jump to last post 1-31 of 31 discussions (286 posts)

Libertarians

  1. Pcunix profile image90
    Pcunixposted 4 years ago

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/2 … oesnt-Work

    Truth. 

    Why are so many of our young people so enthralled by this very dangerous idea?

    1. WriteAngled profile image91
      WriteAngledposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I am not young, but I am sick to the death of politically correct, humourless bureaucrats, whose heads are firmly stuck up their a___s telling me what to do.

      I cannot point to one single government that actually benefitted the people it dictated to.

      I try to live my life with the least possible interaction with this crap.

      Yes, it probably costs me a lot as I do not bother to claim my "privileges". However, I prefer to be free and left alone to sink or swim by my own efforts.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Ron Paul 2012.

        1. Pcunix profile image90
          Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Actually, it's silly of me to argue with you.

          Ron Paul has less chance of winning the Presidency than I do - and I'm not running.

          What you and the few others who embrace his foolishness will do, however, is throw away votes that might otherwise help someone equally reprehensible from the GOP side.   As that is obviously a good thing, I have changed my mind:

          Ron Paul 2012!  Hoorah!  Listen to Evan!  Don't vote for a GOP crazy - choose a Libertarian one instead!

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Awww, is oo sad that your president is a tyrant who has failed to deliver so many of his promises? He hasn't demanded any pro-LGBTQ legislation? (Oh, sorry, I meant pro-LGBTQ legislation that was NOT "pro-war").

            http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23328.html

            Poo' baby~~~

            It's the GOVERNMENT that's preventing Gay Marriage, NOT the free-market.

            Obomba has openly embraced the murdering of US civilians without a fair trial!! How about THEM apples! Protect the minority, my fanny!

            Ron Paul - Tied for first in Iowa; 2nd or 3rd in NH; and he receives more money from active duty military members than ALL R's put together, and more than Obama.

    2. bgamall profile image86
      bgamallposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      We have much proof that the libertarian invisible hand of self regulation has failed to improve society. The housing bubble is one manifestation of that and I even have written an ebook about it. Libertarianism was fostered by Thatcherism, and the libertarians are a justification for gambling in the City of London financial district, or also known as the square mile. That gambling makes Wall Street look conservative. And all the world's banks do it there!

      MF Global and AIG are two casualties of the City of London and the massive speculation that goes on there.

      Oh, and libertarians, even if not racist, want racism to be a civil right. Wacko.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Utter nonsense.

        We've had a paternalistic central government for 200+ years, and this system of your God-Like, Glorious courts and legal systems can't even get "hey, maybe we should enforce air pollution laws" through it's bloated corrupt system.

        In fact, air pollution laws WERE enforced until the Central Government - around the time of your sacred Abraham "I'm a railroad lobbyist" Lincoln - stopped enforcing them for fears of "economy stagnation".

        Deal with it.

    3. uncorrectedvision profile image59
      uncorrectedvisionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      For the same reason the other large group of young people are attracted to liberalism.  Children don't like rules but more children want their mommies to make them happy.  So the libertarian wants to live without rules with little regard for a social order.  A social order required for a civil society.  The liberal wants his mommy to make the bad things go away and make him feel safe and loved.

      The libertarian tends to have more in common with a precocious teenager and is just as unrealistic.  Liberals tend to be like pampered and sheltered 12 year-olds. Their unrealistic fantasy resembles play time in which the bossy spoiled child wants everyone else to play by his rules.  He throws a tantrum when they do not and starts calling names, eventually spoiling playtime and reeking havoc.

      Of the two near pathologies, I will take the unrealistic teenager over the spoiled child.  At least the libertarian would leave me alone - unlike the bratty liberal.

    4. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Suck truth:

      http://mises.org/daily/5418

      Somalia is actually better off than it was with a government. And even this isn't true: theirs is a very federal system of governments run by tyrants, aka warlords.

      Just because "the land previously known as Somalia" doesn't have a government doesn't mean that there are no very localized governments.

      The problem with the OP is that it's comparing countries that have had relatively free-market governments for 200+ years with ONE that had a stifling horribly oppressive government for 300+ years.

      How bout we do this: Governments don't work because "look at Mexico"; or "look at Egypt"; or "Look at any dictatorship ever, fool"

      You're comparing apples to oranges. The data shows that Somalia is better off than it was.

      1. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Exactly the point:  localized government.

        That's your Libertarian ideal:  little pockets where you can be free to make up your own rules and to hell with anyone else.

        "I've got mine".  Great philosophy.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Such utter nonsense.

          "I've got mine" is what central government loonies want. Except, they want centralization so they can loot more people.

          Get off your high horse and see your government for what it is: a bunch of crooks using your emotions to loot you.

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Oh, and what was that? You had NO response for "Somalia is better off now than it was"?

          That's what I thought. If you admitted this -- the facts admit this, but you don't -- your entire argument goes down the drain.

          Keep on truckin'! Those fingers that you keep in your ears are going to need to be washed eventually, and if you keep shouting over me you'll end up getting strep throat.

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
            Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I wonder how much of that economic growth was funded by ransoms paid to Somali pirates? According to Reuters, "some  $240 million was paid to Somali pirates last year (2010)."

            I'm not sure you can count economic growth fueled by acts of violence like piracy and kidnapping an example of the success of libertarianism.

            I base this conclusion on the idea that piracy and kidnapping are acts of violence and coercion, and the knowledge that one of the core libertarian values is the free exchange of goods and services without fraud or coercion.

            I guess I could be wrong about libertarianism being antithetical to coercion. Am I?

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              No, yours is probably the first valid argument about Somalia and libertarianism on this forum page.

              Believe me, pirating is NOT compatible with libertarianism.

              However, we must remember that protection from those who do NOT care about property rights is a luxury. This is horrible to say, but it's true. If someone wants to just run around stealing things, then the people need protection from this.

              However, the government need not be involved. In fact, it's interesting that the countries that want trade moving around Somalia don't protect the ships moving through.

              This almost sounds ludicrous, but it seems that the people of Somalia are claiming the Ocean Space around their country as their property and are exacting a toll. Please don't misconstrue me: I'm merely saying that it SEEMS that way. I know it is not.

              Protection from piracy and theft being a luxury, it costs money and infrastructure to afford it; and Somalia isn't really known for being wealthy.

              However, Somalia isn't the dump everyone paints it as. Here's a quote from the CIA WorldFactBook:

              "Despite the seeming anarchy, Somalia's service sector has managed to survive and grow. Telecommunication firms provide wireless services in most major cities and offer the lowest international call rates on the continent. In the absence of a formal banking sector, money exchange services have sprouted throughout the country, handling between $500 million and $1 billion in remittances annually. Mogadishu's main market offers a variety of goods from food to the newest electronic gadgets. Hotels continue to operate, and militias provide security."

              There is also a book, apparently, written about Somali governance. The Law of the Somalis, written by Michael van Notten (1933-2002). I haven't read it, maybe some day I will. But to expect me to be an expert on everything libertarian is to expect too much of me.

              Here are some statements I gathered from Yumi Kim, who is someone who HAS read the book:
              http://mises.org/daily/2066

              "Van Notten quotes authorities to the effect that Somalia's telecommunications are the best in Africa, its herding economy is stronger than that of either of its neighbors, Kenya or Ethiopia, and that since the demise of the central government, the Somali shilling has become far more stable in world currency markets, while exports have quintupled."

              "Van Notten, a Dutch lawyer who married into the Samaron Clan and lived the last dozen years of his life with them, specifically challenges that portrayal. He explains that Somalia is a country based on customary law. The traditional Somali system of law and politics, he contends, is capable of maintaining a peaceful society and guiding the Somalis to prosperity. Moreover, efforts to re-establish a central government or impose democracy on the people are incompatible with the customary law. Van Notten distinguishes between the four meanings of the word "law" — statutory, contractual, customary, and natural law."


              If you read the article, notice how decentralized the governance is. This is VERY libertarian.

              And here's one more piece of evidence that Somalia is doing better. I don't think that the enrichment is being paid for by Pirating, but I, nor you, have much data to defend either stance:

              Peter Leeson drawing on statistical data from the United Nations Development Project, World Bank, CIA, and World Health Organization. Comparing the last five years under the central government (1985–1990) with the most recent five years of anarchy (2000–2005), Leeson finds these welfare changes:

              Life expectancy increased from 46 to 48.5 years. This is a poor expectancy as compared with developed countries. But in any measurement of welfare, what is important to observe is not where a population stands at a given time, but what is the trend. Is the trend positive, or is it the reverse?
              Number of one-year-olds fully immunized against measles rose from 30 to 40 percent.
              Number of physicians per 100,000 population rose from 3.4 to 4.
              Number of infants with low birth weight fell from 16 per thousand to 0.3 — almost none.
              Infant mortality per 1,000 births fell from 152 to 114.9.
              Maternal mortality per 100,000 births fell from 1,600 to 1,100.
              Percent of population with access to sanitation rose from 18 to 26.
              Percent of population with access to at least one health facility rose from 28 to 54.8.
              Percent of population in extreme poverty (i.e., less than $1 per day) fell from 60 to 43.2.
              Radios per thousand population rose from 4 to 98.5.
              Telephones per thousand population rose from 1.9 to 14.9.
              TVs per 1,000 population rose from 1.2 to 3.7.
              Fatalities due to measles fell from 8,000 to 5,600.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Oops, here's the article I pulled those last numbers from:
                http://mises.org/daily/2701

                IT also includes some more quotes that are worth reading:

                "Another even more comprehensive study published last year by Benjamin Powell of the Independent Institute, concludes: "We find that Somalia's living standards have improved generally … not just in absolute terms, but also relative to other African countries since the collapse of the Somali central government.""

                "It is the largest exporter of livestock of any East African country... A small number of international investors are finding that the level of security of property and contract in Somalia warrants doing business there. Among these companies are Dole, BBC, the courier DHL, British Airways, General Motors, and Coca Cola, which recently opened a large bottling plant in Mogadishu. A 5-star Ambassador Hotel is operating in Hargeisa, and three new universities are fully functional: Amoud University (1997) in Borama, and Mogadishu University (1997), and University of Benadir (2002) in Mogadishu."

                "Consequently, the United Nations has by now spent well over two billion dollars attempting to re-establish a central government in Somalia. But here is the irony: it is the presence of the United Nations that has caused virtually all of the turbulence we have seen in Somalia.

              2. Jeff Berndt profile image89
                Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                "However, we must remember that protection from those who do NOT care about property rights is a luxury. This is horrible to say, but it's true. If someone wants to just run around stealing things, then the people need protection from this."
                Right, and who is going to do the protecting? Not the somalis, they're the ones doing the pirating.

                "However, the government need not be involved. In fact, it's interesting that the countries that want trade moving around Somalia don't protect the ships moving through."
                The US has done a bit of that. The Navy killed a few Somali pirates last summer.

                The point is, though, it doesn't look (to me, an outsider) as though people in Somalia really care about property rights. Or at least, they don't care about non-Somali property rights. Of course, the companies whose ships must sail near the Somali coast probably ought to hire well-armed mercenaries to defend their ships, right? Once the pirates realize that they keep getting killed when they attack ships, they'll stop.

                On another note, I wonder if my property rights would be respected if I were to pack up my stuff, move to Somalia, and try to make my way. Any guess would be pure speculation, of course, but I wonder. And on the chance that my property rights would not be respected, to whom would I turn to get help in getting my property back? The police? Oh, wait...

