RE: OK, who is more a "Libertarian" than a Conservative or a Liberal here?

RE: OK, who is more a "Libertarian" than a Conservative or a Liberal here? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

NeedToUseYou -> RE: OK, who is more a "Libertarian" than a Conservative or a Liberal here? (3/9/2009 6:11:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Thank you for allowing us to peek inside that ever so sane libertarian mind of yours [&o] . Yes, it would, it illustrates how I'm able to separate fantastical make believe stories, from reality and that probably separates me from those that can't. But despite all this deflection you still haven't explained how bill gates will take over the water supply, and how that scenario is so scary.

kittinSol -> RE: OK, who is more a "Libertarian" than a Conservative or a Liberal here? (3/9/2009 6:20:11 PM)
You should ask the guy whose theory it was: I was but a mere commentator, but in your haste to talk to me, it looks as though you ignored that fact (and yes, the thought of any wealthy person - individual or corporate - appropriating something essential to humanity and making it their own is scary, and very plausible). In any event, I find you terrifying, and I shall now cower as far away from you as possible [&:] .

NeedToUseYou -> RE: OK, who is more a "Libertarian" than a Conservative or a Liberal here? (3/9/2009 6:27:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol You should ask the guy whose theory it was: I was but a mere commentator, but in your haste to talk to me, it looks as though you ignored that fact (and yes, the thought of any wealthy person - individual or corporate - appropriating something essential to humanity and making it their own is scary, and very plausible). In any event, I find you terrifying, and I shall now cower as far away from you as possible [&:] . You must cower at flowers, love, and hope then. Because I my dear, am as absolutely harmless as any of those thing. but we can leave it at that. I frighten you, LOL. that is really funny. thanks for that at least. By the way that whole little rant was a joke, I hope to never meet you must less impregnate you. Lighten up a bit, if that is the scary you are referring to. If its my politics well then be scared if want, you scare me to.

Archer -> RE: OK, who is more a "Libertarian" than a Conservative or a Liberal here? (3/9/2009 7:35:57 PM)
kittensol you mischaractorize the Libertarian party when you cast them as anti choice. Their platform specifically calls for the issue to be a non issue for government. 1.3 Personal Relationships Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. 1.4 Abortion Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration. That is about as pro choice as a platform plank can get kittensol.

Archer -> RE: OK, who is more a "Libertarian" than a Conservative or a Liberal here? (3/9/2009 7:44:03 PM)
The idea that the party that has planks for legalizing gay marriage would be racist as a group is hysterically funny don't you think. Gay is OK with these back woods redneck malcontents, but race is an issue?

NormalOutside -> RE: OK, who is more a "Libertarian" than a Conservative or a Liberal here? (3/9/2009 7:52:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent What is the function of government in a libertarian system? Exactly as the Constitution says, by definition, no?

couldbemage -> RE: OK, who is more a "Libertarian" than a Conservative or a Liberal here? (3/9/2009 8:10:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: couldbemage It's simple. I'm bill gates. libertarians take over. I liquidate my stupid computer company and buy up every water source in US. Since I have the right to not do buisness with whomever I please.... I can just declare myself king. Anyone who objects can just do without MY infrastructure. Scary, when you think about it. It's stupid if you think about it. So, for this scary thing to happen, he'd have to convince everyone around here to sell him all their property, because you can build a well, anywhere around here. Also, Rain happens all the time, rain barrels and purification methods would provide all the water I'd ever need and for that matter anybody in about half the country would need. I'd be filthy rich under your scenario selling water Gates refused to sell, that scenario will not ever happen. It's absurd to say the least. Something, a child might envision. More likely scenario is government by decree bans rain barrels, and makes laws stating you can not build wells on your property, then corrupt politicians sell the only water source to a private company. See that could actually happen, but that only can happen when government is allowed to control everything, the inverse of a libertarian world. More a corrupt socialist system. Not that all socialist systems are corrupt, but all governments go through phases of corruption. Scary thought if you think about it. So... Monopolies never happen? After we get the gov out of the utility biz, someone will own it. Imagine a monopoly in just LA. The city could be crippled on the whim of one man.

