Corporations in America

As I hear this consistent talk about how the private sector is much more capable than government to operate social programs, and how tax cuts are needed to spur the economic growth so that the corporations can be later taxed, I present an interesting source.

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/corptax.html

The American income provided for comparison is a family making $30,000 per annum, at a rate of 17% federal income tax.  What is truely interesting is that many large corporations get substantially less federal taxation, and in some cases, are refunded for taxes they never paid.  This is a strange case indeed, as it seems that these "tax cuts to spur economic growth" are rather redundant, as many corporations are paying less than the taxes of impoverished people. 

Libertarian doctrine is obsessive about telling us that government should be weakened, and the spending of the government curtailed to allow the market to grow.  It is rather amusing that the people who benefit most from this plan are not the people who pay the most relative taxes, but the people who pay the lowest percentage of taxes, despite how enormous that 1.8% may be (here's looking at you Microsoft).

It makes me wonder why so many middle class families believe the libertarians want to help them.  The middle class bears the brunt of the highest taxes, and is the true "common men" of America.  When libertarians argue that a graduated tax bracket makes it discouraging to become rich, they need only read the nice steady 1.8% that Microsoft pays to the federal government.  Ah, what a burden it is to be rich.

American corporations are truely the scourge of the market. And they themselves are proof of the "high tide raises all boats" myth expounded by various corporations and economic theorists.  Simply take a look at the GDP of various nations.

http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch2en/conc2en/globalgdp.html

As the chart shows, America doesn't generate so huge a GDP as many would like to assume, and that it is about 3 times that of Japan and 5 times that of Germany. Now that you know the scale of global GDP, look at this source. (Click on Facts and Figures)

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/executive.html

What is evidenced by the diagram is that in Japan, a corporation executive makes 11 times that of a factory floor worker, and likely with due cause (i.e. owning/starting the business), in Germany it is a larger 12 times. (Still reasonable)  Now go over to American corporation executives......Hrm. It seems that American CEOs make a staggering 475 times more money than the factory floor worker.  What is being drawn here is that the United States' policy of "rising tide" is not narrowing the income disparity, but widening it, making the rich MUCH richer, and the poor MUCH poorer.

Libertarians will sometime outcry that government facilitates this taxation, and must be weakened to prevent further injustice.  But I ask Libertarians, with the current system, what empirical proof do you have that doing so will rein in the income disparity?  What evidence do you have that doing so will not be what the corporations would prefer?  Herein lies the evidence of pessimistic outlook of Libertarians, would not justice be achieved if politicians were honorable? Would not the corporate sway be stymied if politicians rejected their bribes and lobbying? Would not taxation be truely graduated if loopholes were closed for large corporations? Would not federal programs and funding increase if corporations actually started paying their share? Why, if they actually paid, lower taxes across the board would be actually JUSTIFIED.  But of course, Libertarians will tell you that all politicians are corrupt, excluding themselves, and that the inherent evil nature of man evaporates in the private sector.  Businesses should exist to make money, government should exist to enforce the people's will, and the people's will is the only sovereign power, without it's grace, business would not exist.

"What is evidenced by the diagram is that in Japan, a corporation executive makes 11 times that of a factory floor worker"

Considering Japan is the most libertarian (economically not socially) country on the planet im wondering what you’re trying to prove.

"would not justice be achieved if politicians were honorable"

I don’t consider politicians to be evil or even dishonorable, they are normal but have powers that no man should ever have, and, are not regulated in a proper way. This by its nature creates problems. You may argue that democracy is regulation but that only decides the entities that enter the beast, it does not control it. Business has supply and demand; government has…nothing

"Businesses should exist to make money, government should exist to enforce the people's will, and the people's will is the only sovereign power, without it's grace, business would not exist."

What do you consider money if it’s not a person will? Why would you even consider business a separate entity of "the people" are the goals of each not the same? Your argument fails, I could just reply by saying; well the sovereign power of the people AND the government would not exist without business. But I won’t because it’s just as disgusting as your argument.

 It’s a symbiotic relationship, business and "the people". A relationship that is destroyed by government and just happens to be the only part of this equation that we can do without. Government is what creates injustice between business and people; it always has and always will. Capitalism works by 2 parties both gaining from a transaction. But if we add a 3rd party, let’s say government, that overseas this transaction, taxes it to help one beneficiary, uses this transaction to benefit other such transactions and so on, we are left with a fragment of capitalism that does not work and pins both parties against each-other in a race to gain government favor. I think this is the point we will both agree on, that, capitalism now is not working. It’s been corrupted by government to a point that it never should have reached. I think its about time to go back. We came close to reaching it in the middle 1800’s-WW1 and it worked why we fell under the sway of Marx’s from then on ill never understand

>>2 I agree with a lot of what you have to say.  A lot of the issues we are having now and have had in the past are not due to capitalism, but due to government intervention in the market.


>>1
"What is truely interesting is that many large corporations get substantially less federal taxation, and in some cases, are refunded for taxes they never paid."

Sounds like a failure of the IRS (a government agency).  If we had a flat tax, things would be far simpler, and you wouldn't have bullshit like this.

"Libertarian doctrine is obsessive about telling us that government should be weakened, and the spending of the government curtailed to allow the market to grow."

That is one argument.  There are others as well, such as the pro-property rights argument (just for ex.)

"It makes me wonder why so many middle class families believe the libertarians want to help them."

Well, as I said, if we had a flat tax, the inept IRS wouldn't be there to dish out tax money to corporations that they really never paid into the system anyway.  Libertarians support freedom.  Anyone who generally thinks that government is too large, and that liberties are too frequently infringed nowadays would be best served by the libertarian party.

"The middle class bears the brunt of the highest taxes, and is the true "common men" of America."

I fail to see how you can justify attacking the party that wants to lower taxes on everyone (including the middle class), while in the same article complaining because taxes are too high for them.

"American corporations are truely the scourge of the market. And they themselves are proof of the "high tide raises all boats" myth expounded by various corporations and economic theorists.  Simply take a look at the GDP of various nations.

http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch2en/conc2en/globalgdp.html";

I don't see how that chart makes you right.  In fact, it would seem to make you WRONG.  As you can see, according to your chart, the USA (a pseudo-capitalist society) generates 32.3% of the world's wealth.  The other two countries generating a rather large portion (also both reasonably economically free); Germany and Japan, generate 12.3% and 6.1% respectively.  To all appearances, this graph would make an argument for why capitalism is such a wonderful system - it is so damn good at producing wealth.  I wonder, by contrast, what percentage of the global GDP does North Korea (socialist system) produce?


"As the chart shows, America doesn't generate so huge a GDP as many would like to assume,"

Yeah, 32.3% of all the wealth in the world really isn't shit, is it? LOL.  You should also take into account our population.  We have around 300 million people.  How many people live in the whole world?  The world has a population of over 6 billion (it is approaching 7billion) people, and the USA, with its measly 300 million people is producing 32.3% of the world's wealth.  To put this in perspective, the United States has about 4.52% of the world's people, and produces 32.3% of the world's wealth. 

"What is evidenced by the diagram is that in Japan, a corporation executive makes 11 times that of a factory floor worker, and likely with due cause (i.e. owning/starting the business), in Germany it is a larger 12 times. (Still reasonable)  Now go over to American corporation executives......Hrm. It seems that American CEOs make a staggering 475 times more money than the factory floor worker."

You are overgeneralizing, firstly.  There are CEOs of major american corporations (COSTCO comes to mind), that make 350,000$/year.  Yeah, its nothing to scoff at, but nonetheless - it is a far cry from the absurd figures that you listed above.  But I guess you would like to give everyone the impression that all CEOs are evil successful bastards who make 475 times the income of their average floor worker, right?

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Business/story?id=1362779

"What is being drawn here is that the United States' policy of "rising tide" is not narrowing the income disparity, but widening it, making the rich MUCH richer, and the poor MUCH poorer."

First of all, thanks to globalization and american business, the global income gap is shrinking at a rather impressive rate: 
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6686

Also, regarding your 'income gap' statistics and studies: 
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6686

"But I ask Libertarians, with the current system, what empirical proof do you have that doing so will rein in the income disparity?

"What evidence do you have that doing so will not be what the corporations would prefer?"

Lowering taxes to create a prosperous economy in the long term would be in everyone's interest, really.  From my standpoint, what you are asking me is:  'what evidence do you have that creating a prosperous economy would be a good thing?'  I mean, common, really.  Many democratic presidents that have been rather looked up to or revered (such as Kennedy) actually slashed up the budget and reigned in government taxation - and look at the result? Happy people, prosperous economy.  I could sing a similar tune about Reagan, but that might get some of the leftists in here a little exited so I'll refrain. 

Note:  I am speaking strictly in terms of economics, and I don't advocate voting for either major party! Vote libertarian!
http://www.lp.org/

I don't see why you automatically assume something a corporation 'prefers' is intrinsically bad.  Globalization, for instance, is something many in the corporate world are embracing, and that is indeed narrowing the income gap: 
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6686

"Herein lies the evidence of pessimistic outlook of Libertarians, would not justice be achieved if politicians were honorable?"

I don't see how you could view libertarians as being 'pessimistic', but whatever.

"Would not the corporate sway be stymied if politicians rejected their bribes and lobbying?"

Sure.  But will they? No.  You can pass all the laws on lobbying and gift-giving you want, but you have to understand that when government politicians and bureaucrats have the ability to exert power over large corporations who have large amounts of money at their disposal, corruption is simply going to happen.  The money will always find its way into the hands of the politicians, and the corporations will likely always find a way to get it there, to get around the law, etc.  There is quite simply nothing you can do to stop this.  It is just like drugs in the USA - you can't stop them from being used, no matter how many no-knock warrants and civil liberties violations you are allowed.  Anyways, I am getting rather off topic.  The point is is that when you delegate powers to politicians, and the politicians have the ability to use those powers to effect corporations and or the extremely wealthy, you would be very naive to think that the money would be stopped by changing the laws, or otherwise trying to simply stop them from doing it. 

"Would not taxation be truely graduated if loopholes were closed for large corporations?"

Firstly, if we had a flat tax, there would be no problem to begin with. 

