Stop Voting for Shit Parties

Here's some commercials for the libertarian party I found on youtube. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIbtIIBkMpE&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuTUuwqDhtQ&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7O1aZZ8t_XI&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOsDcngcP00

Good shit! Enjoy!

They don't have much money.

>>1
I liked this one most: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuTUuwqDhtQ&mode=related&search=

American "libertarianism" is anarchism (aka libertarian socialism, or just libertarianism) twisted through the sick lens of syncophantic hyper-capitalism. What do you think will happen if government limits on capitalists disappears and corporations are free to do what they want? "Freedom?" Or SciFi dystopian corporatocracy -- "In the name of OPC corp, drop your weapon, you have 20 seconds to comply!"

Americans, having been brainwashed by the mythological rugged "free" individual becoming rich as a Rockerfeller (despite research to the contrary; people generally stay within their socioeconomic class; Bill Gates was born rich enough to to afford to drop out of Harvard, his Dad is a high powered lawyer, his Mom served on the board of the directors of a bank).

Understandably turned off by the two elite parties, and having been brainwashed to see everything in their own class interests (such as universal health care, housing, education -- spending all the taxpayer's money on killing the non-white people du jour are A-OK, though) are evil commie-ism, not to mention the "rugged individual" mythology, they see the fringe Libertarian Party, favourite of naive white males and rednecks, as a viable option.

What a sad state of affairs that some people see the LP as anything other than a dead end. Just be sure that if the Libertarian Party ever came into power, it would just be reproducing the current state of affairs -- elite rule -- but much more extreme without even the minimal protections for people of the interests of business.

>>4 minimal protetions for people AGAINST the interests of business.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jztnHSm1rzQ&NR

Here's another great vid!

>>4
Holy shit, what a stupid post, I don't know where to begin..

"American "libertarianism" is anarchism (aka libertarian socialism, or just libertarianism) twisted through the sick lens of syncophantic hyper-capitalism."

You fail.  Libertarianism is not anarchism.  Libertarians do not believe in getting rid of all government.  Libertarians are Socially libertarian (favoring personal freedom and personal choice rights), and FISCALLY conservative (i.e. reduce the size & cost of government as much as possible, while simultaneously lowering taxes).  Don't confuse this with people like George Bush.  Bush is anything BUT a conservative.  He is one of the biggest spending presidents in american history, and has, if I'm not mistaken, doubled the size of the government.  Not very libertarian.

"What do you think will happen if government limits on capitalists disappears and corporations are free to do what they want? "Freedom?" Or SciFi dystopian corporatocracy -- "In the name of OPC corp, drop your weapon, you have 20 seconds to comply!"

The real destruction of freedom and corruption of the government occurs within a mixed economy.  This isn't the fault of capitalism, it is the fault of the government.  In a mixed economy like we have now, rather than a laissez-faire capitalist economy, because the government has so much power, and is ever-expanding, large corporations and rich individuals can bribe out government bureaucrats and essentially take control of the agencies, powers, and machinations of the government, and use them to destroy competitors, and essentially interfere with market forces for their own gain.  The government system put in place to regulate them becomes their greatest ally.  The solution? Reform or eliminate many of these agencies as effectively as possible, as a transition back to a system where the market forces - forces that cannot be corrupted or mismanaged regulate themselves.  These market forces combined with an informed and vigilant citizenry are the best regulation possible. 

"Americans, having been brainwashed by the mythological rugged "free" individual becoming rich as a Rockerfeller (despite research to the contrary; people generally stay within their socioeconomic class; Bill Gates was born rich enough to to afford to drop out of Harvard, his Dad is a high powered lawyer, his Mom served on the board of the directors of a bank)."

I'm not sure about Bill Gates, but sorry, you are quite wrong.  The historical facts stand on my side - there are many, MANY american success stories of lower class people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps and becoming successful.  Many took themselves to the top - like Andrew Carnegie .. a man who didn't come here with much else but the dirty clothes on his back and a desire to work.  Even today, I know people who were once poor, grew up in poor neighborhoods, and pulled themselves up into a moderate degree of success, earning themselves a place in the middle class.  There are many more success stories of this kind that go unreported. 

