military - and national infrastructure - with a lottery.

I can't believe that church groups and charities will have enough funds to provide 6 months of unemployment benefits, programs to benefit low-income children, etc, especially considering fundraising will have to be a full-time job, and people are notorious for donation fatigue. Not to mention there will be plenty of people who won't donate, or will give a token amount.

I'm not in favor of ending all corporate regulation. The 1996 Telecommunications Act pretty much destroyed radio. The S&L deregulation cost the country trillions.

As for open borders, who the hell wants that these days?

I like the idea that the government stays out of my life, but I am not willing to give up the safety net.

[Cunt Smasher]

Coffee diva has it right.

[frankjg]

Let me clarify on why I think Libertarianism isn't for me:

According to the book I read, the government should collect no taxes, but instead have a lottery; end unemployment benefits; end corporate regulation; and open our borders to anyone.

I find it hard to believe that we can fund the entire military - and national infrastructure - with a lottery.

I can't believe that church groups and charities will have enough funds to provide 6 months of unemployment benefits, programs to benefit low-income children, etc, especially considering fundraising will have to be a full-time job, and people are notorious for donation fatigue. Not to mention there will be plenty of people who won't donate, or will give a token amount.

I'm not in favor of ending all corporate regulation. The 1996 Telecommunications Act pretty much destroyed radio. The S&L deregulation cost the country trillions.

As for open borders, who the hell wants that these days?

I like the idea that the government stays out of my life, but I am not willing to give up the safety net.

Yeah, thats a little freakish, I dont think a national lottery is going to pay for things the gov needs to be involved in (ie Military, infrastructure, etc..)

and keep the borders closed, no more dishwashers please.

[d0uche_n0zzle]

I like the idea that the government stays out of my life, but I am not willing to give up the safety net.

The chains of true liberty are burdensome and liberating at the same time. While I do believe in most libertarian ideas, they are not really practical unless (open borders sounds great, but...) we move towards them at a pace everyone can get use to (even the hardcore agree on this point). A gradual reduction and transfer of power which reduces the burden from taxpayers (still would need a flat tax or a pay as you go) that would free up lots and lots of capital which would fuel even more economic activity. A win win except for those who wish to suck off the teat.

[stinkindutchman]

I have voted for Liberatarians before. I am a confused right wing war monger, so what do I know?

[Irishcurse]

Below are the top and bottom rankings for charitable giving based on 2003 IRS data on income and the average itemized charitable contribution. The average household in the United States donated $3,724 of $47,401 income.

The only problem with this list is it didnt take into account the cost of living. The local news here in Mass pointed it out. Homes and Apartments in the NorthEast are 20 times more expensive than Mississippi.

[FreeTheCricket]

Yes, I support going after terrorists and I actually support a national sales tax. I am a Democrat. The reason I am so is because at the end of the day I would rather pay more in taxes and have some people live off the system then have a government tell me how to live my personal life.


Uhhh.... last time I checked, the Democrats are ALL ABOUT telling anybody and everybody how to live their personal life. Especially when it comes to spending their money.

[frankjg]

The only problem with this list is it didnt take into account the cost of living. The local news here in Mass pointed it out. Homes and Apartments in the NorthEast are 20 times more expensive than Mississippi.

The wages are higher in the NE as opposed to states like Miss. and Ala. so it evens out in the end.

[BigDanNOLA]

The wages are higher in the NE as opposed to states like Miss. and Ala. so it evens out in the end.


Are you sure it evens out? I mean if the wages are double but the amount donated per capita is 10x more in the smaller state then you still wind up with a disproportionate view of the smaller states.

[NikDaSchwugie]

Another problem is that the survey takes data from people who itemized their deductions on their tax returns. Don't itemize? You don't get counted. Donate but don't put it on your taxes? You don't get counted. The survey takes data from 15-60% of people (depending on the state, some states itemize more than others) and presents it for the whole state. For example, in 2003, 17% of Wyoming taxpayers itemized their deductions. When does 17% represent the whole state?

[turdfrgsn]

The only problem with this list is it didnt take into account the cost of living. The local news here in Mass pointed it out. Homes and Apartments in the NorthEast are 20 times more expensive than Mississippi.

i see your point and i'd be willing to stipulate that in the people's republic of taxachussetts, simply paying the exhorbitant taxes in that commie hell hole could be considered "charitable donations"
only it ain't done by choice and you people keep voting those career hacks in office
between the beautiful people nimbys on nantucket and beacon hill, and the union thugs downtown, the avg joe ain't got a hope in hell in that state
oh sure it's a nice place to visit......in the summer
but there's no way in hell i'd live there
my advice, vote with your feet and head for a sunnier climate, preferably one w/out a state income tax like texas or florida
trust me, you'll feel much more charitable when you do

[Mommadeez4u]

I've been a 'libertarian' for about 15 years, this is the first time I've ever read something about a 'lottery'.

Read the works of Lysander Spooner (http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/NoTreason/NoTreason_chap1.html), Ludwig von Mises (http://www.mises.org/web/2012), Murray Rothbard (http://www.mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp), Lew Rockwell (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/rockwell-arch.html), Harry Browne (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=13247). Step back from the whole 'Us vs. Them' paradigm (insert whatever political party you belong to in the first part and whatever political party you're convinced is taking the US straight to Hell in the second part) and ask yourself, "Who owns my life? Who owns the fruits of my labor? Who owns my children? Can George Bush, Al Gore, or ANY politician run my life better than I can?"

When is the last time you voted for someone and actually got what you wanted as a result? Voting is for suckers, because it strengthens the politician's notions that whatever they do is sanctioned by the populace, and it legitimizes their monopoly on the use of force to do whatever they wish.