    5. 61
      mkvalentineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I do not know if it is a dangerous option. The two party system has proven to be problematic. Many young people realize that the current two parties are not providing the US with many answers. Anytime we continue to question the old regime, and look for ways to improve the current quality of living is good.

    6. ledefensetech profile image81
      ledefensetechposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Wow, the Daily Kos.  Not propaganda at all.  Anarchy can go one of two directions.  It can go totally crazy like Somalia or it can go another way entirely.  What is that other way?  People acting like people, rationally and peacefully. 

      Look at the difference between the American and French Revolutions.  The aftermath of the ouster of the British was relatively peaceful.  The aftermath of the ouster of the King of France another matter entirely.  This was due to certain groups in France who attempted to "pick up the Crown of France", much as Napoleon did in the early 19th century.

      The nascent US, by contrast, had self-appointed leaders steeped in the liberal (what today is known as libertarian) principles that let them, by and large, avoid the bloodletting of the French Revolution.  The main reason this happened was because the leaders of the US attempted to allow individuals to set their own destiny, rather than allow an oligarchy to determine what people could and could not do. 

      Well, mostly, there were people like Hamilton and Adams who wanted to recreate the British system, but with them at the top.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Anarchy CAN go MANY ways.

        But to call Somalia "totally crazy" is to suggest that progress is "totally crazy".

        I've cited numerous UN studies showing that Somalia is doing better both relative to nearby countries with governments, and relative to how it was doing when it had a government.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Are you saying the U.S. would "do better without a government." Looney tunes.

      2. uncorrectedvision profile image59
        uncorrectedvisionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I love anarchists.  If they are ever really successful at stripping away government I can get all new furniture with my pistol.  Anarchy is just as silly a solution to the problem of governing as "Statism."  The Anarchist assumes that everyone is an angel, the Statist assumes that those in government are angels.  How silly.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "If they are ever really successful at stripping away government I can get all new furniture with my pistol."

          Spoken like someone who has never bothered to actually think about Anarchy...

          ... OR even bothered to think that MAYBE - just maybe- the other person would have a gun as well.

          He also never thought that "by pissing off my neighbors, I'm less likely to be respected by my peers", and thus would harm yourself in the theft.

          You also never bothered to think about the fact that people are willing to pay to protect property, and thus stealing would be quite difficult.

          IN fact, you probably never bothered to even study, at all, Somalia, which is doing better in REAL terms compared to a) their government neighbors, and b) relative to when they had a government.

          so...

          ... if you'd like to start learning about anarchy, here ya go:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPIOLoEoRPA

          PS: Sanctions are an act of war; Iran has never attacked another nation in 100 years; they aren't building nukes; they've let international inspectors in; they don't have nukes; their "enemy" has fusion bombs; and they've never said that they want to wipe Israel off the map.

          1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
            uncorrectedvisionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I have thought a great deal about anarchy and know it to be rooted in a flawed idea about government and about human nature.  Anarchy presumes that every community will be intimate, polite, interested, aware and engaged - in short, heavenly (or Somalia-ly).  It is a nice fantasy for a child, much like the liberal fantasy of a mommy government that will give me a pony and ice cream and keep people from being mean.

            It is the fantasy of an idealistic adolescent.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It doesn't assume those things at all, which shows quite a bit to your claims of having looked into the subject.

          2. uncorrectedvision profile image59
            uncorrectedvisionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            In 1979, Iranians stormed the American Embassy - sovereign American soil and imprisoned the diplomatic staff.  That is an act of war.  At the height of tensions between the US and the Soviet Union their embassy and ours were still treated as sovereign soil.

            We have been at war with Iran ever since - though they have known it and we have not.  Every year there is a national holiday and celebration in Iran called "Death to America Day."  Perhaps if that lunatic Ron Paul gets in office Iran will have the chance to set off some new fireworks.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I'd say that we've been at war since 1953, when we overthrew their elected leaders.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Irani … 7%C3%A9tat

              *cough* But, we're not at war with them. Because there isn't a declaration of war.

              1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
                Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yeah, it's funny how Americans tend to ignore the various and sundry nastiness the US has done to provoke anger. And then when someone hits back, we're all, "They started it!"

                Any time we send our soldiers (or spies) to interfere with the government of another sovereign nation, that's an act of war, declaration or no.

                We can argue about whether such acts are justified, but to pretend the overthrow of Iran's government wasn't an act of war is disingenuous at best.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                  Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this
                  1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
                    Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You don't have to convince me of this, Evan.

  2. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    Maybe as a little pseudo-psychology: young males sick to death of their parents telling them what to do, think that government should likewise not be telling them what to do.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Here's a "young male sick to death" of patriarchs:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Henry

      And here are some of his quotes:

      Speaking of States, and the citizenry:
      "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?"

      Regarding demagogues (like some people on these forums):
      "Fear is the passion of slaves."

      Regarding Tyranny by Central Governance:
      "Give me liberty or give me death."

      Regarding the protection of your liberty:
      "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. "

      Regarding arguments that to demand freedom is to be evil:
      "If this be treason, make the most of it!"

      Regarding secrecy and 'closed door negotiations':
      "The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them."

      And, finally, regarding these United States:
      "When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, sir, was the primary object."

  3. SaDDOS profile image61
    SaDDOSposted 4 years ago

    By working together we can overcome this plague.

    Please enjoy a free slice of delicious blackforest cake.

  4. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 4 years ago

    My son-in-law, Cory, has always been a Republican. He just left my house, and I discovered that he's turned to the dark side. He's now a Libertarian!

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      NOOOOOO!!!

      NOT FREEDOM!!!!!!

      Actually, if you study the history of political thought in the US, there are largely only two spheres of thought:

      Modern day Libertarian beliefs (Anti-Federalists, the original Republicans, and even the Democrats)

      And then the other spheres of thought have always been a corruption of these:

      The US was originally a group of states that ruled themselves, then the Federalists came to corrupt it.

      The Republicans formed to fight for freedom, and then they became corrupted.

      The Democrats were largely libertarian, until they were corrupted - the pinnacle of which was FDR.

      And now the Republicans again are showing their corruption.

      I might be missing a political party in there, but the pattern remains.

      ... So your son's "dark side" is actually the founding force of our country. He should be praised, and you should seriously think about joining him.

      1. habee profile image91
        habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Evan, I'm sure you realize that comment was tongue-in-cheek. I embrace some of the ideas of the Libertarians - just not all of them.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Oh, the only "tongue-in-cheek" comment was the "nooo" and the "not freedom" thing.

          The rest is completely true.

          This will be said with absolutely NO malice: Republicans (likely this includes yourself, from what I have read) inherently agree to "some of the ideas of libertarians". The Republican party was FOUNDED on libertarian beliefs. However, they've strayed so far from it that the Libertarian Party is finally gaining support from many Democrats AND Republicans.

          When people like Glenn Beck, and other Republican, Neo-Cons say things like "I agree with a lot of what Libertarians have to say, but...", this just shows that they DON'T agree with what libertarians have to say.

          If you agree with these two statements: "I respect property rights fully and without any qualifications", and "I reject the use of force, except in the defense against others using force against me", then you can no longer be a Republican OR a Democrat.

          The aggressor is always wrong, and so is theft.

          1. habee profile image91
            habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Okay, if that's what you want to think. Have you read Lord of the Flies?

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              A fictional book about a bunch of kids on an island who end up hard-core porn-ing it with a mother boar?

              Yeah, I read it. It was good.

              But fictional.

              As was the Grapes of Wrath.

              1. habee profile image91
                habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                If that's what you got from reading Lord of the Flies, you need to read it again as an adult. Also, the scene you describe isn't in the novel. The boys kill a sow by thrusting a spear into her anus, however.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                  Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Depending on the edition you bought, another author explains how the book is an illustration of the loss of innocence of boys and how that scene is indeed a sex scene.

                  The scene where they kill the mother sow can VERY easily be -- and is supposed to be -- read as a scene where the children discover sex.

                  http://www.bookrags.com/notes/lof/PART8.html

                  Let us partake of the text directly:

                  "Here, struck down by the heat, the sow fell and the hunters HURLED themselves at her. This dreadful ERUPTION from an unknown world made her FRANTIC; she SQUEALED and BUCKED and the air was full of sweat and blood and terror. Roger ran round the heap, prodding with his SPEAR whenever pigflesh appeared. Jack was ON TOP of the sow, STABBING DOWNWARD with his KNIFE. Roger found a LODGMENT for HIS POINT and began to till he was LEANING WITH HIS WHOLE WEIGHT. The spear moved forward inch by inch and the terrified squealing became a highpitched scream. Then Jack found the THROAT and the hot blood spouted over his hands. The sow collapsed under them and they were heavy and FULFILLED upon her. The butterflies still danced, preoccupied in the center of the clearing"

                  It's a hardcore, orgy sex scene. In fact, from the looks of it, the mother was a virgin because blood came out from the first of the "stabbings".

                  1. habee profile image91
                    habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, the scene is symbolic of sex, but you made it sound as if the boys actually had sex with the pig. It also suggests that if there had been any girls on the island, they probably would have been raped by the boys because there were no laws and no strong authority figures to enforce them.

            2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Ugh, I just realized you were talking about your own post, not mine.

              Sorry. I can be a bit dull at times.

          2. Jeff Berndt profile image89
            Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            "If you agree with these two statements: "I respect property rights fully and without any qualifications", and "I reject the use of force, except in the defense against others using force against me", then you can no longer be a Republican OR a Democrat."

            Or a Somali Pirate. smile

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Want me to start quoting the theft of governments?  Because a few pirates got nothing on government.

              ... or would you like to continue to ignore the obvious double-standard you're holding?

              1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
                Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The obvious double-standard who is holding?

                You're rah-rahing the Somali no-government miracle, saying how awesome and libertarian the Somali non-state is (and it's clearly better than anybody expected for Somalis), but it's not really all that libertarian, seeing as how they get a lot of their cash from piracy (that is, taking stuff that isn't theirs by force and by threat of force).

                If the pirates stopped pirating, and the Somali economy continued to thrive, standard of living and life expectancy continued to rise, then you'd have a solid pro-libertarian, non-state argument.

                As it stands, prosperity funded by piracy isn't libertarian, and therefore, the Somali miracle isn't support for libertarianism.

                "Want me to start quoting the theft of governments?"
                Tax isn't theft, Evan. It just isn't, not in a representative democracy.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                  Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I agree with you that piracy is theft, Jeff. Theft is inherent to mankind. Any ideology that claims it will create "a new man" is a failed ideology (*cough* socialism *cough*). Once again, libertarianism does NOT claim to "make a new man whose heart is free from evil and theft", it merely claims to know the best way of protecting against such evil.

                  But protection costs money. And obviously the people who are being robbed aren't paying for the obvious need for protection for their shipping. In fact, many of the victims just say "oh, screw it, it's cheaper to pay the bribe".

                  The government-protected shippers can't seem to pay the price to protect their ships from the non-governmental raiders. The government, who's main job is protection, can't deliver on its promises.

                  Why can't a government protect it's industry like you want to claim it can? The US Constitution actually gives permission to the US government to define and punish piracy:

                  A1 S8:
                  "Congress shall have the power... To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas..."

                  So, once again, the government-supported industries of logistics are being robbed because their government isn't protecting them; and the non-governmental industries inside of Somalia are doing pretty well.

                  On a personal level, I've felt the sting of "government protection of property". Some jack*ff stole my iPod that my then-fiance got as an anniversary-of-our-first-date present. The cops literally told me "don't bother unless the thing cost more than $2,000".