Nextly, taxing companies specifically is probly not the best of ideas.  Again, this is going to bring about/encourage the corruption factor, and that aside, it will also likely either put job creating companies out of business, hurt them, hurt the job market, or else just raise the cost of goods you end up buying from them anyways.  In my state, for example, General Motors, one of the major employers, is being pressurized by budget problems within their company to move their factories either overseas, out of state, to canada, or to mexico.  Increasing taxes on General Motors is NOT going to help us, the people of Detroit, Flint, and other cities with GM plants, or the general economy of my state.  General Motors is already in a rather precarious economic situation, and dumping the tax-burden on them will inevitably result in the loss of jobs for the people this company employs.  If GM has higher taxes, it also puts them at a disadvantage in the face of foreign competitors such as Honda, Toyota, etc.  Putting job-creating industries out of business in order to fund ridiculous social-spending programs like welfare, or overseas military adventures is not the solution.  The solution is to lower taxes on everyone, cut out of control government spending (this means cutting off the handouts, the foreign aid, etc), including GM, removing the financial burden, allowing them to create jobs and economically develop in general. 

"Would not federal programs and funding increase if corporations actually started paying their share?"

Sure.  However, once all of GM's employees are out of jobs a few years down the road, that might have negative consequences for the people of this state, and for your precious federal programs and budget.

"But of course, Libertarians will tell you that all politicians are corrupt, excluding themselves, and that the inherent evil nature of man evaporates in the private sector."

First of all, I don't think there are many libertarians who think that man is inherently evil.  I think you are confusing us with socialists.  If man is inherently good, there is clearly less need for a government, and this leads us to libertarianism as a proper government to have.

"Businesses should exist to make money, government should exist to enforce the people's will, and the people's will is the only sovereign power, without it's grace, business would not exist."

And you intend to enforce the will of the people by electing politicians who will then be subsequently bought out by all the major corporations? What an ingenious solution, I wish I'd thought of that...

Alternatively, we could have a free market type system in which the people are free to vote with their dollars, exercising their 'will' by shopping (or not shopping) from a given company.

>>2
>>3
libertarian superheros, i wasnt aware this was a tag team match

>>3
Nice post, I learned a good deal.

jews did 9-11

It's alright, when America falls from it's hubris, they'll have nobody but themselves to blame. 
America's wealth is not from it's glorious capitalism, if that were the case, many other capitalistic nations would have much more comparable GDP's to that of the United States, wouldn't they?

America gets it's power from Imperialistic policies, acts by which they undermine the sovereignity of other nations for American corporations to pick the country clean.

What I find humorous is very few libertarians are actually smart consumers, they perpetuate the system of mindless obedience to the brand name, regardless of the quality of the product. 

Every time I see a American CEO, I imagine them getting shot.
Brings a smile to my face every time.

All this talk of libertarian policy, why, if it's so goddamn great why hasn't it been implemented? Why is it that the Canadians are flooding the border south, longing for our lifestyles?  Oh that's right, Libertarians are the elite, who supposedly know fucking everything, and the vast majority of Americans are stupid.  If you don't like the system, you have two options: 1 Overthrow the government, or 2 Fucking leave.  You'll never be elected with that pompous attitude, and frankly, who would want an arrogant fuckhead like you to run our country.  If you really cared about the poor or the disenfranchised, you'd be fucking helping them, not asking Uncle Sam for a tax cut for the rich to spur "economic growth" that the poor get nothing from.  America is a two party system, Libertarians should get the fuck out, NOBODIES FORCEING YOU TO BE HERE.


People in the shittiest conditions in the world go on living.
People in the richest, most luxurious nations of the world kill themselves.
America hasn't stymied death, cured disease, fed the hungry, clothed the poor, avoided war, or transcended human fallacy in any way.  They've just given the world products to perpetuate desire, to recoil from fear or pain.
Wealth doesn't buy happiness.  Grub your money till you die, you can take it to rot with your corpse.

Cool Link
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_03_14/article1.html

>>8
"Every time I see a American CEO, I imagine them getting shot.
Brings a smile to my face every time."

And liberals say libertarians lack compassion and mercy.

"All this talk of libertarian policy, why, if it's so goddamn great why hasn't it been implemented?"

LOL! In case you hadn't noticed, it HAS been implimented - at least partially.  Reagan, though far from a perfect and principled libertarian, enacted some moderate economic reforms and our economy boomed because of it. 

"If you don't like the system, you have two options: 1 Overthrow the government, or 2 Fucking leave."

Or I could frequent websites like this where we are supposed to be discussing politics anyways, and... discuss libertarianism - a political ideology/theory/party.

"You'll never be elected with that pompous attitude, and frankly, who would want an arrogant fuckhead like you to run our country."

Plenty of libertarians have been elected.  Of course they aren't as big as either major party, but they have grown as a party quite a lot over the years.

"If you really cared about the poor or the disenfranchised, you'd be fucking helping them, not asking Uncle Sam for a tax cut for the rich to spur "economic growth" that the poor get nothing from."

Yeah, because a prosperous economy doesn't help the poor at all, right?

"America is a two party system, Libertarians should get the fuck out, NOBODIES FORCEING YOU TO BE HERE."

The USA has two major political parties, yes, but third parties are on the ballots, have and will likely continue to win here and there, or pressure other candidates to at least listen to some of their ideas occasionally, and that is just dandy to me. 

Why are you trying to push someone with different views than you out of the country? Are you that much of an intolerant little fascist that if my political views aren't defined by either the word 'liberal', or the word 'conservative' that I should 'get the fuck out'?

I am well aware nobody is forcing me to be here.  So what? Nobody is forcing anyone of any particular viewpoint to stay here, last I checked. 

"People in the richest, most luxurious nations of the world kill themselves."

Actually, that is false.  Of course some people might commit suicide, but you say 'people' in the richest, most luxurious nations of the world kill themselves - which is a general statement, implying that it is generally true - which it is not.  That statement is generally false, since 'people' in the richest, most luxurious nations of the world don't generally kill themselves.

"America hasn't stymied death, cured disease, fed the hungry, clothed the poor, avoided war, or transcended human fallacy in any way."

Actually, that is false as well.  The USA has and is continuing to come up with medical advances. 

As for feeding the hungry?
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=8926
Americans voluntarilly contribute three times more to helping those overseas than does the U.S. Government.  No doubt, at least some of these charitable donations is going to feed and clothe poor people.

As for avoiding war? No, we haven't.  Not recently at least, because we haven't had a libertarian congress, senate, and white house.  The libertarian party is adverse to overseas military adventures, and it is safe to assume that if we had a libertarian government, we would indeed have 'avoided war', or at least avoided more wars than we have as is.

"They've just given the world products to perpetuate desire, to recoil from fear or pain."

Yeah, those stinkin' capitalists! How dare they attempt make products that people will enjoy at affordable prices.  What a bunch of assholes!

"Wealth doesn't buy happiness.  Grub your money till you die, you can take it to rot with your corpse."

I have to disagree with you yet again.  I'm rather sure I'd be at least a little happier if I was a millionaire. 

lol @ people like >>8 who resort to personal attacks in political debates.

"Wealth doesn't buy happiness."

No that’s true, but the pursuit of what creates happiness SHOULD be the same as those that create wealth. Do you think accomplishment should be rewarded with nothing? If so enjoy your communism, its very unwise to create a contradiction between the pursuit of wealth and that of happiness

"All this talk of libertarian policy, why, if it's so goddamn great why hasn't it been implemented?"

Both political parties implement some libertarian ideas. Dems like the social side of libertarianism and conservatives implement the economic side (although incomplete, inconsistent and without justification) look at Japan if you want to see what happens with economic libertarianism and look at Amsterdam if you want to see social.


"America hasn't stymied death, cured disease, fed the hungry, clothed the poor, avoided war, or transcended human fallacy in any way."

Umm, yes we have. Do you live under a rock? Sure we haven’t cured every disease or clothed every poor person but we are doing a damn good job, and most of it is done by the citizens and not the government, that says allot. As for the transcending human fallacy bit. How do you expect to transcend this when you consider it a fallacy in the first place? And if you do accept them as fallacies why do you continue to let them rule us? (Im assuming you’re a liberal by the intolerant tone of your post)

And why does America have a much higher GDP then that of, let’s say Germany and Japan (since they are fairly similar in economic policies)? We have an incredible amount of natural resources at out disposal, rivaled only by Russia, but unlike Russia we use them. Japan shows what a country can do with 0 natural resources, using trade and the exchange of ideas to generate happiness and wealth. If Japan can do it ANY country on the planet can.

I won’t even address the war part as libertarians are more against war and imperialism then any modern liberal

“Every time I see a American CEO, I imagine them getting shot.
Brings a smile to my face every time.”

If you can justify murder I don’t even know how to respond, how do I even talk to evil?

>>9
jesus what a fucking horrible article, i should expect nothing less from conservatives. the auther spends his time refuting archno-capitalism which 90% of libertarians dont agree with.

"less freedom today is the price of more tomorrow"


thats how far i got!

The government decides how much people get taxed, not cooporations. So blame the government.

>>11
LOL @ people who have political debates and think it's serious business

>>12
"Both political parties implement some libertarian ideas. Dems like the social side of libertarianism and conservatives implement the economic side (although incomplete, inconsistent and without justification) look at Japan if you want to see what happens with economic libertarianism and look at Amsterdam if you want to see social."

Generally, this looks right, but keep in mind that modern 'conservatives' aren't really fiscally conservative... or at least Bush isn't.  If you were referring to the old right that believed in the 'small state' as far as economics goes, then yeah I'd agree, generally.

>>17
yea i agree thats why i added the

"(although incomplete, inconsistent and without justification)"

>>13
Man, you guys are slippery as democrats, you keep trying to change what a Libertarian is every moment!

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

The almighty wikipedia has divided libertarians into minarchists and anarcho-capitalists, if you have a problem with level conservative arguments against what is a recognized faction of your intellectual circle jerk, it's time for a schism from the libertarian label.

>>14
You obviously don't understand abstract concepts, shameful.  In the origin of society, man was absolutely free (anarchy), but anarchy really sucked, you had to defend yourself from some douchebag trying to kill you/steal your shit constantly, and you can't enjoy being free because you're too busy trying to stay alive.  Thus, the social contract, man gave up some of his freedom (by instituting a government to enforce law, defend the people from injustice and maintain social order) allowing himself to be partially controlled (but protected) in order for him to enjoy his freedoms.  That's why you personally aren't your own sovereign nation of 443 Dumbfuck lane, absolute freedom isn't all you crack it up to be.  That's from Locke, you revisionist pigs.