"What a sad state of affairs that some people see the LP as anything other than a dead end."

I have yet to see any reason why freedom and liberty don't work.  Freedom and liberty are the reason we are as successful now as we are.  China was wallowing in their own shit before american business stepped in and jump started their shitty socialist economy.

"Just be sure that if the Libertarian Party ever came into power, it would just be reproducing the current state of affairs -- elite rule -- but much more extreme without even the minimal protections for people of the interests of business."

Wrong.  In libertarian society, the people rule.  Every individual has the right to life, liberty, and property, whether they are rich or poor.  Further, educated consumers would then take up the job of regulating the economy - something the government has proven quite inept at doing in the past.  Just look at the tobacco settlements, or the harassment of farmers by the DoA for further examples.

>>7 Corporations can manipulate society and destroy democracy without the aid of gubbymint. But gubbymint has helped thus far, I'll give you that. I hate the American gubbymint to a heavy degree, considering it destroyed the chance the world had for reconstruction and liberalism in the 1920's. But in a non-meritocratic society, welfare is justified. US spends less on the public security net. The US have more poor people per capita. Correlation =/= causation, but it gives some signs for where you can look further.

Also, considering the most despicable but also the most utilitarian corporations on the planet operate in the US, I think laissez-faire is something that should be implemented when citizens treat their money the way they treat their voting slips. McDonalds conduct business in a truly despicable way, and yet ADULTS succumb to peer pressure and gobble it down, even "treating" their kids to what is essentially overpriced poison. Child abuse. You still haven't grasped your rifles and raccoonhats and stormed Diebold or Bechtel either, even though it has spit on your most precious fundaments many times already. They got these props because of lobbying and manipulation, but since the 2nd amendment exists for you to crush the government if it gives your money and environment to sick fucks, there seems to be a discourse between rethoric and practice here. Can you be trusted with further responsibility, or will yet more people and principles be discarded in the name of growth?

>>7

Wait, let me get this straight. Right now, powerful uber-elite rich guys corrupt the government to achieve thier evil ends, therefore we must prevent the government from ever getting in the way of uber-elite rich guys and their evil ends.

It won't be long before your corporate masters start charging you for the air you breathe. Hey, it's the "free" market at work. FREEEDOM'S ON THE MARCH!

>>9
"Wait, let me get this straight. Right now, powerful uber-elite rich guys corrupt the government to achieve thier evil ends, therefore we must prevent the government from ever getting in the way of uber-elite rich guys and their evil ends."

Why do something if it clearly won't work? Big-business practically runs our government for us now.  If you empower the government, you thus empower big-business.

"It won't be long before your corporate masters start charging you for the air you breathe. Hey, it's the "free" market at work. FREEEDOM'S ON THE MARCH!"

Last I checked Michael Badnarik wasn't real into charging you for the air you breathe. 

>>8
"Corporations can manipulate society and destroy democracy without the aid of gubbymint."

I disagree.

"But in a non-meritocratic society, welfare is justified."

Stealing legitimately earned private property from another law-abiding peaceful citizen is never justified.

"Also, considering the most despicable but also the most utilitarian corporations on the planet operate in the US, I think laissez-faire is something that should be implemented when citizens treat their money the way they treat their voting slips."

The debate isn't about 'should we have a laissez-faire economy or not', the debate is whether or not voting libertarian would be a good thing.  I say, yes.

"McDonalds conduct business in a truly despicable way, and yet ADULTS succumb to peer pressure and gobble it down, even "treating" their kids to what is essentially overpriced poison."

McDonald's food isn't poison, nor is giving it to your kids child abuse.  I wouldn't go for it, but whatever. 

"You still haven't grasped your rifles and raccoonhats and stormed Diebold or Bechtel either, even though it has spit on your most precious fundaments many times already."

We haven't stormed the DNC yet either, even though they have been spitting on the 2nd amendment as well as a good number of other liberties the last 10 years.  So what?  Furthermore, I don't see any significant proof that Diebold rigged the election.

Vote libertarian! Don't compromise on your liberties.

