Libertarianism is the inclusion of every sapient being into the decision making process and all that logically follows from that. Utilitarianism is the objective of ensuring the most happiness for all sapient beings and all that logically follows from that. Sometimes they compliment each other, other times they contradict.
Libertarianism is infallible since it relies upon the truth of Human nature, in that we're individuals with very small social circles. We give and take on that basis. There is no room for enormous governments in that structure.
Libertarianism is infallible because its followers are almost exclusively retarded organisms who shut their ears and cry when presented with evidence contradicting their spoon-fed "worldview".
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-05 7:56
LIBERTARYANIZM IS INFALLIBLE BEKUZ BUSH IS A COMMUNIST AND HE'S BAD
THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING PROOF FOR THE STATEMENT
>its followers are almost exclusively retarded organisms who shut their ears and cry when presented with evidence contradicting their spoon-fed "worldview"
In the previous thread, an epically retarded libertarian had claimed that bush was socialist because his brain couldn't comprehend more than one bit of data, and thought etatism was socialism. Here, we see that after hundreds of posts of pure ownage, he still holds on to his retardation. This is why libertarianism is infallible, because its followers are too stupid to recognize facts, they just keep crying...
Then again, why would anyone expect intelligent political debate on fucking 4chan?
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-05 19:05
woat is conservatism
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-06 5:53
>>8
If you support state socialism you support a system that is geared for stealth crony capitalism. This is why libertarians wish to take measures to ensure any state interference in the economy has a valid justification. The purpose of the state is not to see which party in an issue can dish out the most cash to lobby for their cause.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-06 7:16
>>12
And libertarians are retards who think bush is socialist, that's natural for them to have such ludicrous assumptions. NEXT ISSUE: ANARCHIST-COMMUNISM IS CAPITALIST BECAUSE IT HAS NO STATE
I think that about covers it. Libertarianism is infallible as it is the product of politic science worked logically from empirical facts and clear inductive reasonning without unnecessary emotive language or cult-like ideals. The only argument against it is the same argument against scientific method, that it is not the certain truth but rather we have no choice but to be libertarian since that is the most logical conclusion given the facts.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-13 11:40
>>17
Quite to the contrary, libertarianism is infallible as delusions of a drooling moron. Its perpetrators have proved themselves to be retarded by proclaiming Bush to be socialist, and that saying it is true because that is their own definition of socialist. Naturally, this isn't an argument against libertarianism, but seeing how much of ignorant retards are supporters of this "ideal" should give you an idea on why it's "infallible". It is so, because these retards refuse to deal with facts and they live in their imagination created by their ignorance. For actual arguments against libertarianism which the aforementioned retards couldn't retort against, please see the preceding thread. The libertarians may resume their whining and proclaiming everyone in the world except them and ironically anarchist-communists, as socialist.
>>17
It's also funny because it's all weasel words and no content.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-13 16:34
>>18
Most libertarians I know are actually quite moderate and merely lack fear in questioning society aswell as groups that claim to be non-conformist (emos, liberals, anarchists etc..) and libertarianism itself. Besides you are supposed to judge arguments by their logical merits not the people who support them, why do you enjoy evading the infallible logic behind libertarianism?
President Bush is not as statist as Chairman Mao but he does support unnecessary state intervention in the economy in the name of the people which is state socialism at least. I fail to see why you believe his socialist leanings should not be revealed.
I have discovered an amazing site. Turn the volume for your computer ON, and go to http://blocked.on.nimp.org with Internet Explorer. After going there with Internet Explorer, go there with Mozilla Firefox.
>>20
As you see, the retarded libertarian still claims that socialism is statism even though gallons of information disproving his retarded notion was given. Clearly, these retards don't have the intelligence to formulate any proper thinking, and they cling to their disproven delusions as INFALLIBLE TRUTH HURRR DURRR, which is expected from masses of uneducated morons.
>>22
You do realize that you're the only idiot who takes him seriously?
in b4 1000 posts more of everything is socialist
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-26 21:37
>>22
There are many forms of socialism, state socialism is one of them. Also you are still evading discussion, saying libertarianism is illogical doesn't make it so.
>>24
Repeating what you know wrong doesn't make it true, socialism and etatism are two completely different things as it has been repeated countless times and even though it is an obvious thing anyone should know even gallons of sources proving your delusions wrong were provided, yet you STILL keep repeating the same thing, I can't honestly believe in the existence of such a monumentally stupid and ignorant person. Additionally, the faults of libertarianism were discussed in the preceding thread, in which you replied to a similar manner - ignoring facts, repeating the bullshit someone made you memorize.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-27 7:00
>>"5
Strawman pls.
state socialism ≠ statism
While I don't expect you to disprove everything I've said, you could at least provide an example of one issue you have supposedly disproven me on.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-27 7:06
>>26
You're still at it aren't you? I'm genuinely sick of your conscious denial. Yeah, yeah, bush is socialist along with everyone else except anarchist communists, you're soo right, starting from your fundemental delusions going to what you think is keynesianism and socialism, indeed there was not a single instance you proved yourself to be completely retarded and ignorant with hundreds of fucking posts from countless people completely cited disproved your retardation in the previous thread, you are in no way denying this...