NeedToUseYou -> RE: OK, who is more a "Libertarian" than a Conservative or a Liberal here? (3/9/2009 8:46:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: couldbemage quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: couldbemage It's simple. I'm bill gates. libertarians take over. I liquidate my stupid computer company and buy up every water source in US. Since I have the right to not do buisness with whomever I please.... I can just declare myself king. Anyone who objects can just do without MY infrastructure. Scary, when you think about it. It's stupid if you think about it. So, for this scary thing to happen, he'd have to convince everyone around here to sell him all their property, because you can build a well, anywhere around here. Also, Rain happens all the time, rain barrels and purification methods would provide all the water I'd ever need and for that matter anybody in about half the country would need. I'd be filthy rich under your scenario selling water Gates refused to sell, that scenario will not ever happen. It's absurd to say the least. Something, a child might envision. More likely scenario is government by decree bans rain barrels, and makes laws stating you can not build wells on your property, then corrupt politicians sell the only water source to a private company. See that could actually happen, but that only can happen when government is allowed to control everything, the inverse of a libertarian world. More a corrupt socialist system. Not that all socialist systems are corrupt, but all governments go through phases of corruption. Scary thought if you think about it. So... Monopolies never happen? After we get the gov out of the utility biz, someone will own it. Imagine a monopoly in just LA. The city could be crippled on the whim of one man. You changed the subject, you used the example of owning all the water, I said that was not possible and explained why, now you're backing to another situation, that you are concerned about. I seriously don't think anyone addresses anything around here when they've been proven wrong. They just avoid, and come up with another scenario or play side games.. So, again, explain how Bill gates is going to control the water, then we can go on to other scenarios. Thanks. My response was more about the absurdity of the scenario, and how some were treating it as a real possible scenario, rather than total excluding the premise of possible problems entirely. And it should be stated Libertarianism does not mean no government or regulation, it means the minimum amount required to allow society to function. As in that which is necessary not everything that is desired. There is a difference between the portrayal and the reality.

Crush -> RE: OK, who is more a "Libertarian" than a Conservative or a Liberal here? (3/10/2009 3:13:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: couldbemage quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: couldbemage It's simple. I'm bill gates. libertarians take over. I liquidate my stupid computer company and buy up every water source in US. Since I have the right to not do buisness with whomever I please.... I can just declare myself king. Anyone who objects can just do without MY infrastructure. Scary, when you think about it. It's stupid if you think about it. So, for this scary thing to happen, he'd have to convince everyone around here to sell him all their property, because you can build a well, anywhere around here. Also, Rain happens all the time, rain barrels and purification methods would provide all the water I'd ever need and for that matter anybody in about half the country would need. I'd be filthy rich under your scenario selling water Gates refused to sell, that scenario will not ever happen. It's absurd to say the least. Something, a child might envision. More likely scenario is government by decree bans rain barrels, and makes laws stating you can not build wells on your property, then corrupt politicians sell the only water source to a private company. See that could actually happen, but that only can happen when government is allowed to control everything, the inverse of a libertarian world. More a corrupt socialist system. Not that all socialist systems are corrupt, but all governments go through phases of corruption. Scary thought if you think about it. So... Monopolies never happen? After we get the gov out of the utility biz, someone will own it. Imagine a monopoly in just LA. The city could be crippled on the whim of one man. I think you are thinking of Mr Burns of Springfield.....DOH!

justcrash -> RE: OK, who is more a "Libertarian" than a Conservative or a Liberal here? (3/10/2009 5:18:29 PM)
im a libertarian.