By the way, one could say that the governmental issuing of copyrights and patents restrict the market, we ought to abolish those too.  How do you own an idea anyway? How do you own a frequency or a gene? Copyrights are governmental protectionism and ought to die hard for the sake of your libertarian cause, as copyrights stifle entreprenuerial growth.

>>12
Typical American, you figure the whole fucking world loves you for your "charity".  If America wants to have the moral highground, they need to stop picking and choosing which horrors they want to address and attend to them all, otherwise your motives come across as nothing more than satisfying your own ulterior motives. Which they are.  Nonexistant WMD's in Iraq while thousands die in the Sudan, most policemen would be fired for that kind of decision making.

"If you can justify murder I don’t even know how to respond, how do I even talk to evil?"

Easy, might makes right, Americans do it all the time.  And that's the gist of pure capitalist struggle. Horatio Alger be damned.
 
But of course, libertarians still argue that the only POSSIBLE way to coerce someone comes through the government.  We are all free to make choices, but in some cases, the choice is obvious which one to make.  If business "A" is the only business in town, and has the power to bribe land developers (also private sector, naughty business ethics, gasp!) to barr the construction of your business, I think you are being effectively coerced, as your options to start another business 50 miles away is beyond your means.  When someone limits your options to shitty choices, your freedom has been restricted.  If one business ones all the food in a community, and the citizens don't like the prices, they really don't have a choice, because "Starve" is not an option anyone would elect to.  Egads! Coercion in non-governmental form, I daresay, PRIVATE BUSINESSES!

Where do you get off calling Japan a "Libertarian" country?  Japan has conglomerates of corporations that have the bureaucrats in their pockets, not to mention the US has a hand in who they can and can not trade with. Libertarian? Still rather facist, considering what priviledges the government has there, not to mention the ethnic superiority complex.

>>10
"LOL! In case you hadn't noticed, it HAS been implimented - at least partially.  Reagan, though far from a perfect and principled libertarian, enacted some moderate economic reforms and our economy boomed because of it."

In case YOU haven't remembered, military spending exploded in the Reagan administration, and the national deficit passed two TRILLION fucking dollars.  If anything, Reagan proved Keynesian economics.  But then again, nothing economists (or what I say about the economy) say is backed by solid empirical evidence, with control groups, indepedent and dependent variables, you know, science.  Without scientific backing, economic predictions are nothing more than opinions.

"Yeah, because a prosperous economy doesn't help the poor at all, right?"
Yep. There are a higher percentage of people living below the poverty line, and the income disparity has widened.  Maybe you should like, ask someone who lives near the tracks, as it seems you live in a sheltered world. (OH BOY INTERNET FIGHT WITH PERSONAL ATTACKS)

Libertarians: Adolf Hitler, if he was a college dropout (oh wait), did meth (oh wait), was thought he had the way to save the nation (oh wait), and didn't believe big government was necessary.  My Ad Hominem is glorious.

 

http://www.sethf.com/essays/major/libstupid.php

lol, I figured out why it's pointless to argue with libertarians

and it's not because they're right

application of magical logic chains to real world applications results in 1/0!!!! OH SHI-

libertarianism is flawed because it cannot stand the possibility that the gubbymint did something good, only the market fairy can do that! Because it is perfectly rational and reason is the only way to run a society of people with high cognitive self-awareness! Nevermind that Even though some free market advocates call libertarianism an reason for the priviledged to feel they deserve their advantages derived from their complex and mis-logical magic friedrand pixie dust

>>19

"Thus, the social contract, man gave up some of his freedom (by instituting a government to enforce law, defend the people from injustice and maintain social order) allowing himself to be partially controlled (but protected) in order for him to enjoy his freedoms.  That's why you personally aren't your own sovereign nation of 443 Dumbfuck lane, absolute freedom isn't all you crack it up to be.  That's from Locke, you revisionist pigs."

Sure.  That would actually be a pretty libertarian-ish government you have set up there, depending on your definition of 'protection' - and what that might entail.  I could give a fuck what a sect of libertarians think, as long as I agree with the actual party.  Since the actual party isn't anarchist, or anarcho-capitalist, your 'libertarians are all anarchistz lolz' argument is composed of near-complete shit.

"By the way, one could say that the governmental issuing of copyrights and patents restrict the market, we ought to abolish those too."

One could also say that mental labor is involved in the production of an idea, and that since ideas are thus the products of labor, it would be wrong to take or use them without the consent of their creator.  Thus, we have patents, and copyrights.

"How do you own an idea anyway? How do you own a frequency or a gene? Copyrights are governmental protectionism and ought to die hard for the sake of your libertarian cause, as copyrights stifle entreprenuerial growth."

See above.

"Typical American, you figure the whole fucking world loves you for your "charity".  If America wants to have the moral highground, they need to stop picking and choosing which horrors they want to address and attend to them all, otherwise your motives come across as nothing more than satisfying your own ulterior motives."

It isn't our responsibility to fix the world for all you dipshits.  The enormous amount of charity we give out is out of goodwill and generosity.  We don't have to do it.  I see nothing wrong with addressing some concerns and not others.  I suppose you would rather we addressed none?

"Nonexistant WMD's in Iraq while thousands die in the Sudan, most policemen would be fired for that kind of decision making."

Is this supposed to be some attack on libertarian policy? Last I checked, we didn't have control of congress, the white house, or the senate for the last 6 years, dipshit.

"Easy, might makes right, Americans do it all the time.  And that's the gist of pure capitalist struggle."

Explain how capitalism equates to 'might makes right'.
 
"If business "A" is the only business in town, and has the power to bribe land developers (also private sector, naughty business ethics, gasp!) to barr the construction of your business, I think you are being effectively coerced, as your options to start another business 50 miles away is beyond your means."

I'm rather certain in a fully free and competitive market, you would be able to find a developer(s) to do work for you without much trouble, especially with the interconnectivity and vastness of the modern world.  In the old west, I could see this as possibly being a problem, due to your inability to quickly move around and find a new developer to replace the bribed one.  However, in the modern world, any developer in a given region is just a phone call, email, or letter away, and I have a lot of trouble imagining a business large and powerful enough to bribe them all.  Considering the amount of resources necessary to bribe out every business or group of individuals willing to do the work for you, I think the said business you refer to would be better suited spending that money on actually developing its products and attempting to compete, rather than screwing around under the table as you suggest they might one day do in the given scenario.

"When someone limits your options to shitty choices, your freedom has been restricted."

In a fully free market, I think said scenario would be far less likely to happen.  See above comments.

"If one business ones all the food in a community, and the citizens don't like the prices, they really don't have a choice, because "Starve" is not an option anyone would elect to.  Egads! Coercion in non-governmental form, I daresay, PRIVATE BUSINESSES!"

LOL, and that would happen because of course there are not enough people who like farming and produce food that would just love to compete with the business you describe in that situation.  This example is even more stupid than your previous one.  You know that the USA pays (or used to pay) its farmers to destroy their crops, because some thought there was simply too much food to go around, and that it was hurting the farmers or some such? I find the notion that in a market relatively free of regulations a business would be able to just buy out all the food and then raise the prices so high that people have to simply pay up or starve ridiculous.  If the business bought out all the food from all the farmers, the farmers would make a killing and only work harder and faster to produce more food, and more people would be attracted to farming as a career with the increasing demand for food, who would then produce more food to meet the demand. 

"Where do you get off calling Japan a "Libertarian" country?  Japan has conglomerates of corporations that have the bureaucrats in their pockets, not to mention the US has a hand in who they can and can not trade with."

Well, firstly, he described them as economically libertarian, not 'libertarian' if I'm not mistaken.  Anyhow, I would consider Hong Kong to be a better example of an 'economically libertarian' country.  Hong Kong was rated the most economically free nation in the world a few years ago.  As to whether or not Japan is economically libertarian? They still have a market that is relatively free.  I'm sure you could find all sorts of things libertarians would dissaprove of regarding the USA, but that doesn't mean the american economy isn't still at least describable as pseudo-capitalist.

"Libertarian? Still rather facist, considering what priviledges the government has there, not to mention the ethnic superiority complex."

See above.  As I state, he was referring to economics, not social policy.

"In case YOU haven't remembered, military spending exploded in the Reagan administration,"

In case you didn't notice, I never said Reagan was a purist libertarian.  I merely observed that he did indeed have many libertarian-like policies, such as dishing out tax cuts and such. 

"If anything, Reagan proved Keynesian economics."

Yeah, his cutting of the federal income tax by 25% was real ... Keynesian.

The point being is that, yeah, Reagan was definitely not a pure-libertarian, but he did have a generally libertarian economic policy, or at least in a few quite significant aspects.

"But then again, nothing economists (or what I say about the economy) say is backed by solid empirical evidence, with control groups, indepedent and dependent variables, you know, science.  Without scientific backing, economic predictions are nothing more than opinions."

I consider the generally astounding successes of economies that are generally 'free' and the generally shitty track record of intensely socialist economies to be proof enough to think that socialism sucks nuts, and a relatively free market is made of relative win.


"Yep. There are a higher percentage of people living below the poverty line, and the income disparity has widened.  Maybe you should like, ask someone who lives near the tracks, as it seems you live in a sheltered world. (OH BOY INTERNET FIGHT WITH PERSONAL ATTACKS)"

The income disparity may have widened, but that doesn't mean that your average poor person living in the USA for ex. isn't better off due to having a more prosperous economy.  In the USA, for example, many poor people at least have a roof over their head, a reasonable selection of appliances such as microwave ovens, automobiles in their garages, food in their mouths, and clothes on their backs.  Now compare with some 3rd world shithole.  Not so bad, is it?  Actually, the modern poor of the USA are living lives comparible to the lives of the middle class from a few decades ago. 

Also, a more prosperous economy tends to mean there are more jobs to go around, which most people would agree is beneficial to the poor.

"Libertarians: Adolf Hitler, if he was a college dropout (oh wait), did meth (oh wait), was thought he had the way to save the nation (oh wait), and didn't believe big government was necessary.  My Ad Hominem is glorious."

Are you trying to paint Hitler as a libertarian? Please do, as that will confirm my initial notion that you don't know jack shit about politics.

>>20
Stupid article. 

As your article says, how many ideologies do you know that go like this: 

"We believe that disrespect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud are good things in human relationships, and that only through slavery can peace and prosperity be realized."


Guess what that sounds like?