[NikDaSchwugie]

Mommadeez4u, thanks for the links. I am reading up on Mises now.

Question: if the government is not collecting tax money, how will we fund our military and maintain the infrastructure?

[BigDanNOLA]

Uhhh.... last time I checked, the Democrats are ALL ABOUT telling anybody and everybody how to live their personal life. Especially when it comes to spending their money.

I disagree with the Democrats on fiscal issues. However, I also disagree with the Republicans on fiscal issues as well. There are very few on either side who will stand up and fight for the fair tax plan.

And while there are examples of Democrats who do preach about video games, tv, and the kiddos.... the telling someone how to live your life side is still the Religious Right who are now the shot callers for the Republican party.

Making GTA have an "A" rating istead of an "M" rating is not effecting my liberty at all. Trying to legislate religion is. The right is far more guilty of that. So until the Republican party gets back to being true conservatives who want LESS government interference I will be sticking with the Democratic party (flaws and all).

[BigDanNOLA]

Another problem is that the survey takes data from people who itemized their deductions on their tax returns. Don't itemize? You don't get counted. Donate but don't put it on your taxes? You don't get counted. The survey takes data from 15-60% of people (depending on the state, some states itemize more than others) and presents it for the whole state. For example, in 2003, 17% of Wyoming taxpayers itemized their deductions. When does 17% represent the whole state?


Thats a good point. The survey discusses those that itemize and MANY poor people who contribute WOULDNT be itemizing to begin with because they wouldnt make enough money that would allow them to SPEND enough money to itemize in the first place.

What the survey SHOULD have done is only look at the tax returns of people that itemized and used THAT for the average income of donors as well instead of looking at all tax returns for the income but only part of the tax returns for the givers.

I am always very leary of surveys and where they come from because statistics can always be manipulated. Like, if Barry Bonds is 7 for his last 8... is is also probably 7 for his last 9 as well. He could also be 7 for his last 200.

[FreeTheCricket]

I disagree with the Democrats on fiscal issues. However, I also disagree with the Republicans on fiscal issues as well. There are very few on either side who will stand up and fight for the fair tax plan.

And while there are examples of Democrats who do preach about video games, tv, and the kiddos.... the telling someone how to live your life side is still the Religious Right who are now the shot callers for the Republican party.

Making GTA have an "A" rating istead of an "M" rating is not effecting my liberty at all. Trying to legislate religion is. The right is far more guilty of that. So until the Republican party gets back to being true conservatives who want LESS government interference I will be sticking with the Democratic party (flaws and all).

Well... the religious right has absolutely hijacked the once glorious GOP. They are pushing their agenda no matter how many people disagree with it. Unfortunately, the democrats, who have been very uninspired lately, have realized that if they push a "moral agenda" as well, then they will get the votes and headlines. I would reckon that about 75% of Americans fall somewhere near the "middle" politically, agreeing with some republican and some democrat views, as I do. The other 25% represent the fringes of each party, and for some reason, they have all the power. I think it is partly because we have an extreme right president, and we have extreme left "leaders" of the democrats (Hillary, Kerry, Kennedy, Shumer, etc.) Both sides fail to realize that if they continue down this path the 75% is going to get fed up and find another party that truly represents what they believe. It may not happen until 50 years from now, but I think it will happen. Libertarians need to refine their views and make some compromises, and they could be a very attractive party to both republicans and democrats.

[BigDanNOLA]

Well... the religious right has absolutely hijacked the once glorious GOP. They are pushing their agenda no matter how many people disagree with it. Unfortunately, the democrats, who have been very uninspired lately, have realized that if they push a "moral agenda" as well, then they will get the votes and headlines. I would reckon that about 75% of Americans fall somewhere near the "middle" politically, agreeing with some republican and some democrat views, as I do. The other 25% represent the fringes of each party, and for some reason, they have all the power. I think it is partly because we have an extreme right president, and we have extreme left "leaders" of the democrats (Hillary, Kerry, Kennedy, Shumer, etc.) Both sides fail to realize that if they continue down this path the 75% is going to get fed up and find another party that truly represents what they believe. It may not happen until 50 years from now, but I think it will happen. Libertarians need to refine their views and make some compromises, and they could be a very attractive party to both republicans and democrats.

You are probably right and the Libertarian party is the more likely of the other parties to fill that void but ONLY if they make those changes and it is unlikely that they will because libertarians tend to have their own fundamentalists in their party as well... not with religion but on policy issues.

[MONKEY]

I basicly figgered out that I was more of a libertarian from listening to niel boortz. here is a link to the libertairion home page http://www.lp.org/

and for shitz n giggles the worlds smallest political test
http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

[BigDanNOLA]

I took that test and came out as a Libertarian on it. :clap:

Boortz is ok, but he still doesnt get it right and is a coward who wont let people on his show that will prove him to be wrong.

[calmo el hacko]

honestly, i can't see how any good american can agree with either major party. is it just me, or are they one in the same? you're fucked unless you're wealthy.



the most fucked up thing is that they have dirty hippies and national socialist youth in the same front. still a better vote than for those other cunts.

[THE FEZ MAN]

I'm a libertarian, inching towards anarchism.


that about covers it for me

[Screwtape]

it all boils down to whether you like rampant capitalism or not. many people get the misconception that libertarianism is reserved for raging free-market capitalists, where actually it is an idealistic view on 'contructive capitalism.' Everybody should make their own choices and adhere to those consequences, if not, you can always lynch 'em.

[BigDanNOLA]

Well one of the problems is the idea "free market" is good for the consumer.