Sir Daddy -> RE: OK, who is more a "Libertarian" than a Conservative or a Liberal here? (3/12/2009 12:56:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou quote: ORIGINAL: Sir Daddy I'd be a libertarian...but I have a heart. And when it comes to their ridiculous "FairTax" proposal, I have a brain too. lol I'm guessing your politics are as deep as your cliches are shallow Acknowledging the heartless nature of libertarian fiscal policy and the idiocy of the libertarian "FairTax" proposal happens so often that doing so is cliche? Wow!! Ya'll are even less popular than I thought. lol =P

Sir Daddy -> RE: OK, who is more a "Libertarian" than a Conservative or a Liberal here? (3/12/2009 1:15:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Crush sirdaddy: 1) I'm still trying to figure out why you'd think libertarians don't have a heart? Nothing says they wouldn't help others in need. Most libertarians I know are very generous, donating to charities and causes all the time. I'd say they give more from the heart than either other camp. They just do it quietly without expectation of recognition. 2) Fairtax actually has quite a bit of research behind it. Based on new consumption, not income. Who is more likely to buy new stuff? Yeah, those nasty evil rich people. Read the book for yourself instead of someone's slanted "Cliff Notes" version. Heartless: The libertarians I know are pretentious, posturing, self-centered ("Me, Me, Me"), inconsiderate jerks. Generous is not a word I would use to describe any libertarian I know. Please keep in mind, I don't know you. Nor do I know a lot of libertarians. I don't know ANY libertarians irl. And only a few dozen or so on the net in the various political forums on which I post. Despite my many conversations with various libertarians, I would like to believe personal generosity knows no party. I'm sure there are generous libertarians. Just because I have not yet encountered one doesn't mean they do not exist. That said, my "heartless" comment had to do with fiscal policy, not personal generosity. FairTax: And there goes the ugly pretentious head of libertarianism. I HAVE read the book, Mr Presumptuous. The plain fact of the matter is that FairTax favors the wealthy and industry...and if you squint just right, you can see plainly that it's little more than Reganomics v2.

Sir Daddy -> RE: OK, who is more a "Libertarian" than a Conservative or a Liberal here? (3/12/2009 1:24:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UncleNasty The tone of your post implies otherwise, on both counts. Uncle Nasty I understand how you could misinterpret my opposition to particular facets of libertarian fiscal policy as indicative of a lack of intelligence. It's easier to think someone that disagrees with you is stupid than it is to actually defend your opinions. So it's understandable that you would choose to see me as brainless rather than confront the fundamental flaws of the fiscal policy (FairTax) you support. I'll give ya' a pass on that one. I invite you to explain how I appear heartless in any way?

Crush -> RE: OK, who is more a "Libertarian" than a Conservative or a Liberal here? (3/12/2009 7:33:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sir Daddy quote: ORIGINAL: Crush sirdaddy: 1) I'm still trying to figure out why you'd think libertarians don't have a heart? Nothing says they wouldn't help others in need. Most libertarians I know are very generous, donating to charities and causes all the time. I'd say they give more from the heart than either other camp. They just do it quietly without expectation of recognition. 2) Fairtax actually has quite a bit of research behind it. Based on new consumption, not income. Who is more likely to buy new stuff? Yeah, those nasty evil rich people. Read the book for yourself instead of someone's slanted "Cliff Notes" version. Heartless: The libertarians I know are pretentious, posturing, self-centered ("Me, Me, Me"), inconsiderate jerks. Generous is not a word I would use to describe any libertarian I know. Please keep in mind, I don't know you. Nor do I know a lot of libertarians. I don't know ANY libertarians irl. And only a few dozen or so on the net in the various political forums on which I post. Despite my many conversations with various libertarians, I would like to believe personal generosity knows no party. I'm sure there are generous libertarians. Just because I have not yet encountered one doesn't mean they do not exist. That said, my "heartless" comment had to do with fiscal policy, not personal generosity. FairTax: And there goes the ugly pretentious head of libertarianism. I HAVE read the book, Mr Presumptuous. The plain fact of the matter is that FairTax favors the wealthy and industry...and if you squint just right, you can see plainly that it's little more than Reganomics v2. OK, you read the book. I apologize for that assumption. It just seems you missed the point that those that produce income and spend it will be those that pay taxes. Those that don't or can't buy above a certain level of expenditure WON'T have any tax liability. And you, as a taxpayer, get to control a lot of those decisions under the Fair Tax. I'm not sure how favoring the poor will ever help an economy. Seems to me that the best way to grow an economy is to, well "grow the economy" by allowing those that can to have fixed expectations of the costs of their success. Otherwise there is no incentive to go above a level and many of these same people will "Go Galt" instead. Charity is a personal act. Not required by anyone for anyone. Once it becomes required it is coercion. And when it is a government that coerces, with power to enforce that coercion, it is more akin to rape in the sense of being forced to do something against someone's request. ========= Ed to add: The OP was about where a person feels they fit MORE on a spectrum, not to pick a pigeonhole. But then, it IS a board....