                  AVAST, YE SWABS!! It seems thar be less protection on these high seas when governance be available than when thar be nary a bureaucrat in sight! Arrrrr!

                  1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                    Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I forgot to mention: The victims need to pursue action against the pirates.

                    They don't.

                  2. Jeff Berndt profile image89
                    Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    "The government, who's main job is protection, can't deliver on its promises."

                    The US government is protecting its shipping against the pirates. Perhaps you remember the hoopla when a Navy SEAL sniper shot a pirate at a great distance over the sea?

                    It's other countries that are paying off the pirates.

                    Of course, "libertarianism ... merely claims to know the best way of protecting against such evil." Paying thugs not to steal your stuff? Okay.

                    I poked around on the 'net looking for more news about the Somali Miracle. And yes, it looks like there are all kinds of economic progress happening in Somalia. There is also a lot of violence. You may have heard of [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/world/africa/somalia-faces-alarming-rise-in-rapes-of-women-and-girls.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss]Al-Shabab[/i]? So Somalia is great if you happen to run a telecom company, but not so much if you happen to be a young woman of modest means. Shouldn't government be doing something about this? Oh, wait...it can't, 'cos there isn't any.

                    Somalia is also one of the worst places in the world to be a journalist. It's close to the bottom of the Reporters Without Borders list of countries rated according to freedom of the press. How is that even possible? Without a government to clamp down on freedom, you'd think Somalia would have freer press than the US, wouldn't you?

                    Except you don't need a government to oppress people. Nongovernmental thugs can even oppress more efficiently and for less money. So, I guess the philosophy of libertarianism does work. smile

        2. Reality Bytes profile image95
          Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It is attitudes such as yours habee that will help the world become a safer and more just society.  Taking the time to ponder other's thoughts and make your own determination on what is just/unjust.  Not just disregarding a concept simply because you disagree with the label of the messenger.

          The exchange of thoughts and ideas is the most powerful ability that we as human beings possess.

          1. Pcunix profile image90
            Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Are the things she agrees with are strictly "Libertarian ideas"?

            Or are they just some small kernels of sanity, borrowed from others,  in a morass of Libertarian crazy-talk?

            1. Reality Bytes profile image95
              Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You are disregarding ideas because you have placed labels on those ideas.  This is not happening with younger generations.  The youth are sharing thoughts and ideas through social media with no labels.  They are determining for themselves what is right/wrong.

              They also realize that if the older generations are so wise then why is the world in such a state of utter confusion.  Many of them are also knowledgeable of the incurring debt on themselves.  Debt/wealth that was stolen from them before they were born.

              Debt that they did not consent to being responsible for repaying.

              Bob Dylan The Times They Are A-Changin'


              Come gather 'round people
              Wherever you roam
              And admit that the waters
              Around you have grown
              And accept it that soon
              You'll be drenched to the bone
              If your time to you
              Is worth savin'
              Then you better start swimmin'
              Or you'll sink like a stone
              For the times they are a-changin'.

              Come writers and critics
              Who prophesize with your pen
              And keep your eyes wide
              The chance won't come again
              And don't speak too soon
              For the wheel's still in spin
              And there's no tellin' who
              That it's namin'
              For the loser now
              Will be later to win
              For the times they are a-changin'.

              Come senators, congressmen
              Please heed the call
              Don't stand in the doorway
              Don't block up the hall
              For he that gets hurt
              Will be he who has stalled
              There's a battle outside
              And it is ragin'
              It'll soon shake your windows
              And rattle your walls
              For the times they are a-changin'.

              Come mothers and fathers
              Throughout the land
              And don't criticize
              What you can't understand
              Your sons and your daughters
              Are beyond your command
              Your old road is
              Rapidly agin'
              Please get out of the new one
              If you can't lend your hand
              For the times they are a-changin'.

              The line it is drawn
              The curse it is cast
              The slow one now
              Will later be fast
              As the present now
              Will later be past
              The order is
              Rapidly fadin'
              And the first one now
              Will later be last
              For the times they are a-changin'.

              1. Pcunix profile image90
                Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Where does the debt come from, RB?

                Why are we not raising taxes to pay for our wars?

                1. EmpressFelicity profile image84
                  EmpressFelicityposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  It isn't just the wars you're fighting now (it isn't even just wars, which I'm sure accounts for a sizeable chunk of the debt but not all - not even the largest part of it). It's the wars that have been fought over the last couple of centuries, plus accumulated other debt over that period, which is just growing and growing. Plus the interest that has accrued.

                  You couldn't begin to raise enough tax to pay off the national debt.

                  I believe the US national debt is $15 trillion?

                  With 300 million people in the US, that would mean each person would have to pay an extra $50,000 in taxes. Even if you tried to spread that out over several decades, it would still be a bitter pill for most people to swallow. Plus there would be more government spending and more debt interest in the meantime.

                  1. Pcunix profile image90
                    Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    THAT is a typical Right Wing lie.  We could pay it off in less than twenty years if we imposed reasonable tax rates on the ultra wealthy.

                    According to the rich themselves, they re responsible for 40-50% of all the Federal income tax we collect.   

                    On average, they pay 18-20% - some pay more, some pay less, but if we could extract twice as much tax from just them, we would have 33% more revenue every year.  Note that I said "extract" - as the wealthy will spend money to avoid taxes, we'd have to raise their tax rates even higher to double what we collect.

                    If you could  double the tax revenue of  just the top 5%, we could pay off ALL of our debt in less than 20 years without inflation, without anybody else struggling to make ends meet, without cutting a single social program.

                    That is reality, but the wealthy have a lot invested in you believing the lie.

                2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                  Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Every dollar spent is a dollar taxed.

                  That's the real problem.

              2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Great Dylan poem, newly relevant. I think I heard recently that he was one of the finalists for the Nobel Poetry Prize. The times are indeed changin'.

          2. EmpressFelicity profile image84
            EmpressFelicityposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            EXACTLY!

            Some people act as if they've been programmed. They want to have their opinions pre-digested by their favourite newspaper and served up to them with a large dose of hearsay and ad hominem argument. They don't want to go to the trouble of thinking for themselves.

  5. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    Would not "SaDDOS", "Black Forest" and happiness be an oxymoron.

    1. SaDDOS profile image61
      SaDDOSposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      We wants oxymorons? We has many. You free cake? We has this too.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxTNqYAWISs

  6. Repairguy47 profile image61
    Repairguy47posted 4 years ago

    Why is everything a liberal doesn't agree with a dangerous idea? Could it possibly be because they think they know better than EVERYONE else? Don't bother answering my question, I just did.

    1. Pcunix profile image90
      Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Libertarianism IS dangerous.  Dangerous to minorities, dangerous to workers, dangerous to almost all of us.

      1. Repairguy47 profile image61
        Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Of course it is, to you, because you know better than the rest of us. roll

        1. Pcunix profile image90
          Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Explain to me what part of that article you are having trouble with.  What part of it do you think is wrong?

          That's reality.  That's why this foolish idealism is so dangerous.

      2. Reality Bytes profile image95
        Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It is the us/them mentality that has allowed our one party system to manipulate the population in a struggle that we all endure together.

        The Individual is the highest authority in the United States.  Groups have NO Rights!

        Labeling human beings and placing them in a fictitious group only creates an easier motor for hatred.  There is no such thing as a Republican/Democrat/Libertarian/Communist.  These are fictions, all there is are individual human beings with different ideas on how things should operate.

        Not everyone will agree on all aspects of life no matter what label is placed upon them there thoughts and actions are unique.

      3. bgamall profile image86
        bgamallposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Libertarianism is so dangerous that it was the intellectual justification for the housing bubble and for the repeal of banking regulation. first in the UK and then imported to the US.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          UTTER NONSENSE!!!

          DISGUSTING NONSENSE!!

          FILTH!!

          Here's a libertarian warning against the oncoming bubble with amazing accuracy:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHNp1wf1T_k

          Here's a group of libertarians (jokingly) showing how foolish our current system is:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

          Here's another libertarian correctly predicting the crash years in advance with accuracy:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

          Here's a WHOLE LIST of predictions by LIBERTARIANS (and anarchists) predicting SO MANY of the past 112 years' economic conditions YEARS in advance:
          http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Austrian_predictions

          SIR!!! If I give up holding my tongue, then I'd call you a liar!!!

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Because I know you will not actually click on that last link, I'm going to copy+paste it.

            BEHOLD, THE LIBERTARIANS AND ANARCHISTS WHO PREDICTED, YEARS IN ADVANCE, MAJOR ECONOMIC CATASTROPHES OF THE LAST 112 YEARS

            The Great Depression

            The Great Depression was predicted by several Austrian economists:

                In Austria, economist Ludwig von Mises saw the problem developing in its early stages and predicted to his colleagues in 1924 that the large Austrian bank, Credit Anstalt, would eventually crash. He wrote a full analysis of Irving Fisher’s monetary views, published in 1928, where he targeted Fisher’s reliance on price indexes as a key vulnerability that would bring about the Great Depression, concluding: "because of the imperfection of the index number, these calculations would necessarily lead in time to errors of very considerable proportions."
                F. A. Hayek published several articles in early 1929 in which he predicted the collapse of the American boom. Felix Somary, who like Mises was a student at the University of Vienna, issued several dire warnings in the late 1920s, and in America economists Benjamin Anderson and E.C. Harwood also warned that the Federal Reserve policies would cause a crisis, and like Somary, they were largely ignored.[2]

            End of the Bretton Woods system

            The collapse of the Bretton Woods System and the following rise of the gold price has been predicted by several Austrian economists and is covered in the following:

                Rothbard, Murray. 1962. The Case for a 100 Percent Gold Dollar

                Hazlitt, Henry. 1934 until 1946 From Bretton Woods to World Inflation: A Study of Causes and Consequences (editorials for New York Times)

            Dot-com bubble

            The Dot-com bubble and its bust was widely foreseen despite the hype:[3]

            Anderson, 2000; Corrigan, 1999; Deden, 1999; DiLorenzo, 1999; Grant, 1996A, 1996B; Hülsmann, 2000; Mayer, 2000; Reisman, 1999; Sennholz, 2000; Shostak, 1999; Thornton, 2000.

                Anderson, William. 2000. "New Economy, Old Delusion." The Free Market, August

                Corrigan, Sean. 1999. "Will the Bubble Pop?", October 18

                Deden, Anthony. 1999. "Reflections On Prosperity" December 29

                DiLorenzo, Thomas J. 1999. "Regulatory Sneak Attack." September 16

                Grant, James. 1996A. The Trouble with Prosperity, May

                Grant, James. 1996B The Trouble with Prosperity, Winter 1996, Interview

                Hülsmann, Jörg G. 2000. Schöne neue Zeichengeldwelt

                Mayer, Christopher. 2000. "The Meaning of 'Over-Valued'", March 30.

                Reisman, George. 1999. "When Will the Bubble Burst?", August 18

                Sennholz, Hans. 2000. "Can the Boom Last?", July 31

                Shostak, Frank. 1999. "Inflation, Deflation, and the Future". October 7

                Thornton, Mark. 2000. "Who Predicted the Bubble? Who Predicted the Crash?" (pdf), The Independent Review, Summer 2004


            Housing bubble

            During and after the burst of the Dot-com bubble, these economists predicted the 2000s housing bubble that culminated in the Great Recession from 2008 onward.