The consumer benefits from competition. In the free market you have the opportunity for the creation of monopolies which then become bad for the consumer if not regulated.

Take politics for example. In a "free market" one candidate can spend millions of dollars on a campaign and effectively make it impossible for all others to run. Is that good for the electorate? No. The electorate is better served when they can get some competition for the job so the cream can rise to the top.

[Mommadeez4u]

Mommadeez4u, thanks for the links. I am reading up on Mises now.

Question: if the government is not collecting tax money, how will we fund our military and maintain the infrastructure?

I know it may sound bizarre to someone stuck in the notion of our current system of government and foreign policy, but under a libertarian system, there wouldn't be a need for an enormous defense department (in fact, my opinion is we don't HAVE a defense department, instead we have an offense department). Our government spends virtually nothing on defense. Instead, it spends over $300 billion per year on offense – the most intimidating national offense in the history of the world. The U.S. has the ability to destroy any country in the world, or even the entire fucking world, but it can't defend us from any two-bit dictator who gets his hands on a nuclear missile or from a dozen amateurs with box-cutters.

If our government was limited to its Constitutionally-bound parameters, there would be no need for an enormous offense department because everyone would leave us the fuck alone-- because we're leaving them the fuck alone and not meddling in their affairs. If someone felt like terrorizing us, they'd be shot dead by the armed citizenry-- just as Palestinian fucktard terrorists were shot dead by Israeli middle school and kindergarten teachers after they started being allowed to carry firearms on school grounds. Nevertheless it would be highly unlikely given that we'd have no troops on foreign soil and virtually no meddling in other States' affairs.

"Dude, you're fucking insane, without a military we'd be prey to any invading force." No, we would not. Switzerland has had no standing army and has never been conquered in several centuries. Even Hitler just said 'fuck it' when it came to Switzerland, because he knew every single able-bodied Swiss carried and knew how to use a fully automatic assault rifle. As well, when Hitler came to power and began invading and conquering surrounding countries, the Swiss 'officials' (there was no centralized system of government at that time) released radio bulletins telling the populace that there would never be a surrender offered, and IF they heard a surrender order being issued, that is was a forgery, which meant the current system of government had been destoyed and the leaders killed, so they should fight to the last man the invading forces. They also wired all their bridges, railroads, airfields, mountan passes and tunnels, and other key infrastructure to be blown up should an invasion actually begin to succeed-- Hitler could have the smoking ruins of the countryside if he actually managed to kill every able-bodied man & woman in the country. So, the Swiss model is a real life example of how it can work and how it does work. (con't.)

[Mommadeez4u]

With regard to the infrastructure, by which I take you to mean the roadsystems and other public services the government currently exerts a monopoly on, I would say, "anyone who wants to!" It will be reasonable to expect free-market roads to be better maintained and safer than government roads, as the road is a capital investment of some firm or individual, and it can only make money for the firm is people want to use it. As the income stream from roads will (at least sometimes) be directly related to the number of customers that can use it, road-owners will have strong incentives to clear obstructions from accidents and natural disasters quickly to keep the road in service at maximum capacity. They will also have strong incentives to perform road work at off-peak times, and as quickly as possible.

[tattered]

that maybe the best explantion i have ever heard for libertarianism....*golf clap* bravo sir bravo

[SatansCheerledr]

Life long, hardcore anarchist. Fuck You.

[NikDaSchwugie]

I know it may sound bizarre to someone stuck in the notion of our current system of government and foreign policy, but under a libertarian system, there wouldn't be a need for an enormous defense department (in fact, my opinion is we don't HAVE a defense department, instead we have an offense department). Our government spends virtually nothing on defense. Instead, it spends over $300 billion per year on offense – the most intimidating national offense in the history of the world. The U.S. has the ability to destroy any country in the world, or even the entire fucking world, but it can't defend us from any two-bit dictator who gets his hands on a nuclear missile or from a dozen amateurs with box-cutters.

If our government was limited to its Constitutionally-bound parameters, there would be no need for an enormous offense department because everyone would leave us the fuck alone-- because we're leaving them the fuck alone and not meddling in their affairs. If someone felt like terrorizing us, they'd be shot dead by the armed citizenry-- just as Palestinian fucktard terrorists were shot dead by Israeli middle school and kindergarten teachers after they started being allowed to carry firearms on school grounds. Nevertheless it would be highly unlikely given that we'd have no troops on foreign soil and virtually no meddling in other States' affairs.

So, I am assuming here that we would have a small defensive standing army. If we were attacked (9/11 or Pearl Harbor, for example), how would we respond? Would there be a draft? If another country was fighting another and asked us for aid, would we respond? Would we assist other countries with anything (like rebuilding)?

For infrastructure, it would be equally easy to not maintain a road, especially in rural areas. "I'm not driving on it, I don't know anyone who uses it, and it's not cost-effective enough for our company to maintain," could mean minimal access for certain areas. Some roads may not be cost-effective enough to even drive (farfetched, but possible - imagine a road in the Hamptons with a $2,000 toll). Who would maintain the everyday streets in Compton? Who determines who gets to maintain X street instead of Y Street? If the maintainer of X Street dies or goes out of business, who gets the street after that?

I am not trying to be snotty or mean, I just want to understand completely.

[d0uche_n0zzle]

Listen, you fuckers, you screwheads. Here is a man who would not take it anymore. A man who stood up against the scum, the cunts, the dogs, the filth, the shit. Here is a man who stood up.

[abudabit]

Libertarians are just too extreme, but a watered down libertarian party would nice. That is why I sometimes vote Libertarian. If enough people voted Libertarian, it would change the attitudes of the other parties.