Enjoy your retardatio-ahem, I meant brilliance. You can now leave the thread.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-27 7:30
Hey guise, what going on in this thread?
If you refer to stuff posted in the previous thread, could you post a link or cite it or something?
>>30
Of course, you win, and in no way you have ignored gallons of contradicting proof when given because you are a completely retarded organism who thinks free speech is repeating factually wrong bullshit. Bush is socialist, right.
I have more valuable things to do with my time to show how pathetically retarded you are dozens more times again, because simply you don't even have the capacity to understand you're wrong, defying all logic. So, why not get a tripcode or something so that intelligent people can ignore your perpetual whining?
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-27 14:14
>>28
here's a summary of the last part http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/1180954230/836
following that is ~200 posts of the same retard mentioned there repeating claiming bush is socialist by making up definitions, and ensuing ownage.
>>32
All right, so I read up the whole up and this is what I have to say:
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
It startet off with some story that you later labeled as: [...] example of free market failing [...]
The other guy just bought it without questioning what exactly was the the market failure there (spoilers: there wasn't. macs suck not because of intel or microsoft, stupid macfag troofer. gb2bed steve jobs) and goes on about something completely irrelevant because he doesn't know enough about libertarianism.
From there it goes:
you: YOU'RE STUPID! (+every odd post) END OF DISCUSSION!
he: NO YOUR STOOPID!
For doing this for about 2 months both of you deserve the title "Master of Stuidity".
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-27 15:57
>>34
Are you retarded? The only thing you know about RISC processing is intel/microsoft you fucking idiot? RISC being superior to CISC is a solid fact, and even intel and AMD today, marketers of x86 CPU's are trying to get away from CISC via translation as CISC instructions are horrible to deal with during compiler design and it was made pretty much obsolete with pipelining, and what you did was unfortunately only exposing your own ignorance on the subject. So now that you know this, try again.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-27 15:58
>>34
also, macs use intel processors, so there's your doublefail
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-27 16:12
>>35 >>36
Apperently you don't know as much about computers as you'd like to.
Since there're only two people who read this thread regularly and neither of which has a past in computer science I'll save me the trouble to tell you where you fucked up.
Enjoy being reminded of your fail today years later when you're in college.
Indeed, *this* is not really up to debate, history has proven the RISC approach right, and you proved yourself as ignorant on the subject not only by claiming CISC is better, but also by thinking RISC nowadays is related with macfaggotry in some way. So unless you want to span hundreds of posts of denial of facts, similar to BUSH IS SOCIALIST bullshit we examined earlier, I suggest you to move on.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-27 16:26
>>39
Then you must really be in a shitty program for being this retarded on the subject. I know that CS programs generally don't deal with processor design, but you should know something this simple.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-27 16:33
>>40 >>41
We're now 3 people reading this thread.
It's you, the other guy who hates you, and I.
And knowing this you try eristics on me? What the fuck?
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-27 16:34
>>42
Are you still claiming CISC is better, or are you going to prove yourself more intelligent than the other faggot?
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-27 16:42
>>43
You're an interesting fellow, but I'm not quite convinced yet.
How about you prove that your style doesn't stem from ignorance and I back off?
But don't be too subtle.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-27 16:48
>>44
You claimed CISC was better, which was plain out wrong, and when informed about your failure you resort to meaningless bullshit. But hey, at least you aren't explicitly repeating NO CISC IS BETTER BECAUSE I DEFINE IT TO BE BETTER REGARDLESS OF ALL CONTRADICTING EVIDENCE, which at least shows you to be a person capable of conscious thought, congratulations.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-27 16:53
>>45
Still not convinced but if you are what I think you are why are you wasting your time bashing libertarians?
Are you a commie or something?
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-27 16:55
>>46
Why aren't you being convinced by solid facts, which I not only told you but also gave sources, and are throwing around stupid accusations repeatedly? Are you a libertarian or something?
>>49
Doesn't quite answer the question but I'll just wait and observe.
My guess is that you don't know either.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-27 17:11
>>50
It doesn't answer your question? What were you trying to do when you jumped on with false claims, that's a better point to start off...
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-27 17:18
>>51
The way you do it I had the impression that it's just for fun and not because of politics.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-27 17:19
>>52
Could be, but I support truth while I'm at it
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-27 17:32
>>53
And the truth is not subject to debate, amirite? At least not on the interwebs?
I'd be a hypocrite if I were to criticise that but that means we're not going to become friends after all.
Kudos for your endurance though.
>>54
Truth isn't subject to debate in several fields. But hey, this discussion was far more productive than the ongoing BUSH IS COMMIE one, in the sense that a subject actually completely irrelevant to the topic and the board became known.
Wow, I see a lot of people bashing others just because they associated the same idea with a different word, etatism? socialism? The basic idea is that the government is taking on the majority of our responsibilities and not holding us liable. But in the same thread they threaten us by saying we will give them back to you no problem, but the problem is that it would be too overwhelming to do everything at once. What ever name you call it, it's tyranny! It's more like totalitarianism than anything else. Yeah, there are little things here and there, but the overall picture. We are completely out of control of our own lives and THEY KNOW IT; we barely grasp it. It scared the everliving shit out of me when I understood that I was dealing with the same treatment in my own HOME! FROM MY OWN PARENTS! JEEZ! It's everywhere, but I couldn't see the forest on account of being surrounded and overwhelmed by so many god damned trees. It's like the Vietnamese Jungle here! But, thankfully some skilled individuals came up with "The Art of War" and "Chaos Theory" and "The Bill of Rights", thank God someone was paying attention cause I sure wasn't!
