Are we all left-tards here?

Come on now.  Are we?  While I myself wouldn't look for bible-thumping republicans, I think we should at least have a few moderates or radicals like libertarians ETC... 

Or is it the disproportionate european population here?

It's the disproportionate amount of free thinkers. 4chan is an alternative pornography website, which includes pedophilia and other immoral fetishes. A community like this has learned to decide what is moral for themselves, without the guide of the masses.

On what grounds do you call libertarians "radical"? In what way is wanting only the essentials of government and more personal responsibility and liberties, and more individuality "radical"?

There IS a difference between us and anarchists. We see the necessity of 'some' government, while the people you refer in the title of this thread as 'left-tards' want the government to control every aspect of peoples' lives...

>>2
So you need the "guide of the masses" to be a free thinker? Or are you saying that immoral fetishes are grounds to consider somebody a free thinker? I'm not following your logic...

"Moderates" in über-right-wing USA are "moderately" right-wing (i.e. the Democrats). See their position on unilateral pre-emptive carpet bombing (on the slightest suspicion of having oil or having higher than acceptable levels of melanin).

"Libertarians" traditionally refers to Libertarian Socialists, otherwise known as Anarchists. In the US, it regrettably refers to the Ayn Rand lunatics known as the Libertarian Party. They claim to oppose domination, but what they advocate would replace government with undisguised corporate domination. They're basically pot-smoking über-conservatives who want to build shrines to Wal-Mart.

I think there's likely a disproportionate amount of people on 4chan who are not as immersed in mainstream American brainwashed culture, simply by virtue of watching anime. Being exposed to the social values of another culture tends to make you less narrowminded, and therefore less conservative.

My magic crystal ball tells me that most 4chan members reside in the US.

>>5
Have you ever even READ a book by Ayn Rand?

I have no sympathy for your misguided non-objective attitude that considers watching anime a virtue. Stop making excuses for the fact that you'd actually 'like' the government to control your life. Good day.

i am neither liberal or conservative, why is that so hard for you americans to acknowledge?

>>5
socialism is still horrendously inefficient and causes more poverty than democratic-capitalism as has been proved by history aswell as common sense, though

>>9
I wouldn't give a damn if socialism and communism WERE efficient, I wouldn't live under a government that won't let me achieve my aims in life.
Free enterprise has been proven to pull more people out of poverty than any other economic system that's ever existed.

>>9
Most of the scientific and technological research in the US is done through the public sector. State funding for research in universities and the military industries. "Socialism" rather than "capitalism." The internet is a good example. The financial risk is borne by the taxpayer. Then if it turns out well, the technology is transferred to the private sector.

>>7
I never said that I consider watching anime a virtue. I'm saying that being exposed to other cultures (such as through anime) contributes to more open mindedness, and that openmindedness usually results in less conservative views.

>>9
nationalized socialism ftw. Commie fags gtfo!

Holy shit!  This thread is a bullet train to successville! 

Its doing exactly what I wanted it to!

>>5
BTW, I'm libertarian and I doubt that they'd want to build shrines to wal-mart.  If a corporation got uber powerful, they'd probably do some trust busting themselves.  Like you said, they oppose domination, no matter who is doing the dominating. 

>>12
I'm not a conservative by any means, but I'm not a left tard.  People don't become liberal just because they're smart.

Your superior morals state that you should take people's money and give it to other people(not neccesarily even those who "need" it)?  Fuck that noise.

A better idea is forced personal savings accounts.  That way, you get what you put in. Your life savings isn't going to some illusory overarching "Good of everyone" which politicians can dip into and spend for whatever they want.  And most of our social problems get solved so the euro-tards can stop riding our asses over it.

Still doesn't help when you have NOTHING and can't get any health coverage at all.

When the government spends massive amounts of money on the military, on corporate welfare or on tax cuts for millionaries, everything is just fine.

But spending on universal healthcare and education are denounced as evil socialism.