But really I think what matters most is voting in the Republican primaries. Voting in moderates, fiscally responsible people, South Park Conservatives, and most importantly voting out the religious conservatives. I don't think liberty past certain social issues can be implemented in the Democrats, I sincerely think it is up to Republicans.

[NikDaSchwugie]

Markets operate by buying and selling, they treat things as commodities, and unless prevented from doing so they turn people also into commodities. Until control was imposed to prevent it the outcome of market operations was either chattel slavery or some virtual equivalent, peonage or serfdom or naked children towing trucks in the mines. It was the "free" market that hunted the blacks through African forests and brought them to the auction block in Charleston. Chattel slavery, and exploitation of "free" workers that was hardly better, were ended only when (and where) government imposed control upon the market to prevent these things happening. ...government control of the market restricts the freedom of the people, this is in one sense true: it deprives them of the freedom to be slaves.

George Walford, Friedman or Free Men? (http://www.gwiep.net/period/ic072005.htm)

The more I read about libertarianism (and the Austrian School) the less I like it.

And if libertarianism is so great, why aren't there any libertarian towns or cities?

[d0uche_n0zzle]

Get back the missing two fifths, then we'll talk.

[NikDaSchwugie]

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the US Constitution:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

My family was already free when the Constitution was written. SO THERE! :)

[tattered]

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the US Constitution:


My family was already free when the Constitution was written. SO THERE! :)

no...sorry hun you counted as the 3/5ths of a person...those bound to service were indentured(sp?) servants....indentured servants were those who made an agreement to work for someone till their debt for being brought to America was paid off.......last i checked slaves didnt have much choice

[NikDaSchwugie]

no...sorry hun you counted as the 3/5ths of a person...those bound to service were indentured(sp?) servants....indentured servants were those who made an agreement to work for someone till their debt for being brought to America was paid off.......last i checked slaves didnt have much choice
My family was free by the 1770s. Debts paid, in fact we helped found a town in Southern Pennsylvania that many of my relatives still live in.

So no, I was never 3/5ths of a person. There WERE free black people then.

[d0uche_n0zzle]

She's real cute when she gets uppity.

[Coffee Diva]

I'm beginning to wish there was a Nihilist Party. I'd join that.

[Van]

Yep, I was wondering how far this admin would go before the citizens considered the 1st, and the second for that matter destroyed. The other 25 have been demolished too.

The constitution is there for a reason people. The amendments made good ideas better.

You are now letting it be shat all over. Why? Because party affiliation has led some of you to believe that the Republican party is doing the right thing. THEY'RE NOT.

The party in office are as close to Republican as the US is to winning the war in Iraq.

You know something? If liberterians were the predominant voters in the US, none of this shitstorm would exist. Saddam and his sons would still be 'putting people through paper shredders' etc. and your life would still be the same, but you would be 2000 Americans ahead. 2000 families wouldn't have to have a terrible thanksgiving, crying and wondering why some fucking asshole got their kid killed for no reason.

Hope you had a nice day.

[abudabit]

You know something? If liberterians were the predominant voters in the US, none of this shitstorm would exist. Saddam and his sons would still be 'putting people through paper shredders' etc. and your life would still be the same, but you would be 2000 Americans ahead. 2000 families wouldn't have to have a terrible thanksgiving, crying and wondering why some fucking asshole got their kid killed for no reason.

Hope you had a nice day.

Yeah, and a lot more people would be dead if we let Saddam have his way. If it were up to libertarians, Saddam wouldn't have even been contained. Also most of the soldiers there believe in what they are doing, and are willing to sacrifice themselves for others.

But more importantly, what would have happened in WWII if the libertarian stance were taken? How about Korea? I agree that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, but to suggest that a pure non-interventionist stance is a pro-peace stance is just flat out wrong.

[abudabit]

no...sorry hun you counted as the 3/5ths of a person...those bound to service were indentured(sp?) servants....indentured servants were those who made an agreement to work for someone till their debt for being brought to America was paid off.......last i checked slaves didnt have much choice

RI outlawed slavery before the declaration of independence. I'm not sure, but I think RI was the first place in the modern world to outlaw slavery. Then another commonwealth outlawed it shortly after.

Edit: Sweden abolished slavery for the most part in the 1300's. Rhode Island was second.

[Van]

Yeah, and a lot more people would be dead if we let Saddam have his way. If it were up to libertarians, Saddam wouldn't have even been contained. Also most of the soldiers there believe in what they are doing, and are willing to sacrifice themselves for others.

I respect the soldiers, they're following orders. Incorrect as the orders may be. Not one American, not you, not anybody, gave a shit about the Iraqi people before this admin chose to invade and kill and torture.

But more importantly, what would have happened in WWII if the libertarian stance were taken? How about Korea? I agree that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, but to suggest that a pure non-interventionist stance is a pro-peace stance is just flat out wrong.

Intervene? In what? Some guy ran a country with plenty of nut jobs and kept it from effecting the rest of the world. Now it effects the rest of the world, thanks to the US admiin. Attacking Iraq gave the REAL terrorists an excuse kill Americans [edit: and everyone else] (who are conveniently in Iraq, BTW)

WWII has nothing to do with this. Iraq was not going to do anything close to what Hiltler had in mind.

I've seen supporters say 2000 dead is nothing compared to previous wars. WTF? This is a BS war and 2000 Americans have been killed, the estimated 100000 Iraqi civilians are collateral. This story wouldn't even pass as a bad movie ten years ago.