Socialism.

>>20 Is a closet statist.

Socialism is flawed because it cannot stand the possibility that the market did something good, only the government fairy can do that! Because it is perfectly irrational and emotion is the only way to run a society of people with high cognitive self-awareness!

"libertarianism is flawed because it cannot stand the possibility that the gubbymint did something good, only the market fairy can do that!"

have you ever really looked at what the government has done? failing schools, retarded wars, disgusting amounts of curruption and complete lack of respect for social freedoms. what good has it done? i consider police and fire service to be good, but, what else could not be done better in the private sector?(except national DEFENCE) do we really want more halliberton's, FCC's and Bush's? generally speeking, the more socialist we get the more it sucks

There is no gubbymint fairy. There is no market fairy. There is no gubbymint demon. There is no market demon.

There are, unfortunately, gray areas and lots of research and learning to be done. Or you can just go bazookas and pretend only capitalist/socialist governments can be truly meritocratic and that people who fail just suck and should suffer until they learn.

>>22
YOU sir fail at reading comprehension.  Learn to appreciate rhetorical speech.

Wow, that really didn't even deserve a response with how stupid you fucking are.

Libertarians don't address what other people say.

Japanese companies have big conglomerates.  What is that almost synonomous with, oh, that's right monopoly, which is a proven way for economic coercion, which is supported by bribing their resident bureaucrats. Stay with me here. Japan is not libertarian, it is much like the US, where government and corporations give each other handjobs, resulting in the 2nd largest GDP in the world. Egads, I can interpret and draw that fascism works great by ignoring the details, sound familiar to your ideology?

"One could also say that mental labor is involved in the production of an idea, and that since ideas are thus the products of labor, it would be wrong to take or use them without the consent of their creator.  Thus, we have patents, and copyrights."

WOW, that sounds almost word for word Marxism, I think you need to get your ideology straight.  Read Das Capital.  How can you say that one thing can be owned by labor while another isn't? Where is the "contract" between the person making the idea and the idea itself?" Ideas can be in multiple people's heads, and each "owns their body", so who is the true owner? You can own property, because it is tangible, you cannot own ideas without the infringement of thought, which is tyranny of the most perverted kind.

"Are you trying to paint Hitler as a libertarian? Please do, as that will confirm my initial notion that you don't know jack shit about politics."
Actually, I was trying to paint libertarians as hitlers, because of the way they think, not their political views.  It is a fallacious arguement, perhaps you should learn what ad hominem is before responding to a blatant troll. Noob.

Reagan vastly increased government spending.  This is an example of BIG GOVERNMENT. Not to mention he also increased taxes heavily in his 2nd term, particularly on industry.  The very fact that a non-libertarian action (BIG GOVERNMENT SPENDING) did not cause the economy to come fucking crashing down, PROVES that a hybrid socialist/capitalist state functions, if anything IT ROCKS, because as was said, the economy boomed.  This is why libertarians don't have scientific interpretations, you haven't "accounted" for what the big spending did to the economy, you just "assume" it is le bad.  When you see the tax cuts, you just "assume" it is good.  You haven't isolated each variable, so what I ask you, is if we make the statement "Reagan did something good for the economy" which is it that was good? The tax cuts? The spending? Both? (I say both, but it's not good fiscal responsibility)  You can continue to say that in a libertarian government shit would be EVEN better, but a minarchist government will never happen, as it cannot stand still, people PREFER to have a stable ecomomy, whether it's kinda suck or kinda win, people do NOT want the EXTREME GOOD libertarianism offers, because, it comes coupled with EXTREME BAD.  Besides the fact that since mindless libertarian bot said that NO MATTER WHAT corporations will bribe politicians, it is inevitible for a minarchist government to grow, (wasn't that what happened, like, always, government control goes up so more corporate power can be exerted?) and you know what, the people wanted more control, because a free market  can fail.  Yes, it can. Say it with me. Free markets can fail.

"relatively free market is made of relative win"
So if a little ambien is good, a lot would be great, right?  More =\= necessarily mean better, in reality, you should visit it sometime.

In response to that fucker who said that America's poor are better off than Third world poor, oh, thanks so fucking much for that, it's been apparent since the fucking 1960s with the SOCIALIST PROGRAMS we instituted.  An american poor man is the mexican well-off, and it's been this way for a rather long time, even before magic reagan's tax cuts, (which actually widened the income gap) For you to argue that "They are still well off" totally ingored that the actions of reagan fucking hurt them, and that a rising tide raises those who have fucking yachts.  And I wonder how much better off a poor man is by getting a new toaster with his tax money, I thought the intended goal was to raise him out of poverty.

In every thing I have typed, libertarians don't address the fucking point, as the article in >>20 outlined.  WHENEVER I pose a particular problem for which libertarianism is not in a good light, you revert to a platitude (BIG GOVERNMENT IS THE FAULT OF EVERYTHING) such as your "Belief" that in a "Truely free market" he wouldn't be extorted.  Well, sherlock, the fact of the matter is that truely free markets only exist in your heads, they have NEVER existed, and attempts to create "ideal" societies have utterly failed.  This is what the conservative arguement is about. Libertarianism is just the negative Marxism.  On paper, Marxism works wonders, as does Libertarianism, but when applied to the real world, Marxism failed hard, with a huge cost of human life, as could be predicted with Libertarianism.

Everything I say here is nothing more than prediction, but until you have scientific, real-world testing that libertarianism works, the only "proof" that you can offer me is your prediction that libertarianism will work.  Your prediction is as good as mine.  You have no evidence, and what you call "evidence" is nothing more than ex post facto interpretations of society, much like revisionist history, much like how Marx developed his theory of labor.  What truely frightens me is how dogmatic you are, something like Scientologists.

"Also, a more prosperous economy tends to mean there are more jobs to go around, which most people would agree is beneficial to the poor."
Tend to, meaning there are exceptions, meaning your economic interpretation has a flaw.  Most new jobs that have emerged are high tech jobs requiring extensive education that poor people can't afford.  You don't see a hobo coding HTML.

To take from the article: where Marxists believed that everything could be solved with altruism and collectivism, Libertarians believe that everything can be solved with selfishness and individuality.

When approaching a libertarian, make sure you ask their proof that an aspect of their policy has been proven, and you will find only an ex post facto interpretation of history, and any flaws in their interpretation can be attributed to "big bad gubbymint". Take this with a pound of salt, as many other interpretations of history are adopted by historians, such as Hitler's interpretation of Jewish corruption of society, such as conservatives interpretation of societal fall from religiousity, such as Marx's interpretation of Bourgeoisie oppression.  All of these theories work because they can blame flaws in their theory as anomalies caused by the great evil they identify, but when applied to real life, those anomalies are the taletell marks of reality not bending to the fantasy.  Standing outside the fantasy, the fanstasy is flawed, standing inside the fantasy, flaws are smoothed over.

>>28
"Japanese companies have big conglomerates.  What is that almost synonomous with, oh, that's right monopoly, which is a proven way for economic coercion, which is supported by bribing their resident bureaucrats."

Japan isn't anywhere near a perfect example of economic libertarianism, so this is redundant.  Of course it is relatively economically free in relation to some countries, but it is still far from economic libertarianism, in my personal opinion.  Also, I disagree with your notion that we should be nearly as concerned with big-conglomerates as with monopolies.  I don't think monopolies and the like would even form in a libertarian society.  Even if they did, there is always anti-trust laws, which, as your faithful wikipedia article clearly states, are something still hotly debated among libertarian circles. 

"Stay with me here. Japan is not libertarian, it is much like the US, where government and corporations give each other handjobs, resulting in the 2nd largest GDP in the world. Egads, I can interpret and draw that fascism works great by ignoring the details, sound familiar to your ideology?"

I don't think your analogy or whatever you would call it is a good one. 

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

You clearly don't understand what fascism is.

"One could also say that mental labor is involved in the production of an idea, and that since ideas are thus the products of labor, it would be wrong to take or use them without the consent of their creator.  Thus, we have patents, and copyrights."

"WOW, that sounds almost word for word Marxism, I think you need to get your ideology straight.  Read Das Capital.  How can you say that one thing can be owned by labor while another isn't? Where is the "contract" between the person making the idea and the idea itself?""

I'm not sure what the fuck you are talking about to be honest.  How can one enter into a contract with an idea?

"Ideas can be in multiple people's heads, and each "owns their body", so who is the true owner?"

The simple fact that they are in multiple people's heads does not mean that it is their idea, or that they should have legal rights to it.

"You can own property, because it is tangible, you cannot own ideas without the infringement of thought, which is tyranny of the most perverted kind."

There is quite a difference between forcing people to think a certain way (controlling thoughts), and forcing people to act a certain way (such as using or not using an inventor's invention with or without paying said inventor).

"Actually, I was trying to paint libertarians as hitlers, because of the way they think, not their political views."

Explain the relation, if any, between how you percieve Hitler, and how you percieve libertarians (speaking in a broad and general sense).  I see you at the very least recognize the truth that libertarians are nearly the opposite of Hitler politically.

"Reagan vastly increased government spending.  This is an example of BIG GOVERNMENT."

Reagan also did a number of other things, such as cut income taxes, and by quite a large amount.  This is an example of libertarian policy, and imo, this is what jump-started the economy, not his military spending.

"Not to mention he also increased taxes heavily in his 2nd term, particularly on industry.  The very fact that a non-libertarian action (BIG GOVERNMENT SPENDING) did not cause the economy to come fucking crashing down, PROVES that a hybrid socialist/capitalist state functions, if anything IT ROCKS, because as was said, the economy boomed."

Ah, but the deficit went up, as you said.  I would conclude that tax cuts were what jump-started the economy, and Reagan's military spending to discourage communism was unnecessary.  I could only imagine how much faster the economy may have grown had we channelled even more money into tax cuts, and less into the military. 

"This is why libertarians don't have scientific interpretations, you haven't "accounted" for what the big spending did to the economy, you just "assume" it is le bad."

The various socialist experiments around the world that eventually collapsed should show you that government spending is leading you down the wrong path, speaking broadly.

"When you see the tax cuts, you just "assume" it is good."

I don't like your use of the word 'assume'.  There are several occasions in history in which the government slashed spending and cut taxes, and the economy subsequently boomed.  Thus, based on past events, I would predict that doing the same thing again would produce a similar result.  I would prefer to call it an educated prediction or something of this sort than an assumption.