>>8
>equal-forwardslash-equal
What exactly is that supposed to mean, there is nothing the english language that refers to that.

sounds to good to be true
lower taxes AND lower debt, how do you do that???

>>14
Most of the debt we are incurring is due to massive spending on behalf of the republicrats in office currently.  If we could just rein in our politicians, and put in fiscally responsible libertarians, that would be a good chunk of the battle.  The first step is to stop deficit spending, and to do that, we need fiscally responsible candidates.  Libertarians are fiscally responsible.

>>14
Slash a lot of the worthless programs, bureaucracy, and expenditure, for starters.  Lower taxes might actually help.. if we stimulated the economy, the tax revenue from the boost that the government would gain may actually put a dent in the debt.

Vote Libertarian, one step closer to Corporate States.

>>16
Yes, grow out of a hole dug with more "growth". Enjoy your corporate states.

Evil democrats: More growth for less debt.

Sound, republicans who care about your money: Less growth for more debt.

I've got the numbers to prove it. Do you have the balls to admit the truth?

Uh huh, uh huh: http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

Clinton did not do enough against terorrism and I deplore some of his decisions, but he did take quite an effective stance on the military (he started the modernisation and return of potency that Bush has spoiled). Raygun was a despicable cunt in many ways, and -once again- to SPEND is to TAX. Conservatives do not give you more money, they tax you less but force spending on your future, during which  they jump up and down and say that the democrat gubbymint is raising taxes.

Wait...


there's a shit party running?

where the fuck do I push the vote button?

>>19
Get over the whole left/right thing Xel.  This isn't just democrats vs republicans.  There is more to politics than that.

lol liberaterians. Why i'd love to have corporations rule everything. Distributed wealth is stupid pinko liberal commie nazi faggots.

>>24
The only society in which corporations would rule everything would be a mixed economy like the ones the democrats want - an economy in which the government has the power, and the corporations and the rich control the government, thus having the power themselves.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=corporatism

Corporatism.

>>24
lol liberals.  "I should have the right to take money from my neighbor to pay my medical bills even though I am responsible for my own condition."

>>25
ohh, because politicians can't be bribed in all systems, i totally forgot that.

the way to prevent corporations from having too much influence on government would be to not have corrupt politicians, lols, and what's the chance of that!!11elevenzesoneone

also reduction of lobbyism is always a good thing when you want corporations to influence government less.

>>25
If you're thinking that what you descriped is Corporatism, then you're misguided.
Corporatism, contrary to Communist, Republican, Demmocrat, and loads of other political parties belief is a sort of efficient union system.
In a Corporatist system people are elected by workers in a certain industry(like coal mining for example), this person is then put on a board of members which work directly with the government who adress problems if there are any, and the government sets things straight. This makes striking and such unnecessary to get reasonable wages, and safe working conditions, along with not having to warry about scabs replacing you.

American "Libertarianism" promotes a hyper-capitalistic business model for society, under the banner of the mythic "free" market cure-all.

But wait, how do corporations or other capitalist enterprises work? They're hierarchical, with orders from on high and obedient workers below. When the boss gives you an order, you don't have a democratic discussion about it, you obey.

Is this really the model we want for society?

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -Benito Mussolini

Rich people are only rich because they're lucky!!!!

>>26
Yeah, I'm sure you'll be singing the same tune when you get sick and you have to pay for extremely overpriced medical supplies. How would you like it if even Aspirin and Tylenol became ridiculously overpriced because all the companies that make it decide to fix prices, which are once again jacked up even higher by the stores that sell them so they can make a profit.

You know, you get a totally different perspective on things once you actually have to pay income taxes and pay for your own things. What do you think your daily life would be like if all the facilities you take for granted didn't exist?

>>30
>>31

HAHA so true. All "Libertarians" I know come from rich families and haven't worked a day in their life.

>>32
That's why they're all kids.

That also explains why this board is full of them.

I'm lower middle (by Swedish standards) and I am more libertarian than socialist.

>>33
The ones that do work seem to exhube an air of belief that somehow they are (or will) so damned good at what they do that they will be rich someday, because of their hard work, at least in my experience.