[abudabit]

I respect the soldiers, they're following orders. Incorrect as the orders may be. Not one American, not you, not anybody, gave a shit about the Iraqi people before this admin chose to invade and kill and torture.



Intervene? In what? Some guy ran a country with plenty of nut jobs and kept it from effecting the rest of the world. Now it effects the rest of the world, thanks to the US admiin. Attacking Iraq gave the REAL terrorists an excuse kill Americans [edit: and everyone else] (who are conveniently in Iraq, BTW)

WWII has nothing to do with this. Iraq was not going to do anything close to what Hiltler had in mind.

I've seen supporters say 2000 dead is nothing compared to previous wars. WTF? This is a BS war and 2000 Americans have been killed, the estimated 100000 Iraqi civilians are collateral. This story wouldn't even pass as a bad movie ten years ago.


No, he didn't keep it from affecting the rest of the world. He invaded Kuwait. Your memory is very short. With libertarian foreign policy we would have never intervened in that.

WWII has everything to do with your saying that libertarianism means we will be left alone. Please explain how we would still have a country if we just ignored threats abroad.

Korea and other wars against Soviet aggression are another example. How would the USSR have stopped spreading if threatened nations didn't band together?

[Van]

No, he didn't keep it from affecting the rest of the world. He invaded Kuwait. Your memory is very short. With libertarian foreign policy we would have never intervened in that.

What was that? The several hours war? Threat to the US, indeed. I'm not a libertarian, I was just poiinting out how far the Repubs have gone off target.

WWII has everything to do with your saying that libertarianism means we will be left alone. Please explain how we would still have a country if we just ignored threats abroad.

OK. The US's genuine enemies are middle eastern countries. The main threats are Saudi Arabia and North Korea. Your man in charge sucks the shit out of their leaders holes for money. Not for America, for the Bush family.

Korea and other wars against Soviet aggression are another example. How would the USSR have stopped spreading if threatened nations didn't band together?

Are you still scared of communism? You're too young to remember the threat of the 'Reds' (me too). It was a non-threat. Your father lied to you.

[Van]

and I think effect was correct

[db16947]

WWII has nothing to do with this. Iraq was not going to do anything close to what Hiltler had in mind.


perhaps you have forgotten about Kwait? and the Iraqi mission in the first gulf war?

[Van]

perhaps you have forgotten about Kwait? and the Iraqi mission in the first gulf war?

Actually, yes. I have forgotten all about those important wars. Without Googling, can you remind me of the interesting parts?

[Van]

seeing as you didn't fight.

[abudabit]

What was that? The several hours war? Threat to the US, indeed. I'm not a libertarian, I was just poiinting out how far the Repubs have gone off target.

It absolutely was a threat to the US. Kuwait provides a lot of oil to Europe, which would have in a chain caused US oil and other prices to rise. Plus we are part of NATO, they help us sometimes so we should help them. If a nation were attacking central/south american oil producers, Europe would assist us. Why shouldn't we assist them? Seems a little dishonerable to me.

And you don't have to be a libertarian, you were posting in support of the libertarian foreign policy. So, defend it. Don't turn around and say all the sudden you aren't a libertarian when you realize you can't. Or just admit you were wrong.

OK. The US's genuine enemies are middle eastern countries. The main threats are Saudi Arabia and North Korea. Your man in charge sucks the shit out of their leaders holes for money. Not for America, for the Bush family.

Our genuine enemies aren't Middle Eastern countries. Our genuine enemies are certain demographics in who generally live in the Middle East. To say that an entire nation is our enemy when thier government is supporting us and many people in those countries are relative moderates is crazy. The Saudi government is a moderating and subduing force in Saudi Arabia. Unless you are proposing genocide or an iron curtian, keeping them in line is the next best thing.

And my man in charge? Where did you get that idea?

Are you still scared of communism? You're too young to remember the threat of the 'Reds' (me too). It was a non-threat. Your father lied to you.

Am I still scared of communism? Communism is practically dead.

Non threat? They gained one of the biggest empires in world history in less than 50 years, stupid. More democide was commited by the USSR than any other empire in the history of the world. They had the largest military in the world, and it was almost as advanced as ours. They almost brought nukes into Cuba. And all this was AFTER we had been battling thier attempts at expansion. Are you completely ignorant of history? You have to be joking. You are joking, right? This is a joke, correct? I will assume you are joking because I would hate to insult you by assuming you weren't. I wouldn't want to call you a retard if you were only making a joke.

[abudabit]

and I think effect was correct


Both are correct. Many people think effect is the noun and affect is the verb, but both can be either and have the same definition.

[db16947]

seeing as you didn't fight.
no, i didn't , but my team did come in 2nd in the southeast aisa wargames a few years back. And you?

[Van]

It absolutely was a threat to the US. Kuwait provides a lot of oil to Europe, which would have in a chain caused US oil and other prices to rise. Plus we are part of NATO, they help us sometimes so we should help them. If a nation were attacking central/south american oil producers, Europe would assist us. Why shouldn't we assist them? Seems a little dishonerable to me.

You're just disagreeing because you want to. That's what I said.....wait...what?

And you don't have to be a libertarian, you were posting in support of the libertarian foreign policy. So, defend it. Don't turn around and say all the sudden you aren't a libertarian when you realize you can't. Or just admit you were wrong.

Don't tell me what to do, dick head. I have an opinion and you can doubt it if you like. I'm correct though.

Our genuine enemies aren't Middle Eastern countries. Our genuine enemies are certain demographics in who generally live in the Middle East. To say that an entire nation is our enemy when thier government is supporting us and many people in those countries are relative moderates is crazy. The Saudi government is a moderating and subduing force in Saudi Arabia. Unless you are proposing genocide or an iron curtian, keeping them in line is the next best thing.