"You haven't isolated each variable, so what I ask you, is if we make the statement "Reagan did something good for the economy" which is it that was good? The tax cuts? The spending? Both? (I say both, but it's not good fiscal responsibility)  You can continue to say that in a libertarian government shit would be EVEN better, but a minarchist government will never happen, as it cannot stand still, people PREFER to have a stable ecomomy, whether it's kinda suck or kinda win, people do NOT want the EXTREME GOOD libertarianism offers, because, it comes coupled with EXTREME BAD."

What makes you think it comes with what you refer to as 'extreme bad'?  The Great Depression I would guess? LOL.  I hope you have something more up your sleeve than that.  The Great Depression was caused by the Federal Reserve, not by Capitalism.

"Besides the fact that since mindless libertarian bot said that NO MATTER WHAT corporations will bribe politicians, it is inevitible for a minarchist government to grow, (wasn't that what happened, like, always, government control goes up so more corporate power can be exerted?)"

Nono, it is not inevitable for a minarchist government to grow, I don't think anyways.  Corporations do indeed bribe politicians, but it is frequently for more regulation, not minarchism.  Of course some corporations may bribe for less regulation, but the fact stands that there are other corporations that will bribe for more as well.  Corporations bribe for things that will benefit them - and that is definitely not always going to be less regulation (the whole Net Neutrality scare comes to mind.)

"and you know what, the people wanted more control, because a free market  can fail.  Yes, it can. Say it with me. Free markets can fail."

I hope you aren't talking about the Great Depression again.  Again, the Great Depression was caused by the Federal Reserve, not Capitalism.

"relatively free market is made of relative win"
"So if a little ambien is good, a lot would be great, right?  More =\= necessarily mean better, in reality, you should visit it sometime."

Sure.  More is not necessarilly better.  But as I said, as the track records show, free markets seem to bring prosperity and liberty.  Controlled, regulated, taxed, and government managed markets (depending on the controls I suppose, how many, and in what areas), tend to bring a less prosperous and less free economy and society.

"In response to that fucker who said that America's poor are better off than Third world poor, oh, thanks so fucking much for that, it's been apparent since the fucking 1960s with the SOCIALIST PROGRAMS we instituted."

I could have said the same for people who are considered 'poor' americans or lower income class americans who don't recieve aid from your magical socialist programs.

"An american poor man is the mexican well-off, and it's been this way for a rather long time, even before magic reagan's tax cuts, (which actually widened the income gap)"

Widened the income gap, possibly.  Bolstered the economy, created jobs, and raised the standard of living of people generally including those at the bottom rung as well? Yes indeed.  If the economy is prosperous, people tend to be better off, even if they are poor or disadvantaged.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg18n3-x.html

"For you to argue that "They are still well off" totally ingored that the actions of reagan fucking hurt them, and that a rising tide raises those who have fucking yachts."

The rising tide helped bring everyone up higher, not just people with yachts, but people who were poor or disadvantaged as well.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg18n3-x.html

"And I wonder how much better off a poor man is by getting a new toaster with his tax money, I thought the intended goal was to raise him out of poverty."

I think there are better ways to raise poor people out of poverty than to simply give them a handout.  Maybe that is where we differ?

Reagan's method of helping the poor was to dish out tax cuts which bolstered the economy, and thus created jobs, helping everyone, including the disadvantaged and poor. 
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg18n3-x.html

"Well, sherlock, the fact of the matter is that truely free markets only exist in your heads, they have NEVER existed, and attempts to create "ideal" societies have utterly failed."

I wouldn't really say that.  The United States was an attempt to create a somewhat ideal society, and it was a shining success, I'd say.  Sure, we've lost a lot of the liberties we once had, but we had a good several hundred years of liberty, and we are still pretty free in relation to many other countries in the world.  There is also always the chance that the public will one day decide to roll back all the bullshit government regulations, bureaucracy, and pointless laws.

"This is what the conservative arguement is about. Libertarianism is just the negative Marxism.  On paper, Marxism works wonders, as does Libertarianism, but when applied to the real world, Marxism failed hard, with a huge cost of human life, as could be predicted with Libertarianism."

The socialist societies (or many of them) have turned out to be brutal oppressive regimes with untold human rights violations and mass murder.  In comparison, we have societies like Hong Kong, the United States, Canada, and the rest of the world that is generally considered to be 'free', which includes parts of Europe as well.  I can't see how a libertarian society would come around to committing mass murder, genocide, or any of the other numerous and untold human rights violations committed by the socialist wing. 

"Everything I say here is nothing more than prediction, but until you have scientific, real-world testing that libertarianism works, the only "proof" that you can offer me is your prediction that libertarianism will work."

Not quite true.  We can examine track records and history as well.  Again, I think this leads one to realize that generally speaking, socialism tends to lead to poverty and tyranny, and capitalism to liberty and plenty.

Tend to, meaning there are exceptions, meaning your economic interpretation has a flaw."

Meaning that often, a prosperous economy leads to more job creation for the world's people.  Can you show me an instance where this was not the case? I'd like to see you try.  Now imagine all the instances where having a prosperous economy was beneficial to the world's people, generally. 

"To take from the article: where Marxists believed that everything could be solved with altruism and collectivism, Libertarians believe that everything can be solved with selfishness and individuality."

False.  Libertarians do not believe everything can be solved by selfishness and individuality.  Libertarians simply believe in a smaller government and freer both in the personal and economic realms than we currently have.

When will coorporations get together and begin distributing used adult male panty vending machines? That's what I want to know.

My demands remain unfulfilled!

>>28
So what about the labour that went into generating the idea? As I suck on black cock I often wonder who first developped the idea of sucking on such thick meat as this. He certainly would have had to do a lot of research. I myself would certainly labour long and hard to bring to the world the benefits of schlong slurping.

If che guevera was a libertarian instead of a socialist the world would be a better place. What a waste of a life.

Once again, Libertarians ignore that they are merely interpreting history after the fact, and that they have no magical clairvoyance.

They don't understand how isolation of variables ruins their theory.

For example. Spontaneous generation.  Ancient people believed that flies came from spoiled meat.  Why? because, if you leave spoiled meat out, it becomes infested with maggots.  So, meat literally becomes flies, simply because I say it does, and I have an explanation that appears to work.  I predict that a piece of meat when left out, will become infested with maggots.
The meat appears to become maggots, as he predicted.  But take off your blinders for a moment and look at the meat longer.  Flies visit the meat and imbed eggs in the meat, maybe the flies generate the maggots?
Time for experiment, I put out meat covered and uncovered.  The uncovered meat becomes maggots, but the covered meat does not.  I can now rule out that meat becomes maggots, because the covered meat didn't, and the variable I placed on it was the deciding factor.  I can then draw that since the meat was covered, the eggs couldn't be laid in the meat by the flies.

Tell me one situation in history when the same scientific approach to isolation of variables has occured.  For all we know Reagan's economic boom occured because of celestial alignments.
You can say that "Reagan cut taxes" economy boomed afterwards, but thats not the entirety.  Reagan cut taxes and increased defense spending, how do we know, that the defense spending increased the economy?  If A or B causes C, how have you determined that A caused C and not B?  You well cite historical events, but you must take in mind, they too were not controlled experiments, and a variety of hidden factors may exist because the economic event was not empirically tested.

When you can come, and prove empirically that libertarianism works, without just spouting out flawed, unccontrolled events when something changed and you attribute it to libertarian policy, maybe you'll be taken seriously outside the interweb.

Correlation does not PROVE causation.
Correlation does not PROVE causation.
Correlation does not PROVE causation.

>>31
Because, by that logic, the labor that workers go into making a product means that they own the product, not their employer.  This is where I ask "wheres the contract", because that's how you'll respond to the laborers "owning" the product they make and not the employer, because you say there's a contract in place between the laborers that their labor is going to be changed into wages.  Where is the contract with the idea? What does the idea agree to anything from this? If anything, the idea is being stolen. 
And you can't deny that copyrights stifle new businesses can make it difficult to compete.  If someone copyrights ladders, and I want to sell a ladder, I have to go search and make sure my ladder design doesn't violate existing copyrights.  This sounds like government red tape, which I thought libertarians were against.
And stifling thought is exactly what this will lead to, copyrighting of phrases is already in existance, soon we'll have to stop saying words to avoid paying royalties, we can't talk about various issues without royalties.  Imagine it, the "Abortion Debate" royalty, the "Capitalist Theory" royalties.
>>32
Anyone trying to overthrow the system will probably get themselves killed.  You'd just like it more if he fit in with your ideology. 

How many times does a libertarian argue something and they end with "I don't think that would be the case".

"I don't think monopolies and the like would even form"
Prove it.
"Even if they did, there is always anti-trust laws"
Which is an example of definate out of bounds free market, congratulations, you just violated your own ideology to cover a point.  If Anti-trust laws are good, why not Socialism? You can't have exceptions in your magical theory son, otherwise, you have to explain why so many other things can't be exceptions in your economic theory, like public schooling, AA, etc.
You are limiting the freedom of people who own monopolies, that they acquired legally, how is infringing upon their freedom any different from infringing upon the rights of employers to not hire black people? After all, as many libertarians contend, the market doesn't appreciate racism, aren't they hurting the market just like the monopolist is?

This problem is why libertarians will never reign, the point of balance between government control over the market is impossible to draw, and is enevitably going to shift either to more government regulation, or corporate lawlessness.

I can sleep soundly knowing how naive you all are.

>>33
Actually it's the other way around. Your theory is like the idea that "flies come from rotting meat" and the libertarian theory is like the idea "from what I have hitherto seen the presence of rotting meat permits maggots and flies to develop".

>>34
Yeah, bascially, they make an unsubstantiated claim with nothing
but their interpretation of past events, and try to say that their opinion of history (when there was no experiment, control group, independent variable) proves that libertarian policy works.

Libertarian claims are comparable to "I think that vermin were the driving force behind human society's creation.  The need to band together to fight the rodent menace to crops and human life was integral to the development of society."

Bascially, I can interpret history as such, even though common sense pretty much lols at my statement, and I remain oblivious of other hidden factors for society to form, such as hunting/gathering subsistence, domestic roles, defense from wild animals/ other early humans, etc, which happen to sound much more reasonable than ZOMG rats.

And to be frank, to the majority of society, much of libertarian ism doesn't sound very reasonable, as real life rarely, if ever, matches up with ideologies.  Too many knots in the wood.