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-28 2:41
>>31 >>32 >>33 >>34
You keep saying there is gallons of proof but never post any. I already explained why I consider Bush to be socialist but you have been fixating on "bush is socialist" instead of the explanation so I guess there is no point in me repeating it for the 8th time.
Perhaps in another time and place you would be able to make me shut up and I would be unable to point out your logical fallacies, but this is America. Sorry.
http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/1180954230/836
Does not sum up the thread, it sums up the collapse of your ideals when confronted to the idea that state socialism is as much of a negative force as crony capitalism.
This is the full picture. http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/1180954230/827-834
As can be seen I explained why I believed the Bush administration was socialist, because most of the policies I disagreed with were/are socialist in nature.
>If I were to list my disagreements with his domestic policies it would consist mainly of excessive taxation and unnecessary regulation all in the name of benefitting the people. That said many republicans themsleves are suprised to hear themselves being called socialist even though they agree with me on the same points. Semantics? Or perhaps I am the only one willing to use that dirty word? You decide.
>>57
Now we learn that the retard is unable to read aswell. It has been repeatedly stated that your definition of socialism is utterly and totally wrong, and cited texts etc. etc. were all posted, none of which were you able to comprehend with your meager mental capabilities. And now here you are repeating BUSH IS SOCIALIST BECAUSE I HAVE A TOTALLY RIDICULOUS DEFINITION OF SOCIALIST WHICH ONLY I AND MAYBE TEN OTHER RETARDS ON THE WHOLE GLOBE HOLD. As you can see, you are repeating the same bullshit and denying evidence again and again and again, and for what, really? Do you feel better about your retardation by repeating things that are so obviously wrong? Very, very pathetic and sad.
>>57
Also, it's funny because the posts you cited only prove how delusional you are, as you have been repeating the same retarded crap from that point on even though the cited posts explicitly tell why you fail, but it seems that you were incapable of grasping that too.
Enjoy your DERP DERP DERP DERP STAYT SOSHALIST KROOONY KAPITALIST DERP DERP DERP WHY DON'T I KNOW ANYTHING AND REPEAT RETARDED THINGS LIKE A PARROT? DERP DERP DERP
>>58 >>59 >>60 Here is my explanation.
"Socialism is the belief that the economy should be run by the people, most socialists believe this ought to be done through state control of the economy. I believe this is an awful mistake because it circumvents economic freedom, is inefficient since it ignores the invisible hand of the free market and makes corruption extremely easy."
And the Dictionary's...
"a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."
The jump from "community" to "people" and "means of production" to "economy" isn't exactly that far. You seriously need to start agreeing with me before you embaress yourself further.
And likewise, fuck face, you fail to point out that the Government is under the control of the Federal Reserve, a private institution, via the loan of the national deficit coming out of our pockets as inflation and visible by price hikes as well as paying off the national deficit via Federal Income Tax. Just wait until May when we will have the voluntary compliant choice of inserting under our skin an RFID chip, We will all be poor pathetic human animals once again thanks to our fellow man. Thank you all for your tyranny, we mire ourselves in our own wealth of propriatary illusions and solitude. What do you think movies, music, and merchandise really are? You can't wear them to protect yourself from the environment. You can't eat them. You can't feel safe using the scrap of plastics and papers as weapons and shields. We are soooo fucked.
And your definition obviously does not make bush socialist, but you are too retarded to comprehend this too. Enjoy your perpetual whining.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-29 3:42
HAY GUYS, I HERD BUSH WAS A SOSHALIST, MOVING FOR COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP, GIVING UNION RIGHTS OUT, GIVING COMMUNAL OWNERSHIP TO LARGE CORPORATIONS, INCREASING THE TAXING OF THE RICH AND LOWERING THAT OF THE LOWER AND MIDDLE CLASSES
WHAT, HE DID NONE OF THOSE AND HE JUST SPEND THE MONEY ON A WAR AND SOME RETARD THOUGHT THAT WAS SOCIALISM BECAUSE HE DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING? NO, NO THAT CAN'T HAPPEN
>>63
anarchist communism is capitalist then, right? retard.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-29 4:51
>>63
Onoz im a cuntface. Also "social organization" is a category of organization not a type of organization, the Indian caste system for instance is a forms of social organization. Furthermore Bush believes that his administration is a bureaucracy that represents the people which fulfils the "community" criteria of the definition of socialism. >>64
The federal reserve is a "private" in the same way North Korea is a "people's republic". It is a state monopoly over the US's currency which uses it's legal status to stamp out competition. http://www.usmint.gov/pressroom/index.cfm?flash=yes&action=press_release&id=710 http://www.usmint.gov/consumer/index.cfm?action=HotItems
Bear in mind the liberty dollar organization never claimed it's currency was legal tender. http://www.rabidquill.com/?p=17 >>65
What part of "Also" don't you understand? >>66
*yawn*
0/10, come up with something new
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-29 5:17
>>68
More of EVERYTHING IS SOCIALIST BECAUSE I'M RETARDED stuff. His isn't capable of holding much data, so he labels himself as LIBERTARYAN and anyone not anarchistic SOCIALIST, even though there are socialist and non-statist things, but that's too much for his meager mental capabilities.