>>34
and you are swedish, a welfare state where all services are handed to you, but you pay high tax, which pretty much puts you under the rich kid definition from >>31

>>27
Get rid of corruption, yes! Good idea! Like the way American politicians have to pay the bulk of their media exposure (the part that's not exposing flaws and scandals, or character assasination and the like) out of their own pockets, so they have to go begging from rich corporates for support, in exchange for, umm, moderating their politics to fit...

OH BUT WAIT! It's not called "corruption" in America, it's "fundraising"! Sorry, my bad.

>>29
"American "Libertarianism" promotes a hyper-capitalistic business model for society, under the banner of the mythic "free" market cure-all."

You have yet to explain to me why the market doesn't work, when it has worked in the USA for centuries up until the government decided to fuck with it..  You also have yet to explain to me what is wrong with a system based on individual rights (capitalism).

"But wait, how do corporations or other capitalist enterprises work? They're hierarchical, with orders from on high and obedient workers below. When the boss gives you an order, you don't have a democratic discussion about it, you obey."

Who owns the property? Who is paying your wages? If you don't like it, don't work for said people.  It isn't like a dictatorship, where if you decide you don't want to do something, some guy named Joseph Stalin is going to have you in front of a firing squad, or tortured until you agree to do what he wants.. 

You have a choice. 

"Is this really the model we want for society?"

Yes.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -Benito Mussolini"

And obviously the best thing to do is to give the government more and more power, so that the corporations can just buy it out in the end anyway, right?

....


The solution is to reduce the size and power of government.  Face it, government has proven itself to be nearly-worthless in many circumstances, and many of their regulations hamper economic growth and cost jobs. 

free market has always worked in the US because the US has had the resources to be self-suffficient AND export wheat etc. at the same time. And has always been very developed.

There has always been tax barriers, tariffs, control of flow of products, even before the government decided to fuck with it. These are factors which limit the completely free market, there are also other factors like imperfect information etc.

A problem with the "free market cure-all" is that the free market is good for all but not necesserily for one. Where the economic surplus increases the freer the market we have, the surplus for anonymous might not increase.

About simply leaving if you don't like the work, well it's easier said than done, what if there are no other places for you to go, and if you ahve a small governemnt, then you have the decision of staying at your job, or not having any money to feed yourself. But theoretically mayeb there is a job 10000 miles away, but you'd a) need to know about this, and b) be able to move your existing capital to that place, both things a problem


anyways, there are alot of implications with a completely free market, these all need to be accounted for and worked in to a government, as well as desires for political control (like the balance of power the british kept during their reign, how much would they be willing to sacrifice to keep each side in check so they would profit as much as possible, etc.) and many people may find some things unjust and want the government to deal with that. The reduction of the size and power of government is of course the most efficient thing, since you would have less public expenses, less taxes, less subsidies, thus a higher economic surplus.
But depending on culture, geopolitical position, history and such, people may want some things which can not be provided by the companies, they want the government to do it. And in a democrazy that will cause the size and power of the government to rise.

i'm personally for the free market, reduction of tariffs, tax barriers, subsidies and the like, but i don't believe a nightwatcher government is necesserily the answer for an as close-to-free-market situation and a fair society for all people. 

For one, pro-business does mean pro-free market. In some cases, to promote competition the government has to step in. If a corporation can earn more than an economic profit, it will. At least, assuming profit is its sole motive.

For two, there are genuine market failures that more free market cannot solve. Externalities, missing markets (e.g. the market for clean air), pervasive uncertainty, and free riders are just a few problems the market is unable to overcome without assistance. Do you, for instance, imagine that an individual consumer is going to be able to afford even a part of a missile shield? National defense is one example of a very important service that the free market does not seem able to provide on its own. Private fire services were one reason that the Chicago fire was so bad; houses without coverage were ignored and then presented a hazard to the rest of the city. By the time all the fire services were mobilized, it was too late.

Even should a freer market provide an overall pattern of economic growth, looking at averages can be misleading. Medians are more typically a better indicator of how most people are doing. Do you think, for instance, that the common good (i.e. total utility) is really served if ten people earning $20,000 a year have their salaries slashed in half while one person earning $110,000 has their salary doubled? There may be an overall growth of $20,000, but it would dubious at best to claim that people are overall happier for it.