>>35
No, that would be blowing things out of proportion. The need to eliminate vermin was a factor in the development of civilisation, just a very small factor.

Libertarian policy works because by it's very nature of letting people make the decisions they want and ensuring they feel the consequences of those decisions the result is that only good decisions are noted as libertarian. It is very well to say that libertarianism is not like communism because it doesn't claim to be omnipotent and solve everyone's problems in one god-like super ideology. However that is stupidly unrealistic and whoever thinks that way should wait until they're paying for their own food and shelter before wasting their time expressing "their" opinion.

>>33
"Tell me one situation in history when the same scientific approach to isolation of variables has occured."

Economics is not such an easilly provable science.  You are asking something that is rather difficult if not impossible to show/prove.

"For all we know Reagan's economic boom occured because of celestial alignments."



"You can say that "Reagan cut taxes" economy boomed afterwards, but thats not the entirety.  Reagan cut taxes and increased defense spending, how do we know, that the defense spending increased the economy?"

We don't know that the defense spending did not help the economy.  Maybe it did.  I speculate that it was the tax cuts though.  Notice my useage of the word 'speculate.' 

"When you can come, and prove empirically that libertarianism works, without just spouting out flawed, unccontrolled events when something changed and you attribute it to libertarian policy, maybe you'll be taken seriously outside the interweb."

Well, you could take a look at Hong Kong, a country that is not very rich in natural resources, yet is economically prosperous, and they have one of the freest economies in the world.

"Correlation does not PROVE causation.
Correlation does not PROVE causation.
Correlation does not PROVE causation."

That's right.  However, I fail to see how anyone can take you seriously while correlation and causation seem to go hand in hand over and over again throughout history, while you sit there with your hands over your ears and scream:  "CORRELATION DOESNT = CAUSATION CORRELATION DOESNT = CAUSATION CORRELATION DOESNT = CAUSATION CORRELATION DOESNT = CAUSATION CORRELATION DOESNT = CAUSATION !  THE ECONOMIC BOOM WAS JUST CAUSED BY CELESTIAL BODIES MOVING ABOUT THE SKY! AHHHHHHH! CORRELATION DOESNT = CAUSATION ! CORRELATION DOESNT = CAUSATION !"

"Because, by that logic, the labor that workers go into making a product means that they own the product, not their employer."

Workers don't own the property they build the product out of.  The property is the employers.  The workers build things with it which the employer then sells.  The property does not change ownership from employer to worker - the employer hires workers to do things with their property.

"This is where I ask "wheres the contract", because that's how you'll respond to the laborers "owning" the product they make and not the employer, because you say there's a contract in place between the laborers that their labor is going to be changed into wages."

See above.  I never said that.  Intellectual property is a completely different scenario. 

"And you can't deny that copyrights stifle new businesses can make it difficult to compete.  If someone copyrights ladders, and I want to sell a ladder, I have to go search and make sure my ladder design doesn't violate existing copyrights.  This sounds like government red tape, which I thought libertarians were against."

Copyrights aren't generally thought of as 'red tape'.  I think a better example would be all the countless regulations that the feds have on the books that, for all I know dictate how many screws have to be in a table in order for it to be used in a private person's business for who the fuck knows what reason.

Saying copyrights/patents are red tape is like saying laws preventing you from taking someone elses' property and using it to build something are 'red tape.' 

"And stifling thought is exactly what this will lead to, copyrighting of phrases is already in existance, soon we'll have to stop saying words to avoid paying royalties, we can't talk about various issues without royalties."

Baloney.  As long as we don't let copyrights of phrases get too out of hand, there is nothing to worry about. 

"How many times does a libertarian argue something and they end with "I don't think that would be the case"."

However many times a non-libertarian expounds countless bullshit scenarios that are obviously never going to materialize in any serious manner not because they are actual worries, but because he just doesn't like libertarians, and probably doesn't like freedom either.

"Prove it."

No, you are making an accusation that monpolies WOULD form.  The burden of proof is on you to give examples of monopolies that have formed under free-market conditions, not for me to explain to you why monopolies would not form. 

"Which is an example of definate out of bounds free market, congratulations, you just violated your own ideology to cover a point."

You're an idiot.  Libertarians, outside of a few pockets here and there don't generally believe in a COMPLETELY voluntary society.  I'm sorry, but that's just a fucking pipe dream if I've ever heard one.  They tend to recognize that taxation is likely to be a necessary evil in order to create a functioning system that will be able to preserve itself from outside threats and such.  We DO believe in making a society as voluntary as possible, while still keeping things functional.  Controlling the formation of monopolies (which might not be necessary anyways, considering that most, if not all monopolies that have formed in the US history that I can think of likely resulted from some form of government interference or other), could be seen as something of a necessity just like having a military, a court system, etc. 

"If Anti-trust laws are good, why not Socialism?"

There is a huge difference between anti-trust laws and welfare, for example.  If you need me to spoon-feed you the rest, I give up, you are too fucking stupid.

"You can't have exceptions in your magical theory son, otherwise, you have to explain why so many other things can't be exceptions in your economic theory, like public schooling, AA, etc."

See above.

"You are limiting the freedom of people who own monopolies, that they acquired legally, how is infringing upon their freedom any different from infringing upon the rights of employers to not hire black people?"

See above.

"For all we know Reagan's economic boom occured because of celestial alignments."

Yeah lets not examine his policies and try to examine why we had prosperity then, or try to repeat or even improve on them, lets just make stupid comments like this.

>>37
Dude, your argument is weak. Plus you go from aggressive to passive often which shows that you're flimsy as fuck.

If you want to look at Capitalism in action, which will occur again in a libertarian society, just look back to the 1870s up to the turn of the century. 14 hour work days, no breaks, no benefits for workers, shittier pay in the wake of competitioin and cutting costs

If you're so confident about "looking at history hithero" why don't you stop being so fucking picky and actually look at what free market has done in the past.

Anti-trust laws ARE red tape. It is a government limit placed on the freedoms of businesses. You compare anti-trust laws to welfare, say that they are different, and rest happy knowing that you haven't addressed what they are AT all.

Humbly sir, you're the one who's fucking stupid.

What you've basically conceded is that some government control is required to limit the freedoms and actions of businesses and the free market.

Which is pretty much the way it is now, save for a tad too much regulation on the government's part and very sharp wealth distribution.

So basically, you just lost all of your libertarian "oomph" and you're basically in the same boat as the troll, with a more centrist view.

But seriously, you lost to a troll.

I thought St. Ronald the Raygun raised t***s. Didn't he?

>>39
"If you want to look at Capitalism in action, which will occur again in a libertarian society, just look back to the 1870s up to the turn of the century. 14 hour work days, no breaks, no benefits for workers, shittier pay in the wake of competitioin and cutting costs"

Bullshit.  The standard of living we enjoy today was made possible by our economic system we had then.  People earn more money for less work nowadays because of all the innovations that the free market has brought the world, not to mention the relief of poverty overseas that was initially caused by other countries' lack of freedom (their socialist/fascist governments).

"If you're so confident about "looking at history hithero" why don't you stop being so fucking picky and actually look at what free market has done in the past."

Ok? The free market has made possible the life we live today.  Most advances made for workers by the labor movement was not because of big-government, it was because of labor unions.  Libertarians support workers' right to join unions, strike, etc.

"Anti-trust laws ARE red tape."

Of course they are.  But there is vast difference in the amount of freedom offered the general population when you have a system of government that is more or less laissez-faire and limmits itself merely to handling monopolies, and a system with piles upon piles of books containing thousands and thousands of regulations that small businesses struggle to put up with every year.  Increasing amounts of red tape (regulation) and taxes are making it more difficult for small businessmen to get started, thus contributing to limmiting competition for big businesses, and resulting in fewer small-town millionaires and success stories, and more billionaires and extremely poor people.  I'm beginning to go off topic.  The point is is that regulating monopolies could be seen as a more or less basic function of government from my viewpoint - right along with providing a military.  This is a vast difference when put in contrast to all the socialist programs, bureaucracy, and red tape we have today.  

"It is a government limit placed on the freedoms of businesses. You compare anti-trust laws to welfare, say that they are different, and rest happy knowing that you haven't addressed what they are AT all."

Both limmitations on freedom, yes.  However one is necessary (imo), the other is not.  It is not absolutely necessary that we have welfare for our society and economy to function well.  It is, in my opinion, necessary that we have some degree of control over monopolies.  So, for example, just like I recognize that it is NECESSARY to have a strong military to defend the nation - I recognize that is necessary to prevent formation of monopolies.  The only governmental intervention I support is necessary government intervention.  Everything else should be left to private citizens to voluntarilly engage in.

"What you've basically conceded is that some government control is required to limit the freedoms and actions of businesses and the free market."

Yes, and? There are indeed government programs I support, they are simply far fewer in number than those which you support.  For example, I think government should handle roads.  I think government should handle the military.  I think government should provide police & fire protection.  I think government should provide a court system.  I think government should prevent abuse of monopolies.  These are, imo, some of the most basic functions of government.  We have departed from the vision of a small and simplistic government in our pursuit of socialism.  I favor a small and simplistic form of government limmited to the above.  That's all there is to it, really. 

"Which is pretty much the way it is now, save for a tad too much regulation on the government's part and very sharp wealth distribution."

Wrong.  Go watch 'Free to Choose'.  Government bureaucracy and spending is completely out of control.  We are descending into socialism.

"We are descending into socialism." More like statism, if one is to be specific. The sad part is that a majority of Americans are prone to describe themselves as "socially liberal and economically conservative" - unfortunately Christianity creates wedge issues, socialists create controversy and stagnation, republicans can't introduce capitalism in an attractive manner to save their lives and suck up to retards, libertarians are hampered by semi-racist halfwits who would throw out reproductive rights in order to save guns...

However, there is an article over at Zogby that clearly indicates that things are looking up. Check it for a +7 morale boost.

>>40
"I thought St. Ronald the Raygun raised t***s. Didn't he?"

Let me quote wikipedia on this one for you: 

"Reagan's support for an increased defense budget also was supported by Congressional Democrats. These Democrats, however, were not so willing to go along with Reagan's proposed cuts in domestic programs. The resulting increase of the national budget deficit led Reagan and Congress to approve tax increases in 1982 and 1983."