Name:
Anonymous2008-04-29 5:31
>>69
You will be needing to point out where it was said that socialism and organizations outside the state are mutually exclusive in order for your argument to be valid.
>>70
The problem is, retard, you claimed bush was socialist because he was statist you fucking moron.
I did see communists and socialists get grouped together. Than social democrats joined them. After that, retarded Americans grouped liberals with them too, and now the pathetically retarded declare everyone not libertarian "socialist", even george fucking bush, because clearly their brain doesn't have the capacity beyond simple bifurcated classification. What's even sadder is, that these retards cling on to their delusions no matter what is the truth. They should put this retard on a documentary, on how he manages to stop at red lights and maybe even graduate despite having such a pathetically tiny mind that works on the simplest Aristotelean logic chains.
>>73
So libertarianism isn't EVERYONE IS SOCIALIST BUT ME, AND I'M RIGHT BECAUSE SOCIALISM IS BAD! I WIN, I WI-WHY ARE YOU POINTING AND LAUGHING, IDIOTS? IS IT BECAUSE YOU'RE SO OWNED?
Thanks a lot, captain obvious.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-08 4:05
The main reason people accept statism is because they believe it is socialist. You are free to be socialist under a libertarian administration, you are just not allowed to use the state to force it on other people.
>>79
I think you should admit your failure before crying about irrelevant stuff, like in >>75 which doesn't make any sense, of course, to educated people.
In before more denial.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-09 14:57
>>80
What is so difficult to understand about the fact that the socialist ideal has been used profusely throughout history to justify increasing the state's power over a country?
>>81
And, that somehow makes socialism statism, and the states with even the most minimal state intervention socialist, regardless of everything that defines socialism, because the retarded kid here made his own definiton.
The primitive logic chains you form are hilarious.
>>83
Neither did I claim that you did, however, again you don't have the intelligence to understand even a simple post explaining what you have spurted out, or are trying to waste time again. The matter of the fact is you declared bush etc. as socialist as I described in >>82. You may continue with your denial of facts now.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-13 1:53
Put down Ayn Rand and take an actual political science/philosophy class.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-13 10:19
>>84
>Neither did I claim that you did
Yes you did. In post >>84 you said...
>The matter of the fact is you declared bush etc. as socialist as I described in >>82.
Insufficient proof. Link to where I stated clearly I believe "All of Bush's policies are socialist, Bush believes in complete state control over the economy.". >>85
Ayn Rand was an anarcho-capitalist. Anarchy and capitalism are mystical ideals that stem from marxism along with other fantasies such as socialism and communism.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-13 14:14
>>86
Even with a complete clarification, you still can close your eyes and cry. I'm astounded by your capabilities. You said "Bush is socialist", and were owned, and now you are trying to run away from your failure in a hilarious way, as I described in >>83. Keep up with the good work, retard. You are showing the world how people with no knowledge over anything can go to insane lengths to defend their "views".
Also, lol a fucking retarded LIBERTARIAN crying about anarcho-capitalism, and even more funnily, crying about "fantasies". But of course you should ignore this portion of the post, as your tiny brain can't see the irony in this. If you could, you wouldn't have such an extremely retarded view of the world, would you?
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-13 15:39
>>86
Rand pretty much holds your ideology, accusing everything to be actually socialist. Her followers also deny the existence of Sputnik, which is a nice twist from those who don't believe in the moon landing. Anarcho-capitalism is to libertarianism as Anarchist-communism is to libertarian socialism.
I'll be back when you take those classes.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-14 4:59
>>87 >>88
In post >>84 you said
>Neither did I claim that you did
Which was contradicted in the next sentence
>The matter of the fact is you declared bush etc. as socialist as I described in >>82.
You are fixating on 3 words which you are taking out of context. Insufficient proof. Link to where I stated clearly I believe "All of Bush's policies are socialist, Bush believes in complete state control over the economy." to prove me wrong.
Also that "CRY HARDER" shit is getting old. If I had an emotional connection to this discussion I'd fill up my posts with useless name calling.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-14 6:18
>>89
Unfortunately, your denial is not at all logical, therefore it is a fact that you are a butthurt retard crying, and there is no name-calling, all the adjectives I have laid on you stem from your views which declare you to be retarded.
You have said bush was socialist, and then cried about HE ISN'T KOMPLETELY SOSHALIST. This is natural from a retard of your proportions, but as I have explained, bush doesn't have ANY socialist policies, and even if etatism was socialism like your retarded mind thought, even still he wouldn't be socialist simply because being a knuckle-dragging right-winger and having one "socialist" policy wouldn't make him socialist, hence my commentary about how your pathetic mind divided things initially as SOSHALIST and LIBERTARYAN and then added a percentage value to SOSHALIST after the very long ownage.
