RE: Libertarians to build their own countries

RE: Libertarians to build their own countries (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Lucylastic -> RE: Libertarians to build their own countries (8/17/2011 12:53:06 PM)
If its american libertarians? I give em 30 years

Moonhead -> RE: Libertarians to build their own countries (8/17/2011 1:01:10 PM)
If he's thinking that libertarians just want a return to feudalism (which you might think if you've read a lot of Jerry Pournelle) then 300 years isn't long enough. Short of that, it's an equally daft figure. The term didn't exist as a description of anarcho capitalists who think that the free market is the best thing ever, rather than something that needs preventing from exploiting people, until the '60s.

mnottertail -> RE: Libertarians to build their own countries (8/17/2011 1:02:10 PM)
Jesus, aint jerry dead yet? Hes been brain dead longer than reagan....

Moonhead -> RE: Libertarians to build their own countries (8/17/2011 1:05:53 PM)
He was brain dead when he started wrecking Larry Niven's career back in the '70s, Ron...

Edwynn -> RE: Libertarians to build their own countries (8/17/2011 1:29:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: Dunno, are you a libertarian? I think it would be fair to say that I am a borderline libertarian. On most issues I’ll come down on the side of more freedom of choice for people and less government control over our lives. I distrust any form of concentrated power. I have no faith in our bumbling, blundering, national government and would like to see much of its power returned to the states and localities. I don’t have much faith in local governments either but at least it is easier to bring about change on a local level. I believe that society should have few rules, strictly enforced, rather than ten million rules trying to make everything fair for everybody all the time (an impossibility… the reality is that the rules favor whoever is in power). I can agree to some extent, in spirit, but when one takes classes that delve into all this quite deeply and you look at the real numbers, extensive deregulation and well functioning markets have never gone hand-in-hand. Not now (especially not now), and not ever in history, in this or any other country. quote: I distrust any form of concentrated power. Which is exactly why the ever greater concentration of corporate power should be worrisome to all who value any notion of a good society. Allowing the merger of the #1 and #2 oil companies, soon followed by the merger of the previously #3 and #4 oil companies is NOT the way to go about promoting competition and looking out for consumers' interests. And what about Alan Greenspan's anointing of the merger of Citibank (a commercial bank) and Travelers Group (which owned Aetna, Smith Barney, Soloman Bros. and a long list of others, the latter two being investment banks), even while the then-existing Glass-Stegal Act prohibited such merger? No worries. As was explained by Sandy Weil: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citigroup - The remaining provisions of the Glass–Steagall Act – enacted following the Great Depression – forbade banks to merge with insurance underwriters, and meant Citigroup had between two and five years to divest any prohibited assets. However, Weill stated at the time of the merger that they believed "that over that time the legislation will change...we have had enough discussions to believe this will not be a problem".[3] Indeed, the passing of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in November 1999 vindicated Reed and Weill's views, opening the door to financial services conglomerates offering a mix of commercial banking, investment banking, insurance underwriting and brokerage.[30] - Neat how that works, huh? Almost as neat as S&P's forcing Georgia and New Jersey to rescind their anti-predatory lending laws, along with the industry-controlled Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, by way of having the lead partner of the finance industry's leading lobby law firm, John D.Hawke, as holding title to that office and informing all states that any such laws were pronounced as null and void. Neat how that works, huh? Is that what you speak of regarding Federal vs. state powers? quote: I have no faith in our bumbling, blundering, national government and would like to see much of its power returned to the states and localities. I think it might be a good thing to return power from the corporation to the government to begin with, even before we get to Fed. vs. state. I hope that it would be understood that, as illustrated above, it's not always actually the case of "bumbling and blundering," but actually quite intentional action. The concentration of corporate power, intruding upon democracy and elsewise where it has no business being, is indeed cause for concern.