            Anderson, 2001, 2003, 2007; Armentano, 2004; Beale, 2009; Blumen, 2002, 2004, 2005; Corrigan, 2002; Crovelli, 2006; DeCoster, 2003; Duffy, 2005A, 2005B, 2005C, 2005D, 2006, 2007A, 2007B, 2007C, 2007D; Economics of contempt, 2008; Englund, 2004, 2005A, 2005B, 2005C, 2005D, 2006, 2007, 2008; French, 2005; Grant, 2001; Karlsson, 2004; Mayer, 2003; Murphy, 2007, 2008; North, 2002, 2005; Paul, 2000, 2002; Polleit, 2006; Ptak, 2003; Rockwell, 2008; Rogers, 2005; Schiff, Undated A, Undated B, Undated C, Undated D, 2003A, 2003B, 2003C, 2004A, 2004B, 2005A, 2005B, 2005C, 2005D, 2006A, 2006B, 2006C, 2007A, 2007B; Sennholz, 2002; Shostak, 2003, 2005; Thornton, 2004A, 2004B, 2005, 2006; Trask, 2003; Wenzel, 2004; See also Woods (2009, p. 188 for further bibliography).

            Anderson, William L. 2001. "The Party is Over," February 20

            Anderson, William L. 2003. "Recovery or Boomlet?" July 07

            Anderson, William L. 2007. "The Party is Over – Again," August 30

            Armentano, Dominick. 2004. "Memo to Federal Reserve: Increase Interest Rates Now!"

            Beale, Theodore. 2009. "The Return of the Great Depression"

            Blumen, Robert. 2002. "Fannie Mae Distorts Markets." Mises Daily, June 17

            Blumen, Robert. 2004. "All Real Estate, All the Time". March 8

            Blumen, Robert. 2005. "Housing Bubble: Are We There Yet?" May 8

            Corrigan, Sean. 2002. "The Trouble with Debt". July 01

            Crovelli, Mark R. 2006. "Gold, Inflation, And... Austria?" May 31

            De Coster, Karen. 2003. "The House that Greenspan Built: Irrationally Exuberant Wall Street Welfare Parasites and Their Fed-God." September 12

            Duffy, Kevin. 2005A "The Super Bowl Indicator," February 5

            Duffy, Kevin. 2005B. "Honey, I Shrunk the Net Worth," March 3

            Duffy, Kevin. 2005C. "Alan, We Have a Problem," August 2

            Duffy, Kevin. 2005D. "Panic Now and Beat the Rush," September 24

            Duffy, Kevin. 2006. "Are Mortgage Borrowers Rational?" June 24

            Duffy, Kevin. 2007A. "It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World," May 22

            Duffy, Kevin. 2007B. "For Whom Do the Bells Toll?" Barron’s, June 18

            Duffy, Kevin. 2007C. "Financial Markets on Crack," August 22

            Duffy, Kevin. 2007D. "Mr. Mozilo Goes to Washington," September 15

            Economics of contempt. 2008. "The Unofficial List of Pundits/Experts Who Were Wrong on the Housing Bubble." July 16

            Englund, Eric. 2004. "Monetizing Envy and America’s Housing Bubble". July 19

            Englund, Eric. 2005A. "Houses Are Consumer Durables, Not Investments," June 8

            Englund, Eric. 2005B. "Diminishing Property Rights Will Lead to a Higher Rate of Mortgage Defaults." June 28

            Englund, Eric. 2005C. "When the Housing Bubble Bursts, Will President Bush Practice Mugabenomics?" July, 19

            Englund, Eric. 2005D. "When Will America's Housing Bubble Burst?" November 4

            Englund, Eric. 2006. "The Federal Reserve and Housing: A Cluster of Errors?" April 22

            Englund, Eric. 2007. "From Prime to Subprime, America's Home-Mortgage Meltdown Has Just Begun." September 24

            Englund, Eric. 2008. "Countrywide Financial Corporation and the Failure of Mortgage Socialism." January 28

            French, Doug. 2005. "Condo-mania." July 11

            Grant, James. 2001. "Sometimes the Economy Needs a Setback." New York Times. September 9

            Karlsson, Stefan. 2004. "America's Unsustainable Boom." November 8

            Mayer, Chris. 2003. "The Housing Bubble." The Free Market. Volume 23, Number 8 August

            Murphy, Robert P. 2007 "The Fed’s Role in the Housing Bubble." December 28

            Murphy, Robert P. 2008. "Did the Fed, or Asian Saving, Cause the Housing Bubble?" November 19

            North, Gary. 2002. "How the FED Inflated the Real Estate Bubble by Pushing Down Mortgage Rates: Report As of 2002," Reality Check, March 4

            North, Gary. 2005. "Surreal Estate on the San Andreas Fault." November 25, 2005

            Paul, Ron. 2000. "A Republic, If You Can Keep It" January 31

            Paul, Ron, 2002. "Testimony to U.S. House of Representatives", July 16

            Polleit, Thorsten. 2006. "Sowing the Seeds of the Next Crisis." April 25

            Ptak, Justin. 2003. "Government Employees, Go Home!" November 12

            Rockwell, Llewellyn H, Jr. 2008. The Left, the Right, and the State. Auburn, AL: The Mises Institute, 2008

            Rogers, Jim. 2005. "Interview with Jim Rogers on the housing bubble." April 22

            Schiff, Peter. "Peter Schiff predictions" (video) Undated A.

            Schiff, Peter. "Peter Schiff Was Right" (video). Undated B.

            Schiff, Peter. "Peter Schiff was right 2006-2007 - CNBC edition" (video). Undated C.

            Schiff, Peter. "Peter Schiff Was Right Again " (video). Undated D.

            Schiff, Peter. 2003A. Commentary, March

            Schiff, Peter. 2003B. Commentary, April

            Schiff, Peter. 2003C. Commentary, June

            Schiff, Peter. 2004A. Commentary, May

            Schiff, Peter. 2004B. Commentary, June

            Schiff, Peter. 2005A. Commentary, April

            Schiff, Peter. 2005B. Commentary, July

            Schiff, Peter. 2005C. Commentary, August

            Schiff, Peter. 2005D. Commentary, October

            Schiff, Peter. 2006A. Appearance on CNBC, January (video)

            Schiff, Peter. 2006B. Speech to the Money Show Conference, February (video)

            Schiff, Peter. 2006C. Speech to the Western Regional Mortgage Bankers Conference in Las Vegas November (video, transcript)

            Schiff, Peter. 2007A. Crash Proof: How to Profit From the Coming Economic Collapse (1st edition) New York, N.Y.: Wiley, February 2007

            Schiff, Peter. 2007B. Appearance on Fox News – January 12 (video)

            Sennholz, Hans F. 2002. "The Fed is Culpable." November 11

            Shostak, Frank. 2003. "Housing Bubble: Myth or Reality?" March 4

            Shostak, Frank. 2005 "Is There a Glut of Saving?" August 4

            Thornton, Mark. 2004A. "'Bull' Market?" February 9.

            Thornton, Mark. 2004B. "Housing: too good to be true." June 4

            Thornton, Mark. 2005. "Is the Housing Bubble Popping?" , August

            Thornton, Mark. 2006. "The Economics of Housing Bubbles.", June

            Trask, H.A. Scott. 2003. "Reflation in American History." October 31

            Wenzel, Robert. 2004. "Government Isn't God: FDIC Sticks Banks With Bad Loans and Sticks Borrowers With Subprime Junk."

            Woods, Thomas E. Jr. 2009. Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse. Washington D.C.: Regnery Publishing

            Other predictions

                The Skyscraper index shows a correlation between the construction of the world's tallest buildings and impending financial crises. While not developed by Austrian economists, it is compatible with their views about the business cycle.[4]

      4. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I don't recall guillotines ever being trotted out by the freedom loving.

        The statists are ALWAYS the ones ready to kill.

        1. 60
          geordmcposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The French trotted out the guillotine many times during their revolution for their freedom from royalist rule. You need to learn history.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I seem to recall that we chopped the head off Charles I as well.

          2. EmpressFelicity profile image84
            EmpressFelicityposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            ...and then the French revolutionaries instigated the Reign of Terror.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              This was my point. They killed a few tyrants, then they turned into tyrants and killed thousands.

              1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
                Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                ...in the name of liberty.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                  Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Robespierre was in NO way working for liberty. Quit that.

                  1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
                    Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    He sure did claim to be.
                    "The government in a revolution is the despotism of liberty against tyranny."

                    He also touted an idea that modern libertarians would probably agree with:
                    "Any institution which does not suppose the people good, and the magistrate corruptible, is evil."

                    His crony, Louis St.Juste had similar ideas:
                    "Insurrection is the exclusive right of the people and of the citizen."

                    "A people has but one enemy, the government."

                    Of course, libertarian Barry Goldwater might forgive them their excesses, because, according to him, "Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice."

                    The French revolution descended into its own despotism, but at its beginning, its ideals were the same as those in the American one.

                    I wonder if the US would have succeeded as it did if the loyalists hadn't been able to flee across a porous border to Canada, and had to stay and be persecuted as the Aristos did in revolutionary France

  7. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    Impute Cake

  8. Pcunix profile image90
    Pcunixposted 4 years ago

    Without a strong central government, who will protect the rights of minorities, of woment, homosexuals, Jews, Catholics in some areas, Protestants in others, Muslims, atheists and so in?

    Who will protect our rivers, our air?

    Who protects factory workers?

    Who will keep our food safe?

    Who?

    1. Repairguy47 profile image61
      Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      hand wringing at its finest.

      1. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That doesn't answer the questions.

        1. Repairguy47 profile image61
          Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The answer is obvious to those who think for themselves, for those of us who don't need protection from ourselves. You, I don't know, ask Santa.

          1. Pcunix profile image90
            Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The answers are not obvious.  These are real problems and are exactly why we created the rules you hate so much.

            1. Repairguy47 profile image61
              Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The answers ARE obvious, your New Years resolution should be to find the answers all on your own.

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I've answered this question so many times. Get the gunk out of your ears.

    2. uncorrectedvision profile image59
      uncorrectedvisionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Really, did you wet yourself while writing that.  Wow, I thought you were an adult.

      1. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That's insulting and childish.

        I have asked serious questions that you have ignored.

        No "nanny" makes the rules.  We make our own rules and we make them because we  recognize that the only way to have freedom from tyranny is to make rules that limit tyrants.

        You are free.  You just aren't free to hurt other people.   A strong central government protects you and me and everyone else from ourselves  - and WE create that government. 

        Now answer the questions like an adult would, if you can.

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
          uncorrectedvisionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I would but I don't take you, your politics, economics, understanding of humanity, the state, society, etc...seriously at all.

    3. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Pcunix, I've already explained how these things are NOT protected through a failure of government and how a libertarian society would actually protect these things.

      But you've just yelled while you put your fingers in your ears. Don't ask questions you already have heard the answers to.

      1. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No, you haven't.  You've explained how you'd protect YOUR interests.

        As to Somalia, that's utterly ridiculous.  "Better off"?    That's your argument in favor of lawlessness?

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          ... is your argument REALLY "people are better off, but that doesn't matter because there's no government"?

          ... really? That's your argument?

          How do I even begin to argue with someone who can't see beyond "Government = God"

          1. Pcunix profile image90
            Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            YOU can't argue because there is no rationality to your political stance.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              This is EXACTLY what you wrote IMMEDIATELY following my statement "Somalians are better off now than they were under government rule"

              "As to Somalia, that's utterly ridiculous.  "Better off"?    That's your argument in favor of lawlessness?"

              Your argument is literally, "sure, they're better off. But they don't have a government. So they're NOT better off".

              1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
                Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Their economic growth is funded by piracy and kidnapping. That's hardly respect for property.