>>38
Really, according to my sources, Delta, a prominent airline company laid off 15000 workers and trashed pensions in order to stay in business, enjoy your loyalty to the corporate states.

>>39
A larger economic surplus? In who's hands? The big guys, and fuck all this trickle-down economics, I haven't seen big companies do shit for the little man unless it's in their interest.
Oh, we all fucking benefit from a CEO cashing out right before he declares bankruptcy, we all fucking benefit from McDonalds making a huge killing on selling shitty food for cheap, we all fucking benefit from Delta hemorraging its workforce by 15,000 people to stay in business, we all fucking benefit from adventurous Entrepreneurs taking their companies overseas where they can work towards cutting their bottom line, we all fucking benefit from the brilliant mathematics of Enron, we all fucking benefit from the RIAA arresting kids for downloading music.

If my memory serves me right, the Reaganomic's period was also marked by overwhelming defense spending, which was also met in a period of Economic Growth.  Perhaps you should stop chasing down this "empower corporations to do whatever they want" and start building bombs, tanks and guns, as it is the real reason that America prospers, feasting on the blood of the innocent.

I love how people just assume that giving economic freedom to those with power prevents them from buying the powers that government gives up for their freedom.  It's not all that far fetched to see corporations owning people, their children, and their lives, it wasn't so uncommon in 1840.  It's not as if the gutted military will have the strength to come protect your constitutional rights when a big corporation can buy off generals and lawmakers.

>>26
Even when my neighbor shot me, or I got sick due to some bug.

>>43

Its you're fault for not shooting him first. If it was an accident, you should have put up your MAGICAL BULLET SHIELD ANND YOUR BOOTS OF ESCAPING FAGGOT


btw <3

>>40
"For two, there are genuine market failures that more free market cannot solve. Externalities, missing markets (e.g. the market for clean air),"

In a libertarian society, if you could demonstrate that a corporation was doing serious harm to the people in their polluting activities, compensation/punishment would be dealt out by courts.

"Do you, for instance, imagine that an individual consumer is going to be able to afford even a part of a missile shield?"

Libertarians acknowledge the need for a military to defend the nation. 

"National defense is one example of a very important service that the free market does not seem able to provide on its own."

When we say we 'support a free market' being libertarians, this just means we 'generally' support a free market.  See above.  Libertarians acknowledge the need for some degree of government, such as the need for a military, police, courts, etc etc.  The essential things.

"Private fire services were one reason that the Chicago fire was so bad; houses without coverage were ignored and then presented a hazard to the rest of the city. By the time all the fire services were mobilized, it was too late."

See above.

"Even should a freer market provide an overall pattern of economic growth, looking at averages can be misleading. Medians are more typically a better indicator of how most people are doing. Do you think, for instance, that the common good (i.e. total utility) is really served if ten people earning $20,000 a year have their salaries slashed in half while one person earning $110,000 has their salary doubled? There may be an overall growth of $20,000, but it would dubious at best to claim that people are overall happier for it."

The point is not to do what makes people happier, but to do what  is right as often as you can, while still maintaining a stable and somewhat reasonable society.  Within reason, property rights should be respected, for example, and people should be allowed to keep all that they earn beyond the smallest amount of taxes necessary to fund the most basic functions of government.

Sure, it might make people happier if we took some rich guy's money, and distributed it among ourselves, but would that be right? That is just stealing/mob rule.  Where are you going to draw the line? Or will you?

>>41
"Really, according to my sources, Delta, a prominent airline company laid off 15000 workers and trashed pensions in order to stay in business, enjoy your loyalty to the corporate states."

So they did it to stay in business, and you think this is bad? So I guess you would rather Delta just went out of business so that ALL their workers could lose their jobs?

>>31
thats my position right now, i have important meds i need and very limited medical insurance. but i never for a second thought having those thing was a right given to me at birth, its earned. the worst form of life is the one dependent on the competence of others, make yourself and stop being a little bitch, life isnt somthing that happens to you its something thats offered. ill continue to work my ass of knowing everything i acomplish is mine, you can enjoy you rl IDDQD.

also learn about the medical buisness before you flame it

52