Andalusite -> RE: OK, who is more a "Libertarian" than a Conservative or a Liberal here? (3/12/2009 8:50:09 AM)
The Libertarian platform fits my political views better than the platform of any of the other parties. I tend to register as whichever party I care about more (ie. Democratic if I want to vote for someone in a close primary, Republican if I want to vote against the leading Republican candidate). I voted Libertarian in the last Presidential general election, and for a variety of parties (Republican, Democratic, and Green, that I can think of) for the other offices in the general election, depending on which candidate seemed best for the job. I'm not a fan of the extreme Libertarian viewpoint (no governmental intervention at all), but I think it should be kept to the minimum required to protect people/the environment. Overall, I consider myself to be "moderate independent with libertarian leanings." Personally, I try to be generous - for example, I usually keep a couple of extra cheap blankets, umbrellas, or other rain protection, and extra water/soda and snacks with me that I can give to people who are homeless. I donate to charitable organisations, I volunteer my time to some organisations, etc. I don't think that welfare should be completely discontinued, but I think it should be modified in ways that reward people for getting an education, getting off drugs/alcohol, and getting back to work.

DomKen -> RE: OK, who is more a "Libertarian" than a Conservative or a Liberal here? (3/12/2009 9:33:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Crush OK, you read the book. I apologize for that assumption. It just seems you missed the point that those that produce income and spend it will be those that pay taxes. Those that don't or can't buy above a certain level of expenditure WON'T have any tax liability. And you, as a taxpayer, get to control a lot of those decisions under the Fair Tax. I read the book too. Of course I also looked in to the research and saw the dirty truths those pushing it keep quiet. The very wealthy would see a precipitous decline in their tax burden while the working class would see a massive increase in their tax burden and that's assuming the plan is implemented with the monthly prebate payment which I would be willing to bet wouldn't happen. Furthermore it would disincentivize new home construction, new homes purchases would be subject to the full tax while previously owned structures would not, which would wipe out the construction industry.

Owner59 -> RE: OK, who is more a "Libertarian" than a Conservative or a Liberal here? (3/12/2009 9:47:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou quote: ORIGINAL: couldbemage quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: couldbemage It's simple. I'm bill gates. libertarians take over. I liquidate my stupid computer company and buy up every water source in US. Since I have the right to not do buisness with whomever I please.... I can just declare myself king. Anyone who objects can just do without MY infrastructure. Scary, when you think about it. It's stupid if you think about it. So, for this scary thing to happen, he'd have to convince everyone around here to sell him all their property, because you can build a well, anywhere around here. Also, Rain happens all the time, rain barrels and purification methods would provide all the water I'd ever need and for that matter anybody in about half the country would need. I'd be filthy rich under your scenario selling water Gates refused to sell, that scenario will not ever happen. It's absurd to say the least. Something, a child might envision. More likely scenario is government by decree bans rain barrels, and makes laws stating you can not build wells on your property, then corrupt politicians sell the only water source to a private company. See that could actually happen, but that only can happen when government is allowed to control everything, the inverse of a libertarian world. More a corrupt socialist system. Not that all socialist systems are corrupt, but all governments go through phases of corruption. Scary thought if you think about it. So... Monopolies never happen? After we get the gov out of the utility biz, someone will own it. Imagine a monopoly in just LA. The city could be crippled on the whim of one man. You changed the subject, you used the example of owning all the water, I said that was not possible and explained why, now you're backing to another situation, that you are concerned about. I seriously don't think anyone addresses anything around here when they've been proven wrong. They just avoid, and come up with another scenario or play side games.. So, again, explain how Bill gates is going to control the water, then we can go on to other scenarios. Thanks. My response was more about the absurdity of the scenario, and how some were treating it as a real possible scenario, rather than total excluding the premise of possible problems entirely. And it should be stated Libertarianism does not mean no government or regulation, it means the minimum amount required to allow society to function. As in that which is necessary not everything that is desired. There is a difference between the portrayal and the reality. It`s more than possible. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Water/Privatization_TidalWave.html A countries` whole water system can be privately bought or "privatized" as cons would put it. Why couldn`t something like that happen here,with many people`s water monopolized by a few? One thing the last 8 long years taught us is nothing`s impossible. A good part of the fight in Israel, is over water.