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          If you SERIOUSLY want to know, I'll link you the articles and books of people who have honestly sat down and tried to think it all through.

          1. Pcunix profile image90
            Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yeah, I seriously want to know.  Link away.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I'll link, but don't waste my time by responding without watching or reading at least a few of these. Before you begin, you must try to see beyond "god = government".

              Oh, and also, all of these people (except Hazlitt, who died many years ago), saw the 2001 .com burst and the 2008-9 housing crash years in advance.

              These are from Robert Murphy:
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPIOLoEoRPA
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDkGBOH9 … ure=relmfu
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hegQyvh … ure=relmfu
              http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf

              This is from Henry Hazlitt. This is the book that convinced me that my previous pro-government stances were complete nonsense. Believe it or not, before I read this book I would have been on here demanding that you were right about libertarianism:
              http://mises.org/books/economics_in_one … azlitt.pdf

              Here's Walter Block. The first one illustrates perfectly the fallacy of government, especially democracy:
              http://mises.org/media/2527/Defending-t … lter-Block
              http://mises.org/media/3539/The-Privati … xsrc=video
              http://mises.org/books/defending.pdf

              Here's a fun one (and an altered one of the same) from the Schiff Family:
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFxvy9XyUtg
              http://www.amazon.com/How-Economy-Grows … 047052670X

              I'll give this a few days to sink in.

              1. Pcunix profile image90
                Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I just spend a few minutes in those cesspools.

                I can't read or listen to people that are that far out of touch with reality.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                  Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I knew I shouldn't have wasted my time on you. I ACTUALLY thought you would listen to or read one of those things.

                  Jeez, I'm such a fool. "Hey, maybe someone will actually read what I post". Why the hell do I even bother coming on to these forums? Obviously I can't change your mind, as you have no mind to change.

                  Pcunix: You can't make poverty illegal; governments are what prevent gays from being married; governments are what keep minorities down; and governments have a HORRIBLE track record for 'not killing people'.

                  That's a wrap. See ya in the funny papers.

    4. AshtonFirefly profile image81
      AshtonFireflyposted 4 years ago

      Here's my dilemma...although a strong centralized government does protect us and provide us with things we need, at times it can be invasive of our rights, just as it can protect them.
      Although a weaker government would be less invasive, it would also be less protective...

      1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
        uncorrectedvisionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No animal is safer than the one in the cage.

        1. AshtonFirefly profile image81
          AshtonFireflyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          it depends on what it is seeking safety from

          1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
            uncorrectedvisionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I am not advocating for the cage.

            1. AshtonFirefly profile image81
              AshtonFireflyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I know.
              smile

    5. knolyourself profile image60
      knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

      After the fall of the Soviet Union there became pretty much emasculated governments there and in the satellite countries. And who took over? The
      mafia.

    6. knolyourself profile image60
      knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

      Waiting for the red light in right lane. Red car zooms in all the way across the walk lane partly
      into the cross street, waited for the left turning
      cars to pass in front, and then took off and ran the red. First for me. Must have been a libertarian.

    7. paradigmsearch profile image90
      paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago

      I just thought I would toss this out there.


      Libertarianism is to Darwinism as...?
      .
      .
      .

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Libertarianism is to Evolution:

        Both sides demand that a small unit interacting with others leads to a living being that is more able to profit from its environment.

    8. knolyourself profile image60
      knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

      Maybe as religion is to science.

      1. paradigmsearch profile image90
        paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I had no preconceived notions as to what might show up. Not bad. smile

        Let's see if there are any confirmations or refutations. big_smile

    9. amason1100 profile image59
      amason1100posted 4 years ago

      No, "we" don't make the rules the politicians make the rules to benefit themselves. Do you really expect to give a group of people the monopoly over the use of force (Remember the government can enslave via conscription, murder via war, steal via taxation. If we as individuals tried this we would be thrown in jail.) and all of the advanced weaponry in the world and say "Please don't be tyrannical"? The U.S. is a centralized state and it has become tyrannical. Look at the Patriot Act, Stop Online Piracy Act, the unjustified wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan etc etc.  Wow! Thanks for protecting me government!   The centralized state is the greatest mass murderer in history. Look at Mao, Hitler, and Stalin.  These people are responsible for the deaths of close to 100 million people.

      We are not the government nor do we create it.

      Now we are at pollution.  The government is the greatest polluter in the history of mankind.  They've dropped nuclear weapons, used uranium laced shells overseas, and allow corporations to pollute property(which includes your body) by dumping toxic chemicals into water and pushing them into the air.  Of course, the government says well those corporations are there for the "greater good" so we'll allow them to pollute other people's person and property as long as they pay us off.  A libertarian society would protect private property rights  which would not allow companies to pollute any part of the Earth that was someone else's property which once again includes your body.

      Rights of minorities?  Please, it was the force of government that allowed the explotation of minorities for hundreds of years through slavery.  The Fugitive Slave Acts made it an obligation for slaves to be brought back to their owners which perpetuated slavery in the United States until after the Civil War. Do you know how slavery was ended in Brazil?  The government stopped running after slaves who left their plantations. Now, we come to today.  The laws don't change peoples minds only one can want to change their own mind when it comes to ending racism.  Also, can you imagine what would happen if someone put up a "No Blacks Allowed" sign in a restaurant today?  There would be a tremendous outcry from vairious organizations, there would be picketing in front of the restaurant, and the restaurant would be out of business in a matter of a few weeks if not days.  See, no government needed here.

    10. Pcunix profile image90
      Pcunixposted 4 years ago

      Typical selfish responses from the Right - if THEY  would be better off,who gives a damn about anyone else?

      That's the reality of the GOP and the Libertrarians.  Selfish, small minded and cruel.

      1. Repairguy47 profile image61
        Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Do you need a hug?

        1. paradigmsearch profile image90
          paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          big_smile

        2. Pcunix profile image90
          Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          No, I don't , but there are plenty of people who would suffer misery under your Libertarian society.

          Apparently, you just don't care.   Either that, or you are extraordinarily naive.  So which is it? Is it that you don't care about their misery or you don't believe that without a strong  Federal government discrimination would occur?

          Is it because you are all too young to remember what was done to minorities, homosexuals, women, Jews, negroes before we had Federal legislation or that you just don't care?

          Do you know WHY we enacted OSHA?  Do you know WHY we have Federal laws about pollution and workers rights to organize? 

          It is astonishing to me either way: completely clueless or callously  cruel, both seem impossible, but there you are.

          1. Pcunix profile image90
            Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            So?

            Which is it?

          2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            There are hundreds of millions that suffered under government.

            in HORRIBLE ways.

          3. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Also, may I remind you that all of those horrible things were done under the watchful eyes of government.

            Government didn't end ANY of those brutal practices. You claim that government needs to be set up to protect the minorities, YET IT HAS FAILED TO SO IN SO MANY WAYS.

            You can't possible respond to this. You keep claiming that government protects everyone AND YET IT DOESN'T.

            If only you would put government under the same light that you put libertarianism under, you'd see the OBVIOUS fallacy of your argument.

            1. Pcunix profile image90
              Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              How old are you?  Do you have any idea how far we have come in this country with regard to civil rights for people of color, for woman, for homosexuals?  I LIVED through it.

              We aren't perfect yet - far from it.  But we have advanced and it is the power of a central government that has enabled that.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You're acting like GOVERNMENT made people nice to homosexuals

                That's complete nonsense, and I won't even entertain it. COMPLETE nonsense.

                If anything made people less hate-filled to homosexuals, it was because the market pointed out how foolish hatred is through things like mass-media.

                Laws regarding homosexuality - which are nearly impossible to hide - need to be passed with massive approval from the population; the approval of homosexuals came FIRST, and THEN the laws came.

                1. Pcunix profile image90
                  Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, regardless of your inability to understand the role of government in protecting our freedoms, that is reality.

                  1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                    Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Government didn't change public opinion about homosexuality.

                    Enjoy thinking backwards. I'll see ya' in the bread lines.

                2. Pcunix profile image90
                  Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Absolutely correct.  Until enough people came to their senses, we could not make any progress against slavery, enfranchisement of women, homosexual rights or any other civil rights issue. 

                  What you blindly miss is that not everyone has reached that point.  There are still people who hate minorities, think women are inferior and would cheerfully go beat up any homosexual they can find.  Without a central government to protect those rights, pockets of those ugly people would still run roughshod over rights.  We have these problems in many backward states right now even with the laws.. your libertarian lunacy would give them free rein.

                  1. habee profile image91
                    habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Unfortunately, PQ is right. We still have a surprising number of rednecks here in the Deep South who think women, blacks, and Hispanics are inferior to white males. Some also think that homosexuals deserve to be beaten up and abused.

                    1. Pcunix profile image90
                      Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      And, equally unfortunately, many States and local governments will turn a blind eye. 

                      They'll also look the other way when a big employer wants to pollute - especially if the crap flows or blows into another State.  They'll ignore labor laws for that employer, too and as more companies flocked to those loose States, other States would feel pressure to relax their regulation.

                      Libertarianism is the province of the naive.

                    2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                      Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      And, what, you think a law will make them act nice?

                      No. Hate crimes don't end just because a law is passed.

                  2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                    Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Pcunix: "Until enough people came to their senses, we could not make any progress against slavery, enfranchisement of women, homosexual rights or any other civil rights issue.  "

                    THEN WHY ARE YOU ARGUING THAT GOVERNMENT GIVES PEOPLE RIGHTS? You aren't even coherent!

                    God what a waste of time: This will be my last attempt to discuss with you. I know you won't read this, so I'm posting this for others to see the fallacy of your argument.

                    Everyone hated (insert minority). So, the majority used government to take away their God-Given rights. Slowly, through market interaction, the majority came to realize that hating the (insert minority) was foolish. So, they began to relax their tyranny. There are still pockets of people who have not come to like (insert minority), and even if a law is passed, they still won't want to interact with (insert minority).

                    Government doesn't make people nice, it allows evil to spread.

                    Pcunix, I'll see you around. Enjoy making freedom illegal.

                  3. Repairguy47 profile image61
                    Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Would Massachusetts be one of those backward states?
                    http://www.thebostonchannel.com/r/4442390/detail.html

                    How about New York?
                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9fQC6Nq1k

                    http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mc … ate-crime/

                    Government is quite the nanny huh?

                    1. Pcunix profile image90
                      Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      You are just proving my point.

                      These are crimes. In a Libertarian state, they might not be.

                3. Jeff Berndt profile image89
                  Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  "Laws regarding homosexuality - which are nearly impossible to hide - need to be passed with massive approval from the population; the approval of homosexuals came FIRST, and THEN the laws came."
                  Not always. All of the early advances in civil rights for gay people came from court decisions--that is, government.
                  The People usually freaked out all over the place and moved to overrule the courts by amending their state's constitution or impeaching the judges that had the temerity to rule that gay people deserve the same right as straight people. Iowa's Supreme Court ruled in favor of marriage equality, and now the justices who voted in favor are off the bench.

                  From the DesMoines Register "Groups that wanted the justices ousted poured more than $650,000 into their effort, with heavy support from out-of-state conservative and religious groups. Campaigns that supported the justices and the current state court system spent more than $200,000."

                  So government tried to support liberty, but powerful, wealthy nongovernment interests worked against liberty.

                  1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                    Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You forgot the last part of your story:

                    "And then government gave up trying to enforce equality because, in situations like these, you need the approval of the people before you can govern them".

                    Which then proves my point.