Not to mention, I still have to see how you are going to perfom your retarded apologetics on libertarian socialism/anarchist communism. It is always fun to see a retard drooling trying to counter the truth with his delusions.
To sum up keep crying, retarded loser. Enjoy not having any knowledge or intelligence, and spending your time fighting facts because you are an indoctrinated idiot.
>>90
Let's look at the points you have made without the name calling presumably motivated by your shock at the libertarian idea that socialism is being used to justify crony capitalist and state socialist policies.
1: I am calling you names because of your views.
Yes, you are. When you back them up with fact maybe your words will carry more weight. 2: You said "bush is a socialist" and your explanation that you are aware he is not completely socialist is crying.
So every time I provide an argument it is crying and means I am a retard, that's odd. Maybe you should disprove me first. 3: Bush doesn't have any socialist policies.
Well go back to >>61 and instead of calling me names actually disprove me. Also answer the question posited in >>77. Assuming it was you I was talking to you. You are not the first extremist I have happened across. 4: Having one socialist policy does not make Bush a socialist.
So how many socialist policies does one need? I guess you don't consider Bush a socialist and Bush is a socialist by my standards, but that's just semantics. Empirically we both agree he has some policies which correlate with socialist principles, it is merely my argument that such policies are problematic. Why is this a crime? Surely someone with such contempt for the W would approve of criticism of him. 5: You are being apologetic
I fail to see the relevance of whether I am apologetic or not?
Does it matter what my motivation is? What matters is whether my assertions can be proven in logical debate or not. You seem to care more about my motivation and emotional state than the arguments at hand. Perhaps you should study libertarian political philosophy now.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-15 11:19
>>92
The only point you have made, is that a retard, such as yourself, will repeat what he is told even if disproven, because he doesn't have the capacity to judge whether it is true or not. I couldn't have asked for a more obvious example than a moron repeating BUSH IS SOCIALSIT BECAUSE IT IS SO IN MY IMAGINARY DEFINITIONS WORLD LIBERTARYANIZM DERP DERP DERP DERP, making the globe facepalm.
Once again, the retard cries about his personal delusions, with no facts at all. My only shock is that there is a person in this planet who can believe something this retarded. We also see that the retard has ignored the points made, and made up irrelevant points to answer, but I won't push on this as he simply doesn't have the capacity to understand simple English. Let's see how the retard fared with his butthurt defense;
1-Irony, etc. A person crying about "BUSH IZ SOSHALIST" is talking about facts.
2-You have been disproven repeatedly, but as I stated, you are too retarded to realize this. You keep ignoring the truth.
3-You still think statism is socialism, which I have said stems from your retardation. Come back when you learn what socialism is.
4-As repeatedly stated, your standards mean nothing since you are an uneducated retard. Bush isn't a socialist, and pretty much everyone in this globe knows this, yet you can classify a far right leader as socialist, this isn't a crime, it's just stupid and funny. Your insistence at this obviously wrong statement however, is pathetic.
5-You fail at seeing something? I can't believe it!
What matters is, you are still repeating your disproven delusions, as an example of how a moron can defend his views to death, defying all logic and reason. Maybe you should study anything so the things you say aren't spoon-fed bullshit with no relevance to truth, exposing you as an uneducated idiot. And funnily, you should know that while most libertarians are idiotic kids running around RON PAWL RON PAWL under influence of viral marketing, even they are better at this than you.
As you see, you are butthurt from "name calling", because clearly there is a truth behind all this. Take your time, but please, at least bother to find different things next time. I know you aren't capable of much conscious thought, but at least you should stop repeating the same retarded bullshit.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-15 14:13
>My only shock is that there is a person in this planet who can believe something this retarded.
No, in Turkey we have a guy who says everyone else is secretly socialist. His other well-known opinion is that offside should be removed from football. Needless to say, no one takes him seriously, and during elections his party tends to receive the least amount of votes (which is not much, as there are hundreds of parties here). But that, apparently, is a communist conspiracy against him.
>>92
YOU'RE A RETARD, YOU'RE A DERP DERP DERP DERP YOU'RE A POO POO HEAD BRAIN
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-15 14:21
>>94
So anyone who thinks socialism isn't a good idea is instantly like this one guy from turkey who thinks boogeymen are out to get him. I guess you have every right to ignore everything I say, you're never wrong, you're special and if anyone disproves you they are RETARDAD DERP DERP DERP.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-15 15:27
>>96
I think that the post meant that saying everyone was socialist was stupid, but congratulations on understanding "everyone must say socialism is a good idea" from that post. But, of course, that isn't a bit surprising as you are an organism which is capable of making the aforementioned retarded claim, which, on this earth, only you and a moron from Turkey does. And of course, since the things you say range from "LESS STAYT CONTROL WILL BRING PARADISE ON EARTH, MAGIC PIXIES AND INVISIBLE HAND" to "DERP DERP BUSH IS SOCIALIST DERP DERP", if you could think for a while, you could see why you should be ignored...
>>95
Now we see, the butthurt retard ran out of crying material about how he was owned with logic and reason, and now exposes his low intelligence with posts like this. Funny thing is, this post isn't nearly as sad as the posts he tried to argue seriously.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-16 6:19
>>97
WHAT DO U MEAN, IM JUST SAYING THAT LIBERTARYANISM IS STUPAD
AHAHAHAHHAHA DERP DERP DERP STATE CONTROLS OVER THE ECONOMY CAUSE INEFFICIENCY AND CRONYISM BBAAAWWWW WHAT A FAGGOT HE IS FOR THINKING THESE THINGS!