You posed and answered your own question.

And my man in charge? Where did you get that idea?

I don't know what that means

[Van]

no, i didn't , but my team did come in 2nd in the southeast aisa wargames a few years back. And you?

Sorry, I don't play gay games. My extended family are all soldiers. They keep in touch from Iraq. I thought that's what you meant,

[abudabit]

You're just disagreeing because you want to. That's what I said.....wait...what?



Don't tell me what to do, dick head. I have an opinion and you can doubt it if you like. I'm correct though.



You posed and answered your own question.



I don't know what that means

Just like I thought, you can't defend any of your positions. Just like you gave up on defending total non-interventionism, you gave up on defending every other claim you made. You lose.

[frankjg]

Are you still scared of communism? You're too young to remember the threat of the 'Reds' (me too). It was a non-threat. Your father lied to you.

Dude, how old are you? 15? Communism was some scary shit, I'm 30 and remember that shit vividly. God Bless Regan for killing those cocksuckers off.

[Van]

Just like I thought, you can't defend any of your positions. Just like you gave up on defending total non-interventionism, you gave up on defending every other claim you made. You lose.

I like you a lot. Yur rsponses r crazy.

What do you mean, defend?

I'm here now.

[abudabit]

And it's not even an issue of remembering it. Just look at the facts. Look at how quickly the USSR and its allies spread. Look at the size of thier military. Look at how far thier empire got. Look at how many other attempts at expansion they made that we cock blocked. I agree with you Frank, he has to be around 15. No older than 20. There is no way that you can be older than that and not remember.

No need pointing it out there, if he didn't realize how wrong he was he would still be talking.

[Van]

Dude, how old are you? 15? Communism was some scary shit, I'm 30 and remember that shit vividly. God Bless Regan for killing those cocksuckers off.

Heh. The ruskies were a threat. You're 30 and still believe it.

[abudabit]

This can only be HappinessIs.

[frankjg]

Heh. The ruskies were a threat. You're 30 and still believe it.

ok, troll, your time is up... give a valid argument of go the fuck away.. seriously, how old are you?

[frankjg]

This can only be HappinessIs.

you are probably right, I'm suprised Sclone has not chimed in.

[db16947]

Sorry, I don't play gay games. My extended family are all soldiers. They keep in touch from Iraq. I thought that's what you meant,
southeast aisa war games = vietnam....(just in case you are that stupid)...no you couldn't possibly be

[Van]

ok, troll, your time is up... give a valid argument of go the fuck away.. seriously, how old are you?

OK, no trolling. I didn't think I was. I'll be nice if I can stay.

[abudabit]

SClone wouldn't want to associate with HappinessIs.

[Van]

I miss HappinessIs, he/she was always correct, always.

Anyway, who's better than George Best? Just watch it.

http://media.putfile.com/Best-of-Best

[tar_baby]

WWII has nothing to do with this. Iraq was not going to do anything close to what Hiltler had in mind.

you and neville chamberlain woulda gotten along just fine...."oh just leave saddam be...he won't do anything bad"

"just appease him"...hmmmm..reminds me of chamberlain's appeasment of Nazi Germany.......i think we know how that turned out...good call there happinessis

[Mommadeez4u]

Yeah, and a lot more people would be dead if we let Saddam have his way. If it were up to libertarians, Saddam wouldn't have even been contained. Also most of the soldiers there believe in what they are doing, and are willing to sacrifice themselves for others.

But more importantly, what would have happened in WWII if the libertarian stance were taken? How about Korea? I agree that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, but to suggest that a pure non-interventionist stance is a pro-peace stance is just flat out wrong.

what the fuck are you talking about? 'let sadaam have his way'? THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT (http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html) put sadaam into power, sold him chemical, biological, and standard munitions, tacitly approved his invasion of Kuwait, and now we know the government also knew without question that sadaam did not possess those 'weapons of mass destruction' when it jimmied up some crazy-ass lies in order to remove the very person they put into power when he didn't cow-tow to the CIA. Was sadaam a dickbag and tyrant? sure, he sucked. but the united states is responsible for his power. That very same government is now murdering our own in order to 'correct' the situation. last time I checked sadaam is rotting in prison, so how about we just bring our brothers home and stop letting them be killed by improvised explosives?

[Van]

you and neville chamberlain woulda gotten along just fine...."oh just leave saddam be...he won't do anything bad"

"just appease him"...hmmmm..reminds me of chamberlain's appeasment of Nazi Germany.......i think we know how that turned out...good call there happinessis

Not appease, just not support. America had no business helping Saddam in the first place. Now Bush, Cheney etc. (not America) has no business fucking up Iraq. Iraq was never a threat to the US before, it is now. Why? All the nut jobs from everywhere that had a beef with the US can kill their citizens. They're sitting ducks. I felt disgusted at 1 dead, then 1000, then 2000, and I will feel the same at 3000. For what? For fuck all.

Think about why the Bush admin went after Saddam and invaded Iraq.

In 20 years the US will be in the same mess in Saudi Arabia, a former friend that was openly torturing people and supporting terrorist acts against America, but that was OK until their leader threatened to kill the President's daddy.

Why are the Bush admin supporters so ready to condone the deaths of Americans?

[d0uche_n0zzle]

It seems that 'Republicans' are being blinded by their own flag waving and led to slaughter at the alter of public opinion.