                    1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
                      Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      "And then government [temporarily] gave up trying to enforce equality because" it had been bought and co-opted by a wealthy and powerful group who didn't believe in equality under the law for minorities they don't like.

                      By the way, I really wish we lived near each other. I'd really enjoy talking with you over coffee, or beer.

      2. habee profile image91
        habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Don't paint all GOPers with the same brush.

        1. Pcunix profile image90
          Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Well, Habee, I'm sorry, but there aren't enough of you to change the color of the paint.  Your party is polluted by this and if you can't see what they are doing to our country and are not speaking against it, you are part of the problem.

        2. uncorrectedvision profile image59
          uncorrectedvisionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You are absolutely right.  There are many Republicans who are just as squishy and silly as Democrats.  Perhaps this election will push more of them out of office also.  The 2010 election saw several Republican weenies pushed from office along with their colleagues across the aisle.  Republicans like John McCain have been the ruination of the country ceding the ideological battle ground to a political class that has brought the country to the edge of disaster and continues to push.  It is the same political class that has brought Europe to an economic disaster that Europeans do not have the political will to fix.  It is the same political classs that seeks to sap the will of Americans to resist the all encompassing state.

          Be squishy in the face of an economic "philosophy" that does not understand humanity, economics or the nature of either and you are broad minded and kind.  Resist the foolishness and cruelty that strips individuals of their natural rights and their liberty and you are mean and narrow minded.  There is nothing more cruel than the grinding mediocrity of the all encompassing state - the state the liberals love and squishy moderates permit.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            But the political class that has brought Europe to its knees is the right wing who see no reason to fix a system that makes them a lot of money.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Left-wing: "Let's steal trillions from our population, and then throw it away on unprofitable ventures"

              *a huge thunderous crash occurs*

              "Damn those right-wingers!"

            2. uncorrectedvision profile image59
              uncorrectedvisionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I was unaware that Angela Merkel was a Social Democrat, I thought she was  Christian Democrat. Ironically Germany is about to gain  control over  the Eurozone without firing a shot.  To ad to the irony, it all depends on what the Bavarians decide.

          2. habee profile image91
            habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry I don't fit PQ's description of "selfish, small-minded, and cruel." I help others whenever I can. I think we do need a "safety net" for some of our citizens - I just think the net needs to be smaller and more selective. Also, I don't think we should just throw money at problems without a real attempt to "fix" the root of the problem.

      3. amason1100 profile image59
        amason1100posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You still haven't refuted any of the arguments for libertarianism. You're giving nothing but ad hominem fallacies such as "your selfish" "clueless" or "your cruel".  It's ok though statism is dying and liberty is rising.

        1. Pcunix profile image90
          Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Excuse me?  I asked who will protect minority rights without a strong central government.  The original post referenced an article that shows what Libertarianism has brought in actual practice.  I asked who will protect our food, our air, our water, the safety of workers.

          But then you pop in making this claim?  So typical - did you even READ any of this thread or did you just jump in here?

    11. amason1100 profile image59
      amason1100posted 4 years ago

      From my first post. Rights of minorities?  Please, it was the force of government that allowed the explotation of minorities for hundreds of years through slavery.  The Fugitive Slave Acts made it an obligation for slaves to be brought back to their owners which perpetuated slavery in the United States until after the Civil War. Do you know how slavery was ended in Brazil?  The government stopped running after slaves who left their plantations. Now, we come to today.  The laws don't change peoples minds only one can want to change their own mind when it comes to ending racism.  Also, can you imagine what would happen if someone put up a "No Blacks Allowed" sign in a restaurant today?  There would be a tremendous outcry from vairious organizations, there would be picketing in front of the restaurant, and the restaurant would be out of business in a matter of a few weeks if not days.  See, no government needed here.

      Voluntary action by individuals is the most moral and  efficient than the use of force through government to achieve social goals.  You see, you suffer from the same fallacious thinking people did in the 1830's when they said, "If we get rid of slavery then who will pick the cotton?" First and foremost it doesn't matter.  Slavery is wrong.  Second, the cotton must get picked.  People want their rights protected.  The use of force (via the government) or threatening to use force to achieve social goals is wrong no matter what.  This is the non-agression principle of libertarianism.  Lastly, the government when trying to achieve these goals does something called taxation which is theft since nobody voluntarily pays taxes.

    12. Evan G Rogers profile image83
      Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago

      And, to follow up from my "Somalia is doing much better without a government than it was WITH a government" post...

      ... here's why Socialism fails:

      Here are the victims of Famine, which was used by the leaders to kill dissenters:

      http://s4.hubimg.com/u/5962283_f248.jpg


      http://s1.hubimg.com/u/5962292_f248.jpg

      ... Here's why Democracy fails:

      HITLER!!     MUSSONLINI!!!
      NIXON!!      MAO ZEDONG!!!
      PUTIN!!      KWAME NKRUMAH!!

      and so many more! (See, "Democracy, the God that Failed")

      I could go on, but I think you get my point. Every step towards "centralization" is one step closer to a dictatorship.

      Why, just the other day the Federal government arrested some people for smoking weed when it was legal in their state.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Really? No response to the OBVIOUS argument: "government ain't so great"?

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Oh, and here's another wonderful device that was used once a tyrant was put in place into a government position! They found it was MUCH easier to use it than to govern justly.



        http://s1.hubimg.com/u/5962888_f248.jpg

      3. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Aww, no response for "government has a horrible track-record for defending freedom and prosperity"?

    13. Reality Bytes profile image95
      Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago

      Do we work for the Government or does the government work for us?

      Are we not all human beings or is there a higher level of being which rises above the Law of equality?   Are these beings infallible?  Are all government personnel of this higher grade of humanity?

      It is still "We the People" right?

    14. 0
      Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago

      In the mid 90, I used to go to Libertarian meetings in South Africa. Everybody was doing well financially - either self employed or fairly highly placed in the corporate world. They were also all men - with some very strange sexual appetites.

      It didn't take me long to realize that these people were blinded by their own intense desire to do exactly what they liked in areas that were currently regulated against.

      For instance, they enjoyed porn and wanted it deregulated so that they could watch it without breaking the law.

      One guy was a pedophile and he loved something that he didn't want regulated. He thought all regulations in this are should be removed because it was a personal matter.

      When I questioned a very rich man who has since become an ex-friend, he was adamant that industry would look after the environment and that people who owned companies (he owned many and was very, very rich) would ensure that the environment was protected.

      For reasons beyond me, it never occurred to any of them that if one deregulates, a lot of people would commit many crimes. They were all of the opinion that human beings were very good people, that didn't do wrong things, and that deregulation allowing everybody to do exactly as they liked would make everybody prosperous.

      And, of course, they all raved about Ayn Rand. I have to tell you that I read every single Ayn Rand book in the 60s and 70s, and the series of book retains the unflattering comment that they are and remain the most boring and stupid books I have ever read.

      My opinion of the Libertarian philosophy? Well, if people were saints, it might work. Unhappily, people are not saints. Well, except for me and Pcunix. smile

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If you think that a pedophile will keep kids away from him when it's against the law...

        ... just look at the Catholic Church and Penn State for immediate dismissal of your obviously incorrect premise.

        Molesting children is an abuse of their God-Given right to ownership of their body. If the government or church can't secure these rights, then they've failed their duty.

    15. Pcunix profile image90
      Pcunixposted 4 years ago

      Quoting crazy people over and over doesn't negate their insanity, Evan.

      1. EmpressFelicity profile image84
        EmpressFelicityposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Way back in the mists of time, I studied for (and somehow passed) a science degree.

        Part of my studying involved learning a bit about the scientific method and how prediction is a vital tool for testing the strength of a hypothesis.

        It strikes me that if libertarian economists are the only ones who consistently predict economic downturns while the other types of economist have no idea what is coming to hit us even a year or two down the line (as Evan's Peter Schiffer YouTube clip graphically demonstrates), then perhaps you should take off the blinkers.

        I'm not a libertarian myself (chance would be a fine thing in Britain anyway), but you don't have to be a libertarian to acknowledge that libertarians are totally correct when they say things like "having an economy that's based on debt and consumption is a really crap idea".

        1. Pcunix profile image90
          Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You think that's a Libertarian idea?

          That's an opinion and not even one that is universally shared.  However, as an opinion, it is at least respectable.

          It's their solution that is insane.  Abandon most of government and let business and individuals make their own rules???

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Blah blah blah - the libertarians got it right. Take off your lampshade headdress and see the world for what it is.

            I quoted you over 200 individual predictions of economic matters by major libertarian schools of thought that ALL came true with resounding accuracy.

            Arguing with you is pointless. I'm responding to your statements for the benefit of others who want to see the truth.

        2. 0
          Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Empress Felicity. ""having an economy that's based on debt and consumption is a really crap idea".

          Not even the Democrats or labor believe that it's a good idea to have an economy based on debt and consumption. Having an economy based on consumption is strictly a Libertarian and Republican (conservative) idea.

          The debt is a result of spending money on war and other daft ideas instead of on education (number 1). Everything else flows as a result of a lack of education.

          1. Pcunix profile image90
            Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Actually there are people who think consumption is a good idea.  They have to be at least partially right - if we were all self sufficient, we wouldn't have much of an economy.  I think that's a laudable goal (self sufficiency) but there are some wrinkles in the fabric.

            The war thing is utterly stupid.  Not necessarily the wars themselves - I'm not able to say with certainty that we should have or shouldn't have.  I tend toward "shouldn't", but I don't get a PDB every morning.

            What is undeniably stupid is fighting wars and refusing to pay for them with increased taxes.  Right now, THAT stupidity falls mostly on Republican shoulders, though the Dems have done their share of evasion in the past.

            1. EmpressFelicity profile image84
              EmpressFelicityposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I certainly wasn't advocating a return to complete self-sufficiency for everyone - that would be the total opposite end of the spectrum!

              But even you have to acknowledge that our consumption-heavy economies are bound to run out of steam sooner or later.

              I read somewhere that in Britain, the average adult is something like £10K in debt, and that's not including any mortgage borrowing! As long as you've got a job and a regular income coming in, it's not a problem. But if enough people lose their jobs (as is starting to happen now), then it has a knock-on effect. Jobless people can't afford to take on any more debt, so the market for all that nice shiny stuff in the shops shrinks, and with it, the retail industry. It's a domino effect. And because in Britain at least, we don't seem to make that much ourselves any more, we don't have enough of a manufacturing/production base to fall back on and at least mitigate the effects of the downturn. And people don't grow much of their own food or - in a lot of cases - even know how to cook. We are living in a dependency culture, and most of us don't realise just how dependent we are.

              You might think from reading what I've just said that I would advocate trade tariffs and isolationism, but I don't. I think the whole production/consumption/debt thing is something that people will have to work out for themselves, because most government "solutions" (AFAICT) cause yet more problems down the line.

              1. Pcunix profile image90
                Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                People are working it out.  Savings are way up and consumption is way down..

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                  Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Savings is a form of consumption in a normal economic system.

                  In fact, the entire Austrian Business Cycle Theory explains how this works. Hayek won a Nobel Prize for the explanation.

                  I'm sure I won't convince Pcunix of my argument, he's long gone. I post this for the other readers who want to understand the world.

                  As saving increases, two things happen:

                  a) Interest rates go down: as more money is available to loan, the price of lending money goes down!

                  b) Stuff is cheaper: Because people aren't buying things, prices naturally go down due to a decreased demand.

                  Because these things happn, long term projects can be undertaken and sustained. Building a Skyscraper takes many years -- from the construction of the shovels that dig the iron out of the ground, to the final steel beam being put into place perhaps 10 years go by.