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-16 14:50
>>98
It's nice to see that after severe ownage you ran out of material to cry with, but even at your pathetic attempt to emulate how your retardation was exposed again and again, making you this butthurt, unfortunately you still repeat the things that have shown how retarded you were in the same wording. But I think that is because your 'political knowledge' is actually a series of strings someone made you memorize 'KROOOONYIZM!!!!' 'x IS SOSHALIST!!!!' and 'DAT IS INEFFISHUNT!!!!! LESS STAYT KONROOLL!!!!'. Regardless of the subject, you repeat these. Nice, but people with brains are trying to discuss things, and you are blocking the way. Come back when you have the capacity to respond with valid arguments.
BUUUHHHH, IM A LIBERTARYAN I BELIEVE THAT STAYT CONTRAL OVAR TEH IKONOMI IZ WONG, BUUUUUHHH THAT MAKES ME STUPID DERP DER PDERP
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-17 5:19
>>99
>Come back when you have the capacity to respond with valid arguments.
If that's what you believe then go back to >>61 and answer the question posited in >>77 instead of calling me names actually disprove me. Also >>104 is not much different from any of your typical responses. If they are conditionned responses with no thought behind them you should be able to disprove them concisely without tomes of DERPS and other garble.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-17 9:04
>>105
Too bad you were already owned repeatedly in this thread and the preceding thread about how your retarded definition was so fucking wrong. >>104 is actually a more intelligent post than that. Enjoy.
If you want examples to look at and cry, see http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/1180954230/836. You haven't made any way since then, but you may look at http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/1180954230/881-920 for a series of definitions owning you, and you crying, incapable of responding with factual arguments. That is natural since BUSH IS SOSHALIST is your personal delusion with no connection to facts. Also, you may see that your pathetic mind wasn't able to answer posts in this thread as well, again because you are so fucking wrong. You may look at any of >>71>>58>>8>>25>>82>>87>>90>>97 etc. if you want to cry more.
Also notice how your retarded mind wasn't able to answer any posts about anarchist communism, libertarian socialism, or even this very simple graph . This, naturally, is because your apologetics which you use to hide your retardation (albeit very unsuccessfully) are inefficient facing facts.
But, since you are a retard which ignored the truth once before, I'm not expecting different result. You may cry about HE'S KALLIN MEH NAMEZ!!!! HOW DID HE KNOW I WAS RETARDED BAWWWWWWWWWWW, and of course with your new hobby >>104
which exposes the fact that you couldn't even understand the logic behind a simple form which apparently made you cry so that you are trying to do it yourself, you tried to copy it hoping that it would invoke the same effect it invoked on you. Unfortunately, without real content, it just serves as another testament to your retardation, showing that you didn't understand even those.
DERP DERP DERP I'M A RETARDED UNEDUCATED KID WHO WAS TOLD SOSHALIZM WAS EEVIL SO I CALL PEOPLE I DUN LIEK SOSHALIST, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY ARE ORN OT!! DEFINITIONZ? WHO KARES, I MAKE UP MY OWN DEFINITIONS, WHO CARES ABOUT DA TRUTH, THE REAL WORLD IS SCARY AND TOO COMPLEX FOR MY MEAGER MENTAL CAPABILITIES, SOSHIALIZM, STATISM, TAXES, ECONOMY, SERVICE... TOO COMPLEX FOR ME I'LL JUST CALL TEM ALL ONE THING! LIVING IN IMAGINATIONLAND FTW!!! SUCK IT, FAGS WHO SAID I COULDN'T UNDERSTAND ANYTHING, I CAN UNDERSTAND IT IF I MAKE UP THINGS MYSELF, AND IGNORE TRUTH AND CONTRADICTING EVIDANS!!
WHY ARE YOU STILL POINTING AND LAUGHING?? BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-17 9:18
>>106
I can't be botherred to respond to you anymore if you are going to use terms such as "cry more" for the 800th time. Sorry.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-17 9:27
>>108
Nice excuse to run away from ownage, though I would have expected you to ignore the arguments more indirectly, given your record. I shouldn't have really bothered to respond to you after you used terms like KROONYIZM, or repeated sentences such as BUSH IS LEFT-WING SOCIALIST, which proved your ignorance. And oh, I forgot to repost the graph placing Bush on far right, but if you want you can find it a few posts above.
Until then, resume your crying.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-17 13:21
>>109
Sorry but you have depleted my care reserves. I will now only respond to a series of facts and reasonings based on those facts.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-17 17:15
>>110
That's funny, because you couldn't answer to any facts before, why the sudden change? If you are so willing, why not go back to >>106 where I made a summary exposing how ridiculous and far away from facts your "opinions" were? Oh wait, you simply can't, because they are irrefutable facts, unlike your X IS SOSHALIST and assorted whining. Well then, go back to crying.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-19 0:27
>>111
Actually it's your call. You've depleted my care reserves so there is nothing I can do until you go back to >>106, copy paste it into the reply box, proof read, delete all the name calling and click reply.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-19 8:12
>>112
Thanks for proving me right once again, by showing your inability to respond to factual arguments once again.