So in other words, the democrats in congress wouldn't let him cut back on the budget in terms of domestic programs (welfare, all those kinds of things), and the result was his need to raise taxes. 

He still did cut taxes during various times of his presidency, and indeed signed the largest income tax cut in U.S. history. 

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

I wouldn't go by % when it comes to big business... 1.8% of microsoft is a lot more then your stupid 33% of your McDonald wages.

>>41
You're reasonably level headed. The only difference between you and the guy you're arguing with is a difference in perspective.
You think that we're descending into socialism, I don't think we are.  I agree bureaucracy and spending is out of control, but corporations have bureaucratic bullshit and waste too, it just happens more noticably in government.

Second, the market does not behave in rational ways, after the 9/11 attacks, the economy plunged, why? Because people were fearful of terrorist attack, even though most of the nation was largely not at much risk.  And as it is now, the average American consumer is too fucking stupid for libertarianism to be implemented, good products don't get picked over shitty ones, people get McDonald's bile still.
 
Enron, Delta and many more screwed its employees/shareholders out of their livelihoods, and I don't see how we can trust the market to keep fair bookkeeping if government isn't looming over them.  That's kind of why the SEC was formed, because prior to the great depression, there was no government regulation of stock value, which led investors to thinking they had bought some cash cow stock when they'd actually bought a lemon.  So, in your government you had better have the government regulation of the stock market, imo.

The problem I see with smaller government is it means little to the rich and powerful, they stand little chance of losing their power and unfair priviledges because even in a small government, they just get less benefit from lobbing and the bribing of officials than before.  In a libertarian system, can you honestly tell me that Microsoft would fall from its mountain?  Would the price of crude oil really drop? Or would it remain entirely controlled by a coalition of oil producing countries, one that the US is not part of? 

Market-Government handjobbery doesn't stop at the border of the US, in order for libertarianism to work optimally, the entire damn world would have to be libertarian, which, frankly, is not likely to happen.

And probably the biggest issue I have, if libertarianism were implemented in the 1930s, who would have stopped Hitler? How would we have beaten the Japanese? A weak American government? A coalition of business owners in America?
The cost of running a war exceeds the revenue a small government would make, hell, the war we run now is hardly being paid, and we have "big government".  Businesses have a vested interest in not fighting wars, especially if the government isn't going to be able to buy tanks, guns, planes, ships they make to fight it.   

I'd like Libertarians if they weren't riddled with drug addicts and small time business owners who need a scapecoat other than themselves for why their business sucks shit.

I agree with socially liberal policies. I agree with fiscal conservativism, but not in the sense that libertarians take it.  I just want government spending and entitlements to be drastically cut, keep the graduated tax brackets "(fuck, rich people find enough loopholes to pay less than poor people, no fucking "discourage upward mobility" there) pay back our debt, increase environmental legislation, cut military spending, develop better nationwide transport systems, reform welfare further to a 3 year benefit maximum, dump social security, lift FCC regulations, dump medicare, medicaid.

You libs can now call me a heartless bastard, you ought to be prepared to get it yourself.
 

Why would you cut military spending when you can't even take over iraq? How do you expect to defend yourself? :p

>>47 u are a heartless bastard.  what, you think you are entitled to your money or something?

>>42
"The sad part is that a majority of Americans are prone to describe themselves as "socially liberal and economically conservative" - unfortunately Christianity creates wedge issues, socialists create controversy and stagnation, republicans can't introduce capitalism in an attractive manner to save their lives and suck up to retards, libertarians are hampered by semi-racist halfwits who would throw out reproductive rights in order to save guns..."

LOL? Ok, first of all, this post reeks of feminazi bullshit.  Yeah, I'm a libertarian, and I happen to be pro-choice, but no way in hell would I ever say that abortion even close to rivals the 2A in terms of significance or importance. 

On one hand, we have a right that is so important, it was enumerated in the Bill of Rights as not to be touched - one of the most fundamental freedoms for the preservation of a free society.  On the other hand, we have the right to squish fetuses.  Plz, cut the liberal tripe. 

>>50
"libertarians are hampered by semi-racist halfwits who would throw out reproductive rights in order to save guns..."

Hmm... deterrant to tyranny, genocide, and mass murder (not to mention reduction in crime levels) vs.  right to squish fetuses.  Hmm... tough choice.

All freedoms are important, but feminists need to get their priorities in order.  My apologies for sounding so condescending, but you apparently forget that there are women who like the 2A as well as men - it isn't one sided.

>>45
"You think that we're descending into socialism, I don't think we are."

Watch Free to Choose.  The government is spending a large portion of every dollar we earn.  At what percentage of dollar spending would you admit that we are approaching socialism, if not actually entered the belly of the beast? Yeah, I suppose we still have a pseudo-capitalist society, but we are indeed letting the bureaucracy and spending for government programs spiral out of control.  There is going to be a budget crisis in the near future when people realize that we can't just pull money out of thin air to fund all these programs... and it will require either massive inflation, a massive tax hike, or some other punch to the gut for the average citizen.

"I agree bureaucracy and spending is out of control, but corporations have bureaucratic bullshit and waste too, it just happens more noticably in government."

I agree.  However I am not generally forced to fund corporate bureaucracy (unless you are talking about privatization?).  I am indeed forced to fund government bureaucracy.

"And as it is now, the average American consumer is too fucking stupid for libertarianism to be implemented, good products don't get picked over shitty ones, people get McDonald's bile still."

Sure.  And this doesn't matter to me.  If they waste their money on bad products, they suffer, not me.  You claim that the public is too stupid for libertarianism to be implimented.  This begs the question:  do you think our leaders in washington are wise enough in terms of use of the budget and funds for socialism or central planning to be implimented? I'd trust the market over the government anyday.
 
"The problem I see with smaller government is it means little to the rich and powerful, they stand little chance of losing their power and unfair priviledges because even in a small government, they just get less benefit from lobbing and the bribing of officials than before."

Not only that, in a more free system the rich and powerful will have more competition from small businesses which would then have been freed from excessive bureaucracy and taxes.  This would help give smaller businesses a fighting chance against your despised McDonalds, for example.

"In a libertarian system, can you honestly tell me that Microsoft would fall from its mountain?"

No.

"Would the price of crude oil really drop? Or would it remain entirely controlled by a coalition of oil producing countries, one that the US is not part of?"

Yes, it would drop (I think).  With the opening of ANWAR or however you spell it, yes I think it would drop.  There is also Venezuela and Russia entering the picture who will then likely compete with Middle Eastern oil producers.  I'm not sure exactly when, but a few years back, OPEC or whatever its name is was urging Russia not to sell oil to us, or to join them or something.  Russia had declined, and started pumping the oil, entering the competition.  Considering Venezuela is in the picture as well, not to mention the new oil found down near the Gulf of Mexico, as well as the oil up in Canada, I'd say there is plenty of competition.

"Market-Government handjobbery doesn't stop at the border of the US, in order for libertarianism to work optimally, the entire damn world would have to be libertarian, which, frankly, is not likely to happen."

I have to disagree here, but Milton Friedman can answer this better than I can.  Go watch the free trade episode of Free to Choose.

"And probably the biggest issue I have, if libertarianism were implemented in the 1930s, who would have stopped Hitler? How would we have beaten the Japanese? A weak American government? A coalition of business owners in America?"

Well, I don't think Hitler would have risen to power if we hadn't intervened in WW1, so this is kinda beside the point imo.

"The cost of running a war exceeds the revenue a small government would make, hell, the war we run now is hardly being paid, and we have "big government".

So we have fewer wars, lower taxes, and more freedom.  In the few cases when war is actually necessary, it would of course be excusable to raise taxes to get revenue to defend the nation.  This is understandable and necessary taxation.  Unfortunately, most of the other things we spend money on is not as understandable nor as necessary.  Libertarians understand the need for a military to defend the nation.

"Sure.  And this doesn't matter to me.  If they waste their money on bad products, they suffer, not me.  You claim that the public is too stupid for libertarianism to be implimented.  This begs the question:  do you think our leaders in washington are wise enough in terms of use of the budget and funds for socialism or central planning to be implimented? I'd trust the market over the government anyday."

This is why libertarianism won't be implemented, people aren't smart enought to want to vote in small government, social liberal representatives, who, once they get in, actually enact libertarian policies.  This is why much of libertarian policy is pissing in the wind, how do you expect to suddenly reverse the political trend as it has proceeded for the last 50 years?  You could attempt to overthrow the government, but many americans despise radicals regardless of their political ideas, you'd lose popular support and the ancien regime would return.

>>53
THREAD OVER

>>50 "
All freedoms are important, but feminists need to get their priorities in order.  My apologies for sounding so condescending, but you apparently forget that there are women who like the 2A as well as men - it isn't one sided."

They are still equally important if you are being consistent. You say precious 2A is more important. How do you judge? What are your parameters? Your calculations and your ethics? Why do you think it is acceptable to make a distinction and prioritizing in the first place? Do you honestly believe people will realize they are boiling frogs and don their raccoon hats?

 Just because you frame the issue as the right to squish fetuses doesn't mean you are on solid ethical ground. In fact, it further reveals how inferior libertarianism with priorities is. Social liberty and financial liberty are equal. Solid progress in both is not difficult, and libertarians who let their preferences take priority betray the ethical framework in favor of utilitarianism.

People like you are the very reason I will not call myself a true-purple libertarian.

>>55
Some freedoms are more valuable that others.

Your freedom to anally sodomize a minor if he gives consent is not a freedom I would equate with the right for someone to not be but into a gulag.

>>55
Xels right...sort of. If you call yourself a libertarian you can't choose what freedoms are important, only what ones are "right". Any freedoms that are considered "right" all have equal precedence. We don’t use government like liberals or conservatives, they only see it as a means, and we see it as an end in itself. In this context you must understand that a freedom must be granted, the end, freedoms become our means. Choosing what freedom's have priority inserts a level of subjective skepticism and before you know it where conservatives/liberals (or worse), this is also why a true libertarian government will never exist in America.

Unlike xel I do call myself a true libertarian, but im very critical of others that dawn the same title.

>>55
We already know you're an active member of NAMBLA Xel, quit trying to set the stage.

>>55  "They are still equally important if you are being consistent."

I don't understand how you could possibly say a freedom that protects you from being murdered, robbed, raped, or violated is equally as important as the right to squish fetuses.  I guess we just have different priorities? LOL.  But then, in your system, if you get raped, at least you have your abortion rights.  But then on the other hand, I won't get raped, since I'll be armed.