DomKen -> RE: Libertarians to build their own countries (8/17/2011 2:29:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: provfivetine quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Thomas Jefferson was a liberal. He only wrote the Declaration and served as POTUS. The Federalists were in favor of a strong central government, the reason for doing away with the Articles of Confederation. The political conservatives of the period were called Tories and were by and large british loyalists not people who were involved in founding this nation. Except that Thomas Jefferson was not a Federalist and didn't even sign the Constitution. Jefferson may have been a 'classical liberal' but the term 'liberal' has the exact opposite meaning today as it did in the 18th Century. Liberals in the 18th Century are equivalent to modern day libertarians; the founders were not social democrats - none of them were. Even the big government Federalists would have laughed at the very idea of democracy. That's why they spoke badly of it and created a republic instead. That's why I discussed Jefferson seperately from the federalists. As to your nonsensical claims about liberals of today compared to liberals of the 18th century, you seem to not know anything about liberals then or now. Nonsensical is an attempt to cast the Founding Fathers as "liberals" in todays terms. They were in favor of expanding rights, they strongly opposed the establishment of a permanent class system, they rejected the standard mode of governance of the era, they were intellectually curious and very broadly read, they built a new nation on some of the more, at the time, radical ideas put forth during the enlightenment. Sounds about as liberal as it can get. The politically conservative colonists were people like Samuel Seabury.

Moonhead -> RE: Libertarians to build their own countries (8/17/2011 3:20:28 PM)
They weren't keen on an unelected plutocracy either, and that seems about as liberal as you can get judging from some of the crap that gets spouted in here...

Marc2b -> RE: Libertarians to build their own countries (8/18/2011 8:25:33 AM)
quote: I can agree to some extent, in spirit, but when one takes classes that delve into all this quite deeply and you look at the real numbers, extensive deregulation and well functioning markets have never gone hand-in-hand. Not now (especially not now), and not ever in history, in this or any other country. I’m not arguing for extensive deregulation. I am arguing for less regulation more strictly enforced. The problem is that we create some rules, then the “what ifs” come up so we make more rules leading to more “what ifs” and so on and so on. The result of this attempt to create perfect fairness is a multitude of often contradicting rules that make it difficult for the lay person to understand and easy for the unscrupulous to exploit. Take for example money lending. We probably have thousands if not tens of thousands of pages of regulations trying to make things fair for everybody (read: trying to get politicians re-elected) while also trying to rig the system to favor one group over another (that's why you need the politicians) when we only need a few simple rules [NOTE - I am under no delusions that this will every come to pass]: You don't lend money you don't have. You don't charge more than ten percent interest. You can deny a loan on the basis of provable inability to pay (e.g. lack of steady work, a history of being late paying bills) but not on the basis of race, religion, gender, etc. Every borrower gets six free months in which they can miss a loan payment without penalty (e.g. junior needs his tonsils taken out). These, and perhaps a few more are all the regulations you really need. quote: Which is exactly why the ever greater concentration of corporate power should be worrisome to all who value any notion of a good society. I do find corporate power worrisome. I find all forms of concentrated power worrisome. What I don’t understand is why so many people seem to think it is an either/or situation. There are posters on these boards who rant and rave about corporations and look upon government as their savior. There are also posters who rant and rave about government and think unrestrained free markets will usher in a new dawn of peace and harmony. I don’t get that. I don’t understand how people can be so distrustful of one power yet embrace another. When you have those two powers acting in concert… well… we’ve seen the results. I am not the least bit opposed to corporations being restricted from too much overlap... if you wan't to sell insurance then you can't lend money, if you want to lend money then you're not in the insurance business... that sort of thing. quote: Is that what you speak of regarding Federal vs. state powers? No. What I speak of is what the Constitution lays down. The Constitution makes it clear that the federal government dose not posses a power unless the Constitution specifically says it does. Yet over the years the federal government has usurped more and more power from the states, intruding itself into areas the Constitution doesn’t even mention (e.g. education).

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125