And then, after doing such things, you cry about NAEM KALLEN. It is clear that all the adjectives I laid on you stem from careful observations about your uneducated whining, and the fact that you're severely butthurt about this, to the degree you're now utilizing this as an excuse to run away from your ownage, shows how much truth it has. So, keep up with the crying. Who else is SOSHALIST now?
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-28 11:19
http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/1211470169/21
By reducing state interference in the economy to that which is necessary to enforce justice, by preserving property law and business agreements, the framework necessary for people to utilise their economics and business management skills without impediment is achieved. How efficient they are as a consumer, employee and/or manager is another matter.
>My only constellation
>retarded losers with clearly no education
>>116
It is wishful thinking that REMOVIN STAYT FROM EKONOMAH will magically bring you more freedoms, and all the problems that are stated theoretically and proven historically about capitalism will magically disappear aswell, but since you're a retard with no reading comprehension who believes in such delusional crap I shouldn't have expected you to understand this simple point.
>>116
Also, lol@retarded American INVOKAN PATRIYOTIZM sentence. The sadder thing is, of course, that the retard doesn't even understand how pathetic his sequence of irrelevant weasel words are.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-30 1:35
>>117
As has already been explained here >>114, libertarianism is about providing the freedom necessary for people to utilise their skills in the free market. State capitalism is flawed, but there is nothing wrong with the free market. >>118
What's wrong with patriotism and national self-determination? The ideals in the past that people have fought for and became a reality are about freedom, those which do not succeed consist of volumes of ideology which intrude on every aspect of life. Whether it's islamic extremism or some other religion like socialism, totalitarianist ideals always leads to a military dictatorship.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-30 8:08
>>119
You have a brilliant style, to a post saying all your posts are misinformed bullshit with weasel words and no substance, you respond with more weasal words and more crying with no connection to facts. To a post laughing at sterotypical retarded "FOR DA KUNTRY!!!!" crying, you really respond with a post defending crying meaninglessly FOR DOZE WHO FOUGHT FOR FREEDUHM!!!!! ALSO, SOOOSHALISTS!!!! Which pretty much proves your retardation is genuine.
In other news, one has to be genuinely retarded to believe that free markets will bring freedom to the masses, as it contradicts with pretty much everything economics and history has proven so far, but a retarded libertarian naturally doesn't know about these, and thinks his pathetic system to make the rich richer is the antithesis to state capitalism.
Name:
Anonymous2008-05-30 9:21
>>120
You cannot accuse me of using weasel words when you talk of "freedom to the masses" which is an ambiguous term that could mean anything from tyranny of the majority to absolute economic freedom. You will need to be specific.
>>121
As in, freedom [as in personal freedoms, not FREE MARKUTS!!!!] not for the select-few percentage but for everyone. That's a clearly understandable phrase, which your ideology can only respond with the weasal words you cried yourself. So please, proceed with your sequence of ignorance and delusional drooling. It serves as a nice example to show what the average LIBERTARYAN is like, you know, people so retarded that they cry BUSH IZ LEFT-WING SOSHALIST!!!
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-01 3:03
>>122
Under libertarianism all have complete personal freedoms. You are permitted to be a transexual prostitute for instance, which I assume is your primary issue of concern.
>>123
Yes, a niger working for minimum wage (which would disappear/be far lower in a LIBERTARYAN world) will be equally free with a multi-billionaire, right? right??
I think even someone as retarded as you should've been able to see this simple contradiction of the ideology you cry about endlessly.
Name:
Libertaryan2008-06-01 8:15
>>124
No it will be alright because when STAYT is gone MARKET FORSAZ will magically make everything alright. You don't have to think about problems, that are dictated to occur by logic, history or economic theory because they will just be gone like that. This is why LIBERTARYANIZM is such a good ideology for uneducated retards who don't understand such issues in the first place - they're going to be magically gone!!!
Name:
SOSHALIST2008-06-01 9:18
>>126
Because obviously the STAYT will magically fix every problem MARKET FORSAZ can't.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-01 11:41
>>126
Aww look, the poor unoriginal retard tries to copy the style that owned him once again, and fails once again aswell, because his retarded mind doesn't understand that statism != socialism, despite being told countless times. Enjoy your retardation, buddy.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-01 11:41
>>126
The state exists, DA INVISIBAL HAND is something like fairies, or god.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-01 12:29
>>126
You can have socialism without state, you can't have LIBERTARYANIZM without FREE MARKATS.
Market forces are merely the application of the laws of supply and demand. Why are you so fearful of them? Because you do not supply any goods or services to the economy? Perhaps you should try working harder instead of whining harder!