                  This is perfectly sustainable.

                  However, if money is created out of thin air then only ONE of the previously listed things occurs:

                  a) Interest rates go down: with more money available to lend, interest rates go down.

                  b) however, prices do not decrease: because the decreased interest rates are only available because there is more money, this does NOT mean that people are consuming less.

                  This means that more people are buying things. As demand increases, prices go higher. As prices go higher, the long-term investments made end up costing more and more as time goes on. Eventually a bust occurs.

            2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Libertarians aren't on the right.

              The goal of an economy isn't employment OR GDP.

              Watch and read the links I posted and you'll see the truth.

          2. EmpressFelicity profile image84
            EmpressFelicityposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I don't think so - the consumption/debt thing has been with us for quite a while now, regardless of which party is in office.




            War is one of the things that we go into debt over, sure. But so is education. Ask anyone who is in hock up to the eyeballs with a student loan.

            1. Pcunix profile image90
              Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Yes.  But the Right wing keeps blaming our debt on social programs rather than placing the blame where it belongs.  They are also currently refusing to raise taxes to pay for it, preferring to gut social programs and ignore needed infrastructure repairs/improvements instead.

              As usual, brilliant plan.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Read Economics in One Lesson to understand why your argument is feeble and will never convince anyone except the young and naive.

                The Seen vs. the Unseen: You see the man fixing the newly broken window, but you don't see the new coat the man who had to pay to fix the window COULD have bought.

        3. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Empress, thank you for defending the OBVIOUSLY impeccable record of the Austrian School of Economics.

          I would suggest not wasting your time arguing with Pcunix, he has clearly disowned the ability to change his mind.

          I quoted 200+ specific accurate predictions made by the school, yet he still claims they're wrong.

        4. Jeff Berndt profile image89
          Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "It strikes me that if libertarian economists are the only ones who consistently predict economic downturns"

          Hmm, libertarian economists have predicted ten out of the last three recessions. Maybe we should start listening to them.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Nonsense. Show me a supposed recession they falsely predicted.

            Ones that are currently in the process of being realized are not fair game.

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
              Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              If you predict that a downturn will come, you're right. It's just a question of waiting.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                So many things can alter the timing of a collapse that deciding on a date is foolish.

                If you read the quotes provided regarding the Austrian School of Economics, they predict things without dates, but they explain how it will happen. Then when the exact events they said would happen actually do happen, people say "bah, it could have been any time. You just said 'things will crash', but didn't tell us when".

                Watch these videos of Ron Paul and Peter Schiff. There's no way you can even begin to say they didn't see it coming.

                Paul specifically mentions Fannie and Freddie, and Schiff points to the housing bubble.

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHNp1wf1T_k

                "The Federal Reserve credit created during the last 8 months has NOT stimulated economic growth..."

                ... sound familiar? The Fed has created $20 Trillion out of thin air. Give it a while to show where the next bubble will be.


                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
                  Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  "Paul specifically mentions Fannie and Freddie,"
                  Who didn't start the process, and only got into the game when the bubble was well under way. Their participation was minimal, their effects equally so.

                  The housing bubble is government's fault inasmuch as government repealed Glass-Steagall, allowed the unregulated creation of toxic assets, and didn't investigate securities fraud or prosecute those responsible. I'm with you that far. And of course, government ineptitude is guilty of creating the bailouts and TARP as an ill-conceived response to the bubble popping.

                  But neither the government nor quasi-governmental corporations caused the bubble. That happened when people in private mortgage-lenders figured out that they could sell off bad loans to unsuspecting investors if they bundled them together and pretended that the bundle wasn't made of mortgages that should never have been written.

                  1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                    Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    No. the Crash was because of credit expansion under the Federal Reserve.

                  2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                    Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Where'd the money come from? People weren't suddenly interested in being ultra-greedy all of the sudden. They chose to use the money that flowed like mana from heaven, and the government put a funnel into the housing sector.

                    If you can show me some sort of "greed index" which shows a dramatic increase in the amount of greed in the hearts of investors, I'll begin to consider your argument.

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Sorry Pcunix, the libertarians were right.

        Deal with the fact that they predicted every major economic and political event of the last century.

        Economics isn't a science because Humans have the ability to think. This is why things like "double blind" testing have been introduced to medicinal studies.

        I'll see ya in the bread lines. I'll be the guy buying steaks with the silver coins I've collected.

    16. Reality Bytes profile image95
      Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago

      This is a portion of the speech that President John F. Kennedy gave at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel on April 27, 1961. "The President and the Press" before the American Newspaper Publishers Association.

      The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know."

      http://www.thepowerhour.com/news3/jfk_s … script.htm

    17. Reality Bytes profile image95
      Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago

      Abraham Lincoln:

      The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Lincoln was a railroad lobbyist who made his companies rich off of the government teat.

    18. Reality Bytes profile image95
      Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago

      Mathematically Impossible To Pay Off The U.S. National Debt", has created a ton of controversy and has generated over 100 comments so far.  Much of the discussion has been about the role of the Federal Reserve and how they create money and debt.  The truth is that the Federal Reserve system is a very complex subject that is very difficult to get a handle on.  One thing that the Federal Reserve is NOT is a government agency.  In fact, it is about as "federal" as Federal Express.  It is a private central bank designed to make money for the people who created it.  In fact, the Federal Reserve was the culmination of an effort by the international banking elite to force a permanent private central bank on the American people that began all the way back during the days of our Founding Fathers.

      But don't just take our word for it. The following are famous quotes about the Federal Reserve and central banking from past presidents, congressmen and other notable historical figures.... 

      "Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States."
      -Sen. Barry Goldwater

      It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
      -Henry Ford

      "The regional Federal Reserve banks are not government agencies. ...but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations."
      -Lewis vs. United States, 680 F. 2d 1239 9th Circuit 1982

      "The Federal Reserve banks are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen. There is not a man within the sound of my voice who does not know that this nation is run by the International bankers."
      -Congressman Louis T. McFadden

      “The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson.”
      -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

      "As soon as Mr. Roosevelt took office, the Federal Reserve began to buy government securities at the rate of ten million dollars a week for 10 weeks, and created one hundred million dollars in new [checkbook] currency, which alleviated the critical famine of money and credit, and the factories started hiring people again."
      -Eustace Mullins

      "This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson} signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized....the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill."
      -Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. , 1913

      "When you or I write a check there must be sufficient funds in our account to cover the check, but when the Federal Reserve writes a check there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating money."
      -Putting it simply, Boston Federal Reserve Bank

      "We have, in this country, one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board. This evil institution has impoverished the people of the United States and has practically bankrupted our government. It has done this through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it."
      -Congressman Louis T. McFadden in 1932

      “The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it’s profits or so dependent on it’s favors, that there will be no opposition from that class.”
      -Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863

      "While boasting of our noble deeds were careful to conceal the ugly fact that by an iniquitous money system we have nationalized a system of oppression which, though more refined, is not less cruel than the old system of chattel slavery."
      -Horace Greeley

      "The Federal Reserve bank buys government bonds without one penny..."
      -Congressman Wright Patman, Congressional Record, Sept 30, 1941

      "...the increase in the assets of the Federal Reserve banks from 143 million dollars in 1913 to 45 billion dollars in 1949 went directly to the private stockholders of the [federal reserve] banks."
      -Eustace Mullins

      "The financial system has been turned over to the Federal Reserve Board. That Board administers the finance system by authority of a purely profiteering group. The system is Private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people's money"
      -Charles A. Lindbergh Sr., 1923

      "Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money and control credit, and with a flick of a pen they will create enough to buy it back."
      -Sir Josiah Stamp, former President, Bank of England

      "All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from the downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation."
      -John Adams

      "Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce."
      -James A. Garfield, President of the United States

      "A great industrial nation is controlled by it's system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the world--no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men."
      -President Woodrow Wilson

      "History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance."
      -James Madison

      "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."
      -Thomas Jefferson

      “The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.”
      -Abraham Lincoln

      "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws"
      -Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

      Are you starting to get the picture?

      The Federal Reserve is at the center of a controversy over central banking that has been around since the very beginning of the United States.  But unfortunately, the Federal Reserve system is so incredibly complex and the American people of today are so uneducated that the vast majority of people out there simply do not even understand enough about what is going on to get upset about anything.

      But that is changing.  An increasing number of people are starting to wake up.  Instead of thinking that "we'll get this debt under control if we could just get the right person in the White House", more Americans than ever are realizing that it is the Federal Reserve that is the root of our debt problem.

      http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/arch … al-banking

      1. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If you had even the faintest grasp of history...  oh, never mind.  You don't and never will.

        1. Reality Bytes profile image95
          Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I am a little surprised by this statement?  Oh well Pc, have a nice new year.

          Nuff said!

          1. Pcunix profile image90
            Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Go learn WHY we created the Federal Reserve and what horrible financial turmoil it was designed to fix.

            Is it perfect? No.  Has it been misused at times? Of course.  But we need it just the same and anyone who says otherwise doesn't know beans about it.

            1. Reality Bytes profile image95
              Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              We may disagree, that is fine. My ignorance of the subject is a fallacy.  Are you sure that your post is relevant to your beliefs?

              "The United States People Was Betrayed In 1913 By The Federal Reserve Act Manipulating The USA Money Supply"

              Please do not read but do not state that I have no knowledge of the subject?

              1. Pcunix profile image90
                Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Betrayed?

                That is exactly why I say you are ignorant of why we created this institution.  Just the use of "betrayed" tells me that instantly.

                1. Reality Bytes profile image95
                  Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  No, it tells you that we disagree.  Declaring me ignorant only reflects on yourself for not being accepting of the fact that there are those that disagree with you.

                  Pc, your arguments fall very short when you have to resort to an attack of a messenger instead of responding to the message.  In your "I know best and everyone who does not agree with me is stupid" attitude is why your kind is slowly finding themselves irrelevant and inevitably extinct.

                  Keep holding on to your beliefs of Fictions all the while judging others for their beliefs. 

                  We are Legion!

            2. Moderndayslave profile image61
              Moderndayslaveposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Oh really, you must of gotten the "Official" version of why we have The Un-Federal Reserve

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                smile

            3. Evan G Rogers profile image83
              Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              "we" didn't create the federal reserve. This shows utter ignorance on your part:

              Once again, Pcunix is lost. I post this history lesson for those who want to know why milk used to cost a nickel, and why Pennies no longer have copper in them.

              The federal reserve was created through a piece of legislation written, literally, by the very banks who would be controlling it. The legislation was passed just before Christmas because the few congressmen who were paid off by the banksters stayed and made sure Congress wouldn't adjourn. The legislation was passed when a handful of congressmen were there to vote.

              Here's more information about our banking system and how the Fed works:
              http://media.mises.org/video/Fed.wmv

              This video was brought to you by the Austrian School of Economics, that is, those who predicted the housing bubble years in advance.

    19. mio cid profile image65
      mio cidposted 4 years ago

      Libertarians are wannabe anarquists who want the protection of the government and the institutions to protect their wealth and opportunity to become wealthy while denying opportunities to the less fortunate. they want the fox roaming free inside the chicken coup where the chicken are also free.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Nonsense.

        See my response to Pcunix earlier with videos linking to Anarchist videos to understand why what you say is nonsense.