Saddam was a pawn used by our CIA and once things got ugly, they turned on him and pretended like they never had a damn thing to do with his rise to power and all those nice chemical weapons too. I guess it's OK to support some lunatic when he's killing your enemies (Iran), but once he stops doing your bidding, you turn on him and try to make a case that he's a danger to your well being. *cough*It's always been about Oil*cough* who has it and who CONTROLS IT. Everything else is just fluff to distract the massive dumb asses who follow party lines.

[abudabit]

what the fuck are you talking about? 'let sadaam have his way'? THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT (http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html) put sadaam into power, sold him chemical, biological, and standard munitions, tacitly approved his invasion of Kuwait,

1 out of 3 of those is true. Just like 5 other countries provided him with weapons.

and now we know the government also knew without question that sadaam did not possess those 'weapons of mass destruction' when it jimmied up some crazy-ass lies in order to remove the very person they put into power when he didn't cow-tow to the CIA.

They knew that with out question? Are you kidding me? Any credible references?

Was sadaam a dickbag and tyrant? sure, he sucked. but the united states is responsible for his power. That very same government is now murdering our own in order to 'correct' the situation. last time I checked sadaam is rotting in prison, so how about we just bring our brothers home and stop letting them be killed by improvised explosives?

How were we responsible for his power? We allied with him for a while, and assisted him in warfare with Iran, but can you post some credible references to us being responsible for his power?

And how simplistic can you be by saying "Saddam is gone, therefore we have no reason to be in Iraq"? Now I was never in support of the war in Iraq, but considering it is a little late for that I think we need to stay to help stabalize it. We made the mess and we should clean it up. To suggest the two are the same is crazy.

You only said one thing of validity - that we did indeed sell weapons to Saddam. Of course if we had libertarian foreign policy any dictator (or in the case of a world with such weak governments - warlord) would be able to buy weapons. But they wouldn't be as advanced.

[Van]

You realise that the spastic government in charge are funding terrorists to quell the terrorists they don't like?

When the terrorists the Bush admin likes, at the minute, take over they will use the money and power to terrorise more. The rest of the world tried to tell your wackjob-in-chief that this was a lost cause. It's staring him in the face right now. Thankfully for him, he doesn't give a fuck.

Our grandchildren will pay for this admins ignorance, in every direction.

[Coffee Diva]

Our grandchildren will pay for this admins ignorance, in every direction.

In other words, it's not something I have to worry about. Good.

[tar_baby]

Our grandchildren will pay for this admins ignorance, in every direction.

i highly doubt this...how will they pay for this?...in what way?

or is this purely speculation..kind of like.."if Bush wins there is gonna be a draft"

[abudabit]

Don't bother arguing with HappinessIs. Everytime you get him against the wall he switches topics. Any point you bring up which discredits what he is saying he ignores and doesn't even attempt to answer. On top of that he has a tendency to try to change the topic of discussion to whatever he wants to talk about, no matter what the original thread was about. No surprise that he was banned twice.

[Van]

Don't bother arguing with HappinessIs.

You're trying to get a chap banned. Bad sportsmanship, old boy.

Everytime you get him against the wall he switches topics. Any point you bring up which discredits what he is saying he ignores and doesn't even attempt to answer. On top of that he has a tendency to try to change the topic of discussion to whatever he wants to talk about, no matter what the original thread was about.

Nothing wrong with a few dissenting voices. You can't have it all your way. All the families of the dead people can attest to that. What was the subject again?

[Van]

i highly doubt this...how will they pay for this?...in what way?

or is this purely speculation..kind of like.."if Bush wins there is gonna be a draft"

I shall break a promise and respond to you.

How well do you think things are going? By 'things' I mean the American government. Their priorities, their relations with the rest of the world, their economy, their economy (yes, twice).

People who respect America are sadened by what fuckface and his buddies are doing to the country. You should be too. Yep, it's irriversable. The damage inflcted by this admin cannot be undone.

OUR (American, Irish, British, etc) grandchildren will pay not only financially but with the threat of terrorism from other countries for ever.

The US doesn't know terrorism. One day (I was there) the US was attacked by terrorists (apparently). If the dipshit admin keeps up their war the US will lose many more citizens. Not in the fucking boondocks, backwards shitholes. In the important places. And people in other important countries will die too.

GWB will retire a rich man. The sickening thing is that he will sleep very well at night. He will have sent thousands of Americans to their deaths for nothing, destroyed the economy, and get the rest of the world pissed off at the US. Does he care? nope. Neither do you. But you will. Our grandchildren will.

[tar_baby]

taken a look at the stock market lately?....it is at 4 and a half year highs

have there been any terrorist attacks in this country since 9-11?
nope

[abudabit]

Nothing wrong with a few dissenting voices. You can't have it all your way. All the families of the dead people can attest to that. What was the subject again?

See, no response to his changing the subjects or never addressing anything he doesn't want to address. :action-sm I'm a dissenting opinion, you're an ass.

[NikDaSchwugie]

Damn it, another thread hijacked.

[Van]

See, no response to his changing the subjects or never addressing anything he doesn't want to address. :action-sm I'm a dissenting opinion, you're an ass.

What would you like me to say? Something that you agree with?

Fine. Everything is going to work out. The next three years will not damage America. The interest on the money the admin has borrowed will disappear. Nothing will come from this admins lack of respect for the US.

[abudabit]

Once again, you aren't responding to anything.

[Screwtape]

http://members.cox.net/dogmatix/Thread%20Hijacked.JPG

[Van]

http://members.cox.net/dogmatix/Thread%20Hijacked.JPG

Excuse my lack of knowledge about Liberterianism. You will, no doubt, fill in the blanks. If Cheney and his buddies hadn't shat all over Republicanism, I'd be for that. Tell me more about Liberterians.