Why?

>>17
Um, isn't that what social security is? Only the government still goes and spends it anyway... *Fraud senses tingling*

>>19
The military is actually a legitimate function of government. Making sure poor worthless bums can mooch off of the ones that actually achieve is not. And as for education, just FYI, Karl Marx wrote as one of the requirements for communism that the government must educate the children.

4chan is made up of a majority of leftists because the rightists are too busy having sex with their sisters to bother with the internet.  Truth.

>>21
And, uh... There you are, folks. Liberal talking points.

>>19
Oh yes, I said I loved corporated welfare, didn't I?  Yes, whenever they run a company into the ground in their incompetence,  by all means they deserve a handout so they can DO IT AGAIN. 

The government will commit fraud whenever given a chance.  That's why we should strip it's power back to just military, police, and enforcing laws.  (which will regrettably probably include personal savings accounts, because most people are too dumb to save on their own.)

>>20
No, social security is sort of a black box you put your money into, with blind faith that one day it will come back to benefit you.  What happens to it after you put it in?  Nobody (except the government) knows.  Forced personal savings accounts actually tally up, and you can see the money accumulate year after year.  Nobody can spend it (except you when you're old enough), because if they did, it'd show up on your account statement.

>>23
What right do you or the government have to 'force' people to do anything, though... If people wanna make bad economic decisions, let em figure it out for themselves.

What right do you or the government have to 'force' people to do anything, though...

I hear the mating call of a Libertarian.

>>25
Yes, I'm a strict libertarian. Am I wrong, or am I right?
... Or are you responding to my mating call? ¬_¬'

>>26
Fact is, you have to force people to do things, or else your government fails... at least fails in the eyes of most people.  My idea is to make libertarianism publically palatable, by giving people solutions to their problems rather than just saying "you're on your own".

I'd like it if we could all do without some sort of enforced public safety net, but that breeds revolution of the commie type.

I am a gun owning constitutionalist. I beleve in laziz faire, and i think the government should be restricted to military, and police. NOTHING ELSE. Also i think that lawsuits are stuipid, and i hate walmart for being greedy and corrupting capitolism. Although maby if we werent all socialist bastards we whouldnt blindly follow the walmart and let the market opinn kill it.

Yes, >>25, there is something wrong. It's called your head.

Libertarians are a bunch of retards who try to rationalize their greed. Oh, no, the taxes! The TAXES!!!

That's all it is.

>>27 If I ever met you in public, I would sock you straight in the nose... You either have no soul, a communist agenda, or you really just do not grasp what you're saying.

>>29 And you... ... *Shakes head and sighs* You are the poster child for the result of what comes out of government schools these days. I certainly can't help you...

>>30
You're stupid.  You think that personal savings accounts for things such as healthcare and retirement is worse than blind taxation?

Listen, extremes tend to fail.  I don't want to see america become socialist any more than you.  But I'm being realistic here; people love their government right now because it gives them free money.   That's completely wrong, but there's nothing we can do.  I think that a politically viable alternative, at least for the working age people (who sadly never vote) is to personalize the savings so the government can't touch it, and at least reduce corruption.

This is honestly, what I think the libertarian party will do if it ever gains a lot of power. (which I think it is... ever watch any of the kid-oriented media that isn't the daily show? South Park is libertarian, Adult Swim besides Futurama and Family guy are almost certainly libertarian)  They can't just send the niggers out on their own, because niggers (and trailer trash and the spics, being equal opportunity here) don't save.  Then these people get mad and vote for whoever gives them the most free money for making horrible decisions in life.

My brother in law's brother is 500,000 dollars in debt because he has a psychological disorder that makes him think he needs huge ass trucks.  He has two of them, and he only makes like 15,000 dollars a yet.  He struggles to make the car payments, and he's lost money many many times by trading in when the car's  trade-in value didn't pay off the loan he took out to get it.  Last year he managed to secure a credit card with a 3,000 dollar credit limit.  What did he do?  Bought plane tickets to new york and maxed it out.  Apparently a credit card is free money.  What's he going to do when his kid needs braces?  That's right.  "I need this to live, so logically someone else should pay for it."  I wonder if the cc-companies will ever see a dime of that trip to new york...