    20. knolyourself profile image60
      knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

      The federal reserve was created by private bankers
      who then the same year created the federal income tax, since the government would have to borrow all its money from them, and needed a revenue stream to pay the interest.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this
    21. knolyourself profile image60
      knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

      "The Four Horsemen of Banking (Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo) own the Four Horsemen of Oil (Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch/Shell, BP and Chevron Texaco); in tandem with Deutsche Bank, BNP, Barclays and other European old money behemoths. But their monopoly over the global economy does not end at the edge of the oil patch."

      "According to company 10K filings to the SEC, the Four Horsemen of Banking are among the top ten stock holders of virtually every Fortune 500 corporation."

    22. knolyourself profile image60
      knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

      Somalia is to become a US colony for oil and minerals.

    23. barranca profile image76
      barrancaposted 4 years ago

      Society is organized around two central values:  Freedom and Justice.  which align with Individualism and Communitarianism.  Liberty ultimately must imply responsibility and limits.  The limits are determined ultimately by community.   It is hard to keep these two crucial values in mind simultaneously when shaping one's political philosophy.  I tend to agree with libertarians that government has become overweening, paternalistic and intrusive.  Even worse it is trending toward totalitarianism.  However, it is also clear to me that people need to come together to regulate corporate power.  We need environmental laws.  We need labor laws.  We need mechanisms for sharing educational opportunity more fairly.  We need all kinds of community oriented activities that need to REQUIRE participation of everyone in order to be fair and effective.    I agree with Ron Paul that we need to shrink the military, give up our imperialist fantasies, and BE a example of freedom rather than try to impose it on others.  On the other hand, he carries libertarianism too far when he seems to want to move us back to a kind of 19th century social darwinism or frontierism where everyone carries a gun to enforce his or her own idea of justice.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        to say that Ron Paul wants us to revert back to social darwinism is misinformation at best and a lie at worst.

        1. barranca profile image76
          barrancaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          As I read Paul, he argues for:  deregulated free-market capitalism and a return to the gold standard.   But his idea of  free-market capitalism Is not sufficiently attentive to the history of exploitation it represents.  It seems to me that he still wants to sneak monopolistic business in under the skirts of "freedom."   It's true that he doesn't like the conjunction of big business with big government, but he seems a lot more worried about big government than big business.  Libertarians tend to decry big government while giving corporations a pass while they destroy the planet.   Meanwhile Paul attacks some of the most successful social programs in history such as social security.

          1. barranca profile image76
            barrancaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I don't mean to be overly critical of RP because in many ways I am aligned with his views.  I just wish he would talk a bit more about justice and a bit less about liberty.  His opinions about gun control are neanderthal.   Again, an example of sacrificing justice for liberty.  I am appalled by how our media and the politicrats in the Republican Party try to marginalize Paul....as they do Kucinich in the Democratic Party.   But, if Paul were the Republican Nominee and Kucinich the democratic nominee, I would vote for Kucinich.  And if it were a 3 way race between Bernie Sanders, independent, Kucinich and Paul....I would vote for Sanders.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
              Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich's views are closer to mine than Ron Paul's.

          2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Show me ONE example of REAL monopolization that was BAD for the consumer that did NOT have governmental-regulations to make it possible.

            You're gonna have a hard time.

      2. EmpressFelicity profile image84
        EmpressFelicityposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Such as?

        The idea of enforced community participation sends shivers down my spine. Reminds me of the things my mother told me about growing up in Nazi Germany.

        1. barranca profile image76
          barrancaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Each time you pay your taxes.  Each time we pave our roads.  Each time you obey speed limits, pay parking tickets, build a public school, use a public utility, keep a public library open, hire a teacher, pay a public official's salary you have an example of enforced community participation.   Perhaps the locution "enforced community participation" was an unfortunate turn of phrase with unpleasant resonances.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Each time you buy a sandwich, each time you buy a screwdriver, each time you buy anything, each time you talk with someone, each time you pay your rent, each time you buy doritos, each time you buy a pencil, each time you enjoy a privately owned institution, each time you... (the list could go on for decades).

            Each time you engage in the free-market, you're doing the EXACT SAME THING but through FREEDOM.

            Your argument is DOA because, just like the OP, you fail to put the same expectations against the government as you do the market.

            1. barranca profile image76
              barrancaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Would that we could simply do away with governments.  Maybe we will in some ideal future, thousands of years hence.

            2. Jeff Berndt profile image89
              Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              "Your argument is DOA because, just like the OP, you fail to put the same expectations against the government as you do the market."

              "The government" and "the market" are different animals.

              Take public education. Leaving aside the philosophical argument about why it's my responsibility to pay for your kid to learn to read (and why it's good for me that your kid is literate), let's talk about the practical arguments that "prove" private schools are "better" than public ones.

              Those arguments fail because a private school can control whom it teaches, and can require parental involvement. A public school must teach all comers, whether their parents are involved or not (the best predictor of student success), whether the kid is smart, average, stupid, or cognitively impaired, whether the kid comes from a wealthy family with all his creature needs met or a poor one with constant hunger and poor medical care.
              Plus, public schools have to deal with the fact that there are a lot of people who believe that government can't possibly work, and then get elected and do their best to prove it.
              When you show me a private school who accepts all students who apply, regardless of the parents' ability to pay or be involved in school activities, regardless of the kids' academic ability or level of physical, mental, or emotional disability, and is run by a group of people, about a third of whom have a vested interest in the school failing, and it still outperforms public schools, then I'll concede that government has no place in educating our kids.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I was at a nearby school recently, and the Principal was talking about all the wonders and glorious things their public school has accomplished.

                Then I heard her say "If one more handicapped student enters our school, we'll be downgraded and will lose funding".

                This is a travesty.

                And, I mean this with absolutely NO malice, many people don't use the education they get. College is nearly worthless, I'm sure you sat in many of you classes and thought "jeezus, these kids don't actually care what their professor is saying."

                Many of my fellow students, even in Grad school, were more eager to leave than to listen to their professors.

                Many of the people who "need" educations actually don't.

                Most of my friends who have great jobs openly admit that they don't need half of what they learned even in High School - for daily life OR their job. I have yet to see any of my schools offer computer programming as a class, yet this is where the jobs are.

              2. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Indeed, many private schools DO get to choose who they teach.

                But one reason why they're so picky is because they're competing with mandatory education.

                Oh, and guess what, colleges can pick who they accept, yet a huge number of people have bachelor's degrees.

                Education is NOT a right -- even though I'm sure you'll say it is -- because you do NOT have the right to other people's labor and property.

                Is education important? Yes of course.

                Is food important? God, yes. Much more than education.

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
                  Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  "But one reason why they're so picky is because they're competing with mandatory education."
                  How does that work? They have a product that people are required to buy! (Or provide for themselves.) Parents must educate their kids in some way. They're not competing with mandatory education. If anything, the mandatory education requirement is helping the private schools. It's not like parents can decide not to send their kids to some school or other (well, they can home-school, but this is a lot harder than most people realize).

                  "Oh, and guess what, colleges can pick who they accept"
                  Sure, because when you're going to college, you're an adult, and considered competent to make your own decisions about how much education you need. You don't have to go to college. Heck, you don't have to finish high school if you turn 18 before you graduate.

                  And you're absolutely right that most people don't use their degree directly every day, in private or professional life. But I wouldn't say that college is worthless. It's not so much the facts or figures that we learn that helps us out, its the practice thinking about what those facts mean, and articulating those thoughts (or making good decisions based on them) that helps in work and daily life.

                  " have yet to see any of my schools offer computer programming as a class,"
                  My (public) high school offered computer programing in the 1980s, and the (also public) one my kids will attend offers it now.

                  1. innersmiff profile image79
                    innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Another critical flaw to the education requirement is that the private school prices are inordinately high. If there was actual market competition and no official requirement, there would be more incentive to lower prices and increase quality of education.

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          In Michigan everyone is required to have car liability insurance. This seems quite reasonable to me, and it works quite well in the public interest.

    24. barranca profile image76
      barrancaposted 4 years ago

      Here is an interesting critique of Ron Paul along the lines of some of my earlier comments about Justice and Liberty.

      http://www.salon.com/2012/01/03/race_li … _ron_paul/

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Good article:

        Did the Civil Rights Act of 1964 put America on the path to a police state?  The answer is yes, according to Ron Paul, the Texas Republican Congressman and candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. Appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, Paul explained that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 “destroyed the principle of private property and private choices” and “undermine[d] the concept of liberty.”

        Ron Paul is beyond the pale. He should go back to delivering babies.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
          Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It's funny that you act like that, when the PATRIOT Act and the NDAA have both passed our legislative and executive system. TSA, Homeland security....

          Irony.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
            Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            They have nothing to do with the Civil Rights Act except that all of them were supported by a majority of both parties. That doesn't make them good law as is the Civil Rights Act. Slavery was not questioned by most of our founding fathers, and women were chattel. Does that make it right? We are gradually becoming more civilized. The Civil Rights Act is just one more point on the road toward civilization.

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
              uncorrectedvisionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              "Women were chattel" That would have been news to most Yankee women of the times.

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Women were not allowed to vote, and under law they were disadvantaged in several ways involved with inheritance, property ownership and in their spousal relationships.

                Here's a UNICEF treatise on "women as chattel."

                http://www.unicef.org/pon97/women1b.htm

                1. uncorrectedvision profile image59
                  uncorrectedvisionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Untrue. Women were voting in colonial times.  Women voted after the Constitution was written.  A woman ran for President, despite the perfect and pure Federal government of the United States denying women the vote.  Women in Wyoming Territory were regular voters until Wyoming became a state.

                  Seems to me the common denominator in women losing the vote is the federal government.

                  There was a profound disagreement among the Founders about slavery to the point of nearly sinking the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  In an effort to stem the power of slave state the much misrepresented - by liberals - 3/5ths provision was written.

                  Slavery was a profoundly controversial subject that boiled until the Civil War.  If it wasn't than why all the legislation and rules about new states joining, limits on importation, transportation and disposition of slaves.

                  1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
                    Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    "Seems to me the common denominator in women losing the vote is the federal government."

                    Nicely done, good sir.

                    The slavery issue is an important one because the Federalists were so power hungry that they sacrificed the humanity of an entire race of people just so they could get their centralized government.

                    "But then the central government ended it!", say the detractors.

                    Sure, but Lincoln didn't want to help the slaves, he wanted to deport them to another country. He openly stated that a mixed race republic can't work.

                    ... oh, and he waged total war on the citizenry, abolished free speech, imposed martial law, never freed a single slave, and hunted down a congressman who disagreed with him.

                    1. Pcunix profile image90
                      Pcunixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Sigh.

                      Again, yes, we all know that governments reflect prevailing thought.

                      But what you never understand is that is an argument against the little pockets you think are "freedom".  We have a wide and varied culture and that is what has caused us to protect the rights of individuals.  Those protections will never come from your little Libertarian pockets because each pocket will have its own group-think policies.

                      We need a strong Federal government to protect and ensure liberty for all.  We may never do it perfectly, but we'll do it better than Libertarian pockets will, and that is why MOST intelligent people see Libertarianism and Doctor Paul for what the are:  a danger to freedom.

    25. Jeff Berndt profile image89
      Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago

      No, the level of greed remained more or less constant. I'm not saying that suddenly everyone became more greedy. I'm saying that suddenly they were allowed to do things with the money they had which had previously been illegal, and this allowed the banks to create new financial instruments that were unregulated (many of which would, if you could make a picture of them, be excellent illustrations of "securities fraud" in the dictionary), and many of which were of questionable legality and ethically unconscionable.

    26. Perspycacious profile image74
      Perspycaciousposted 4 years ago

      They yearn for a simpler world we might all be able to understand.

     
    working