[Harvey_Birdman]

I'm all for libetarianism if both chicks are hot.

[NikDaSchwugie]

So, I am assuming here that we would have a small defensive standing army. If we were attacked (9/11 or Pearl Harbor, for example), how would we respond? Would there be a draft? If another country was fighting another and asked us for aid, would we respond? Would we assist other countries with anything (like rebuilding)?

For infrastructure, it would be equally easy to not maintain a road, especially in rural areas. "I'm not driving on it, I don't know anyone who uses it, and it's not cost-effective enough for our company to maintain," could mean minimal access for certain areas. Some roads may not be cost-effective enough to even drive (farfetched, but possible - imagine a road in the Hamptons with a $2,000 toll). Who would maintain the everyday streets in Compton? Who determines who gets to maintain X street instead of Y Street? If the maintainer of X Street dies or goes out of business, who gets the street after that?

I am not trying to be snotty or mean, I just want to understand completely.
To bring this back on topic (because I honestly do want to learn more about libertarianism), could someone answer my questions? Thanks.

[d0uche_n0zzle]

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

If everyone is properly armed, Evil can not take root.

[abudabit]

Well armed is nice until you run into a regular army. Then your just a bunch of civs with pea shooters.

[d0uche_n0zzle]

Tell that to the Swiss.

Considering our current military is just about two million, a hundred million armed citizens is nothing?

[abudabit]

The Swiss are surrounded by friendlies. How many assaults against real militaries have they held off?

[tattered]

The Swiss are surrounded by friendlies. How many assaults against real militaries have they held off?

they havent had to....Nazi Germany said they didnt want to mess with the swiss...i think that says alot

[d0uche_n0zzle]

The Japs didn't invade the US mainland due to the threat of armed citizens.

[abudabit]

That was a strategic maneuver. Switzerland had no offensive capabilities, so Germany could save them for last. They were already stretched thin across multiple fronts, they didn't need to throw in another.

[abudabit]

I'm not saying armed citizens has no deterent factor, but a regular military would destroy an armed militaryless nation.

[d0uche_n0zzle]

The Swiss wired all the roads, bridges and railroads with explosives. Hitler was no dummy, why waste all your resources on a losing battle. Don't underestimate the power of armed citizens. Just because you never read or hear about all the "good" uses of firearms on the TV and in the paper doesn't mean they don't happen. Most times with no shots fired either, as criminals aren't that stupid when faced with an armed target. And a hundred million armed citizens would defeat most militarys, in a conventional type of war. Nukes, they be toast.

[tattered]

The Swiss wired all the roads, bridges and railroads with explosives. Hitler was no dummy, why waste all your resources on a losing battle. Don't underestimate the power of armed citizens. Just because you never read or hear about all the "good" uses of firearms on the TV and in the paper doesn't mean they don't happen. Most times with no shots fired either, as criminals aren't that stupid when faced with an armed target. And a hundred million armed citizens would defeat most militarys, in a conventional type of war. Nukes, they be toast.

yes they would....because when your fighting for your home you put a little more into your fighting......not to mention you know ur own area better then someone invading your land.......IS THIS NOT WHY WE DEFEATED THE BRITISH AND WON INDEPENDENCE? not because we were better traind and better equipted... but because we fought dirty and knew the land because we were fighting for our homes

[tar_baby]

whoah...what are u saying?

[tattered]

i have no idea.....that i drink entirely to much and then try to post something intelligent?

[tar_baby]

ok

[Madness]

The Swiss were also banking pretty heavily for the Nazis during that time period.

I think the thing that's being overlooked here is that soldiers are not going to want to mow down their fellow countrymen. The military could do such a thing but you could never fix the morale problems it'd cause. It also does nothing for the government if they have to kill 75% of the population to take over. The army could easily kill most of us but they'll take losses doing it while killing possible replacements. Dictators almost always disarm the public before ceasing power.

I looked into the Libertarian thing. Some good ideas but the private road thing was just way too kooky.

[tar_baby]

im drunk

[BigDanNOLA]

Libertarians are just too extreme, but a watered down libertarian party would nice. That is why I sometimes vote Libertarian. If enough people voted Libertarian, it would change the attitudes of the other parties.

But really I think what matters most is voting in the Republican primaries. Voting in moderates, fiscally responsible people, South Park Conservatives, and most importantly voting out the religious conservatives. I don't think liberty past certain social issues can be implemented in the Democrats, I sincerely think it is up to Republicans.

I guess I would consider myself a south park conservative, but I am a registered Democrat. Its the south park part that makes me a Democrat for the reason that the Republican party panders to the religious right.

[poopiebottoms]

Aren't libertarians against having a military, and any defense spending?

From reading their literature a long time ago, I liked a lot of the stuff about being left to live your life the way you want to, but it seems rather impractical in the long run.
I may be wrong, but I got the impression that they were right of the rightmost conservatives, and left of the leftmost liberals all at the same time.

[MONKEY]

Libertains are for minimum federal gov and stronger control on the state gov side. I do disagree with the free trade part of the platform. You can't have free trade with country that use slavery to produce products.

[BigDanNOLA]

Libertains are for minimum federal gov and stronger control on the state gov side. I do disagree with the free trade part of the platform. You can't have free trade with country that use slavery to produce products.

You are ABSOLUTELY correct. Free trade can only be fair if both countries have similar wage laws.

[TrybalRage]

but a regular military would destroy an armed militaryless nation.


Yeah, look at Ira......


Never mind.


And besides, the founding fathers wanted no permanent military, and felt that the common man (militia) should be trained in fighting to the same skill as regular army.