Libertarianism can't win against scroungy poor-ass stupid slobs who spend their medical and dental budget on beer and twinkies and then expect someone else to pay for it.  My idea is to keep them satisfied so they don't have to face the consequences of their actions, and therefore, don't vote against us.

This is government acting as a protector, not a provider, which is the basic tenat of libertarianism.  I know you feel like people should feel the consequences of their actions, but often, those consequences ruin things for everyone else; it's what stupid people do best.

>>31 "You think that personal savings accounts for things such as healthcare and retirement is worse than blind taxation?"
That's precisely the opposite of what I think.

I agree with just about every point you make, and I appreciate the intelligent response. Have you considered the FairTax?

>>32
After Halloween I give my brother half of my candy and tell him to store it some place hidden. A few months pass and I forget about it, but then it's returned bit by bit, and I'm satisfied with that. A probe by my sister later reveals that my brother has been eating portions of my candy behind my back, but then again I would not have known about that unless it was told to me. I'm still partially failthful, since I would have sneaked in and eaten most of it within days if I knew where I hid my own candy. Some people have more self control and do the managing themselves, but I forget what they're called. I usually try to steal or demand candy from them since they appear to have more than me.

>>33
If they have more candy, then they knocked on more doors, to follow your analogy. I'm not sure whether you're trying to justify thievery or are just being sarcastic...

excessive laws which protect stupid people only serve to hurt people who are actually smart enough to know better.  the smart people should be driving society, not run over by it.  or at least be given equal footing.

It's actually good to know this place isn't as liberal as I had thought.

most "Libertarians" I've met were a dangerous bunch: they're intelligent, greedy, naive, and highly conceited. It doesn't help that libertarianism is a vague concept compared to other ideologies, thus attracting every bright rebellious shithead with an opinion. This may not be you, so I'll explain briefly why I have such problems with libertarianism:

Libertarianism is broad (it's somewhat like anarchism in that sense). In fact, it's a lot like anarchism: it sounds great on paper. Less government? Great! More power to the people? Fantastic! Individual responsibility? Right on!

The problem is that many people don't want to take responsibility. No, they want to take advantage of people. Oh, you might hear the anarchists crow that it's just the way we're socialized, but I prefer empirical evidence over some pie-in-the-sky fantasy. And the government? Why, we don't need taxes! It'll run mysteriously on the generosity of others! And some want no government at all (hello anarchism).

Except that power fills a vacuum.

The main gripe I have though is thoroughly economic: libertarianists appear to believe in a complete laissez-faire economy. This delves into the whole public/private issue, but I'd like to point something out: the United States. Yeah, a lot of the ideals that the founding fathers espoused were fairly libertarian. Look at the US today. Notice something?

As I said, I prefer to give precedence to systems that have been demonstrated. I've never seen a pleasant minarchist or anarchist system of any size. Yet, in my travels, I've found that the opposite is usually the case: take a look at Western Europe, Canada, Australia, and other social or semi-social democracies. Pseudo-political scientists can keep their unproven systems, and I'll stick with what works. They may not be perfect, not by a long shot, but there does appear to be a general trend.

And all the ideals the libertarians like to dole out? Who says other systems can't have them too? Those ideals are used since it appeals to everyone - and therefore obviously not the sole domain of libertarianism.

The only time I'll reconsider the libertarian ideology is if I see it successfully used, preferably through a gradual evolution of the system. Until then, it's just a fantastic toy of mental masturbation.

And don't get me started about anarcho-capitalist libertarians.

>>37
http://www.fairtax.org . ..

What does that have to do with >>37?

It's simple; more government = better than.  You can't escape that simple fact.