NeedToUseYou -> RE: OK, who is more a "Libertarian" than a Conservative or a Liberal here? (3/12/2009 1:19:07 PM)
I've watched several documentaries on that, and it seemed the thread was that it was achieved by the government working with the private company in many cases simply taking land, or selling public infrastructure to private interests for pennies, and kick backs. That isn't libertarianism, that is similar to the possible reason I outlined above. More of a corrupt socialist system, resulting in government enforced monopolies. Seeing most countries are more socialist, or dictatorships. edited to add... The example in the link of Ghana you gave supports that view, it was the government that did it to the people by decree in order to support government loans. As in it is an example of a government monopoly under socialist guise, being converted to a means of subjugating the population, and what is the payoff the government got loans. LOL. that is an exact example of what I was talking about. It also illustrates how Global power structures such as the IMF, are not good either, and work towards their own interests rather than helping. Yet, after all that, there is still a push for more globalism, more socialism. So, it's an example of a government selling out its people. LOL. That is my main problem with socialism, and centrally controlled power.

Owner59 -> RE: OK, who is more a "Libertarian" than a Conservative or a Liberal here? (3/12/2009 9:56:11 PM)
The poor get fucked either way and a monopoly control over water is possible, is the point. And what country in the world,isn`t socialist? As if that mattered concerning corruption.

NeedToUseYou -> RE: OK, who is more a "Libertarian" than a Conservative or a Liberal here? (3/13/2009 11:18:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 The poor get fucked either way and a monopoly control over water is possible, is the point. And what country in the world,isn`t socialist? As if that mattered concerning corruption. Well, my point is that such a scenario becomes greater with government concentrating conrol of that infrastructure, I'm sure it happens in most cases in the name of good, but what people fail to ponder, is what happens when someone eventually gets control that is bad. Ghana happens, there are tons of cases, like Ghana. And most of those if not all keep that monopoly going by using the government. Overall the probability of that scenario occurring is much less, IMO, in a libertarian system. Ultimately it breaks down like this I'd prefer a 100 competing companies to one over arching central authority, because if you let that central authority rule it, eventually, it will get sold by some corrupt leader, then you have all your eggs in one basket sold at the same time. Whereas if there was no government involvement the odds against total monopoly are less. Hell, I'm not a even a pure libertarian, I'd be for setting up minimum regulations to prevent monopolies, I don't like monopolies, whether they be government monopolies, or private. Anyway, at least we agree socialism doesn't prevent private monopolies, nor does it seem to me anyway, that libertarianism would promote them to a greater degree. Again, I didn't say water monopolies were impossible, I said they would be impossible in the US, without government enforcing a monopoly. I actually outlined that in my first post I think. Anyway, I think most problems could be solved by simply limiting a companies overall size to a fixed value point after that point is reached they must break into seperate companies the offshoot having to be sold to owners not holding in the original company. As in the danger in all these systems comes from the size of the company, I think a simply limiting the size of any companies or individuals net worth would solve that problem. 20 billion sounds about right. Ultimately, IMO, corruption flows from concentration of power, any system that wants to reduce that probability should focus on distributing the means of production, not consolidating it, in a nice package, for one corrupt government to sell in one go.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125