"You say precious 2A is more important. How do you judge?"

All freedoms are important - true.  Some are more important than others.  Freedoms that protect other freedoms and rights should obviously take preference over others.  This is why the 1st and 2nd amendment are so much more important than much of the rest.  The 1st and 2nd amendment rights protect the others in two ways.  The 1st allows you to speak out against the government's violation of your rights, and in this way, possibly protect them.  And the 2nd? That's self-explanitory by now. 

"Why do you think it is acceptable to make a distinction and prioritizing in the first place?"

Why is it unacceptable?

"Do you honestly believe people will realize they are boiling frogs and don their raccoon hats?"

I think that it very well might not be necessary.  The 2A very well may prevent them from ever needing to realize that.  The simple threat of an armed populous is possibly enough. 

"Social liberty and financial liberty are equal. Solid progress in both is not difficult, and libertarians who let their preferences take priority betray the ethical framework in favor of utilitarianism."

Picking your favorite freedom does not necessarilly betray any principles or ethics.

>>57
"Xels right...sort of. If you call yourself a libertarian you can't choose what freedoms are important, only what ones are "right"."

I think you are misconstruing my viewing a freedom as being less important than another as my not supporting it.  I support all freedoms, regardless of whether or not they are important or not from my perspective. 

Nonetheless, you simply can't evade the logic that the 1st and 2nd amendments are arguably more important, as without them working to protect the rest becomes essentially impossible.

"Any freedoms that are considered "right" all have equal precedence."

I support all freedoms that can be considered 'right' from my view, of course, as I'm a libertarian.  However, I have to disagree with your notion that all liberties are equally important.  Liberties that protect other liberties are more significant, imo, than liberties that don't.  Don't get me wrong - I support all liberties.  I am just saying that this notion that abortion is anything near as important as Free Speech or the right to bear arms is pure baloney, since without the right to free speech or the right to bear arms, your ability to defend other rights (including abortion) becomes practically impossible.

>>56 Precisely my thoughts.

>>50
"The sad part is that a majority of Americans are prone to describe themselves as "socially liberal and economically conservative" - unfortunately Christianity creates wedge issues, socialists create controversy and stagnation, republicans can't introduce capitalism in an attractive manner to save their lives and suck up to retards, libertarians are hampered by semi-racist halfwits who would throw out reproductive rights in order to save guns..."

I know plenty of feminists who prefer the libertarian party who are all too happy to vote for democrats because they don't give a fuck about the 1st or 2nd amendments as long as they have the right to squish fetuses.  Yay for irrational feminists.  So yeah, I could also say:  'libertarians are hampered by semi-sexist halfwits who would throw out 1st and 2nd amendment rights in order to preserve the right to kill fetuses.'

OP here, man, I created a popular thread, but It looks like Xel has hijacked it.
I like you Xel, but come the fuck on, don't be a cockblock.

>>63 Sorry, I guess.

>>62 Of course, I think the same here. Fucking whiner...

>>56 We have minor laws because of the judgment of when consensuality isn't enough, so your analogy is irrelevant here. Nice try at a strawman though.

Lastly, just beacuse 1A and 2A are better at keeping other rights than the other way around doean't mean that it is ethical to give precedence - that is pragmatism.

Here is a useful table - why not tell me who should get your vote in '08?

I ended up with Obama at a first glance but I will revise, I think. There is a better candidate...

http://selectsmart.com/08frontrunners.html

>>65

I wouldn't vote for any of them, given a good alternative (such as libertarian).

Supposing there was no option to vote libertarian? I'd vote for Gingrich, Huckabee, Allen, Tancredo, Hagel, Brownback, Richardson, or Rice.. not necessarilly in that order.

>>65
I don't agree with a lot of what this chart has to say.  For ex, this chart has listed many people who voted for the patriot act and other reckless expansions of government power as supporting civil liberties, which is pure bullshit.  It also has people who support gun control as being supportive of civil liberties, which is also bullshit.  Gun control IS a civil liberty.  Anyhow, there aren't libertarians on there.  I would vote libertarian, since on a lot of the issues there (like civil liberties) there is no fucking difference between the candidates, regardless of what that chart says.

>>65
Democrats in general fail.  Barack Obama wants to escalate the drug war, and even cosponsored some legislation called the 'Combat Meth Act' - which is widely recognized as some of the toughest anti-meth legislation ever seen, allocating vast sums of money to  do everything from keeping tabs on people who buy 'suspicious' drugs such as cold medicine.. to jailing meth users.  A vote for Obama is a vote to escalate the drug war.

>>68
yea, i was going to vote for him purly because i thought he was the best candidate even though in general i dont like liberal policys. after learning about shit like that i think ill have to dump my vote into the libertarian party

>>65
Obama, I agreed with almost all of the stuff on the chart. Feingold was good too, but he's not running.

>>67
A civil liberty that allows you to kill people with great ease. Hence, it needs to be controlled. Not all gun control is "omg librals wanna grab muh gunz". Background checking is gun control.

>>68
Link plz. And meth is insane and incredibly dangerous to others. I'm all for legalizing soft drugs, but not stuff like meth or crack. Although it is near impossible to stop people from making meth due to it's mundane ingredients (like cold medicine), but I am for cracking down on existing meth labs.

>>70
"A civil liberty that allows you to kill people with great ease. Hence, it needs to be controlled. Not all gun control is "omg librals wanna grab muh gunz". Background checking is gun control."

Obama wants to do a hell of a lot more than background checks, and if you deny that, you are a fucking retard, or else just need to go look at congressional gun votes.  If a democrat supports gun control (and Obama does), that translates into passing just about every gun control law they can get people to accept, from gun registrations, to assault weapons bans, to handgun bans, to ammunition bans, etc.  Also, many democrats tend to support holding on to background check data for long after a firearm's purchase - ammounting to a de facto gun registry, even if they don't actually support a gun registry per se.

i have to admit it - im a capilist pigdog >< XD XD XD XD XD

>>70
"Link plz. And meth is insane and incredibly dangerous to others. I'm all for legalizing soft drugs, but not stuff like meth or crack. Although it is near impossible to stop people from making meth due to it's mundane ingredients (like cold medicine), but I am for cracking down on existing meth labs."

http://www.strike-the-root.com/61/victor/victor1.html

http://www.strike-the-root.com/61/victor/victor1.html

^ Great defense of drug legalization - even the harder drugs.  Recommended read for everyone.  The writer gives both the pro-freedom argument, as well as the consequentialist argument.

>>74
Yeah, and drug addicts spend their time working for money to buy more drugs, why do that when you can just steal shit/commit crimes to get the necessary money to buy them from your legitimate regulated source?

I really could care less about the freedoms of meth users, they are free to fuck up their own lives, but if they go nuts and end up fucking killing/robbing someone, I don't think we should tolerate their presence.  Meth users are not rational individuals, they are, like many other humans, beasts who respond only to impulse and to fulfilling want.  There is a reason we have mental institutions.  People who are not able to control themselves that pose a threat to other people should be jailed as well, or better, executed, as it's more financially sound in the long term.

I really don't buy the libertarian rhetoric that drug addicts are people who pursue a certain kind of lifestyle, a "choice".  It still stands that many drug users/dealers commit many other crimes than simply possession of drugs, how is it that you assume that simply making drugs legal will make them less likely to commit future crimes of different natures?  Or will you have me believe that drug users are in full control of their bodies and mental faculties and we should just trust them to make good decisions? Even after they made horrible ones already (Doing Meth)?

>>75
"Yeah, and drug addicts spend their time working for money to buy more drugs, why do that when you can just steal shit/commit crimes to get the necessary money to buy them from your legitimate regulated source?"

Well firslty, black market meth would likely be put out of business due to the fact that corporations could make the stuff much better and cheaper, and would take away all the black market's business for the stuff.  Anyway, drug users tend to commit crimes not out of laziness, but because they don't have enough money to fuel their addiction.  If drugs were legalized, the price would of course subsequently drop, and I couldn't say I'd be surprised if the crime levels dropped following that either.

"I really could care less about the freedoms of meth users, they are free to fuck up their own lives, but if they go nuts and end up fucking killing/robbing someone, I don't think we should tolerate their presence."

That is exactly the problem is that they and others are quite simply *not* free to 'fuck up' their own lives.  Nobody is saying meth users should be permitted to 'go nuts' or kill/rob everyone in sight.  I'm all for a tough stand on crime - real crime - like stealing or killing for example.  However, the simple act of putting something in your body that, as long as you handle yourself responsibly, will not harm anyone but yourself, is clearly a victimless crime, and should be legalized.  I am not advocating using meth while driving, nor am I advocating allowing meth users to go around killing or stealing unhindered by the same laws that are on the books for everyone else.  I am not asking you to tolerate robbery or murder, I am asking you to tolerate peaceful drug use - whatever drug that is.  If the person is managing his use of the drug in such a way that his usage of it does not harm anyone but him/herself, there is absolutely no concievable reason in my book why said individual should not be allowed to enjoy the given activity.

"I really don't buy the libertarian rhetoric that drug addicts are people who pursue a certain kind of lifestyle, a "choice".  It still stands that many drug users/dealers commit many other crimes than simply possession of drugs, how is it that you assume that simply making drugs legal will make them less likely to commit future crimes of different natures?"

I assume that simply making drugs legal will make them less likely to commit future crimes of different natures because I think the reason they commit the crimes to begin with is largely due to that they desperately want to get high, and can't do so in a legal manner, so they turn to illegal manners, such as stealing or murder to attain the money.  I think that large corporations and the market would be able to lower the cost of meth (if it was legalized) to such a point that far fewer people (if any) would need to steal or murder to get their drugs, and that the crime rate would drop subsequently, especially with the decline of gang-warfare and organized crime that I predict would follow the legalization of meth and other drugs.

"Or will you have me believe that drug users are in full control of their bodies and mental faculties and we should just trust them to make good decisions? Even after they made horrible ones already (Doing Meth)?"

I would have you believe no such thing.  If a drug user commits a crime while under the influence, I support the application of the law to the fullest extent just as I would for anyone else.  As I said, I do not think society should tolerate murder or theft.  Tolerating peaceful - as long as it is peaceful-  drug use, on the other hand, is a different thing entirely in my book.

I must concede that that was a convincing article. However, I am not entirely convinced that legalizing meth would reduce crime.