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-03 16:31
>>131
Instead of crying about imaginary MARKET FORSAZ WILL FIX EVERYTHING!!! you should learn a thing or two, maybe then you won't look as retarded, and won't have to cry like this after every factual argument exposes your ignorance, since if you knew a thing or two you wouldn't be owned so hard.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-04 11:33
>>132
The bulk of your trolls overwhelmingly consists of telling people they are crying which suggests reaction formation. Furthermore you exclusively troll people you believe are stormfags or secretly racist, which can only mean you actually care about the issue at hand. If you were a true troll who didn't care about the issue he is trolling you would troll multiple issues, considerring the volume of text you put in to trolling it appears to me you are severely "butthurt" by these stormfags.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-04 12:28
>>133
Prime example of an incapable retard crying.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-05 1:45
>>134
The bulk of your trolls overwhelmingly consists of telling people they are crying which suggests reaction formation. Furthermore you exclusively troll people you believe are stormfags or secretly racist, which can only mean you actually care about the issue at hand. If you were a true troll who does not care about the issue he is trolling you would troll multiple issues, considerring the volume of text you put into trolling it appears to me you are severely "butthurt" by these stormfags.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-05 9:17
Clearly, the retarded libertarians are now acknowledging their perpetual ownage, hence their new-found way of crying.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-05 14:01
>>136
>new-found way of crying.
You're like clockwork.
The bulk of your trolls overwhelmingly consists of telling people they are crying which suggests reaction formation. Furthermore you exclusively troll people you believe are stormfags or secretly racist, which can only mean you actually care about the issue at hand. If you were a true troll who does not care about the issue he is trolling you would troll multiple issues, considerring the volume of text you put into trolling it appears to me you are severely "butthurt" by these stormfags.
>>137
Said the retard copy-pasting a wall of text exposing his retardation, and is posting naturally because his "arguments" were owned so much he figured it doesn't make any difference.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-06 16:27
Try posting something without using the words "cry", "retard" and "butthurt".
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-06 19:48
>>139
Try posting something with facts, and not post of denial exposing your retardation, and then get butthurt and cry after getting owned. I know you aren't bright enough to understand, but all those words are there for a reason, my epically retarded friend. You should think for a second before crying BAWW AD HOMINEM right after you screamed BUSH IS LEFT-WING SOCIALIST. I hope despite your retardation you'll understand at least your own condition one day, though for you understanding politics and economics is clearly a long shot.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-07 11:48
>>140
But I have already posted facts, many. For instance this exerpt from >>61.
***
Here is my explanation.
"Socialism is the belief that the economy should be run by the people, most socialists believe this ought to be done through state control of the economy. I believe this is an awful mistake because it circumvents economic freedom, is inefficient since it ignores the invisible hand of the free market and makes corruption extremely easy."
And the Dictionary's...
"a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."
The jump from "community" to "people" and "means of production" to "economy" isn't exactly that far. You seriously need to start agreeing with me before you embaress yourself further.
***
You gave no counter-argument to this.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-07 14:41
>>141
How many times do I have to tell you - repeating disproven retardation again and again doesn't make it true, and countless counter-arguments completely disproving your delusions were given, but I wonder why you ignored them? Probably the same reason why you have such retarded beliefs in the first place.
Let's see how many times you managed to expose your ignorance in this one post (though it doesn't really matter, since this isn't anything new for you)
Firstly, your "definition" includes a part "I TINK DIS IZ AWFUL!!! which is the first time I'm ever seeing in a "definition", but then again, you're a retard so I'll let this pass along with your complete inability to spell properly. And also, your personal delusions are very funny in this regard due to MAGIK INVISIBLE HAND and crying about corruption when you're proposing to leave everything to magically produce the best result possible, but with such tiny mind I see that you can't notice the fallacies.
But, saying COMMUNITY=PEOPLE=STAYT and then saying anything perpetrating statism is socialist, is retarded beyond any measure. How is Anarchist-Communism not socialist, my retarded friend? How is libertarian socialism capitalist in your tiny mind? And the fact that you equate means of production with economy yet once fucking more shows you know nothing about economy. Do you want me to continue with all these arguments I've posted before to your delusional crap and never once you were able to answer?
As you can see, arguing with delusions against reality is a tough job, but with an adequate amount of stupidity you have managed to deny truth so far. With that puny intelligence, I assume you'll continue to embarrass yourself for a long, long time. Keep crying BUSH IZ LEFT-WING SOSHALIST.
You cannot have an opinion without having knowledge. This retard is the proof.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-07 15:50
>>142 You cannot have an opinion without having knowledge. This retard is the proof.
Truer words were never spoken. You failed to make a single non-fallacious point in the entire wall of text.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-07 17:07
>>142
I have decided to completely ignore all arguments which contain the words "butthurt", "retard" and "cry" or ad hominem statements. When you repeat your entire argument without such things I will reply.
Sorry.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-07 17:57
>>143
Why not point out the fallacies instead of crying? Oh wait, you can't because they are fucking facts.
>>144
Finally, the retard acknowledges that he can't cry more against truth. The arguments here were posted several other times, and you ignored them again and again with many stupid excuses. Calling you retarded isn't a personal attack, it's the truth because no one else could believe Bush could be socialist.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-07 19:34
>>145
I have decided to completely ignore all arguments which contain the words "butthurt", "retard" and "cry" or ad hominem statements. When you repeat your entire argument without such things I will reply.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-07 19:37
>>146
Sorry, buddy - as I said your retardation is a fact, and these arguments have been posted before AND you failed to answer them then too, but you didn't cite BAWW UR HURTAN MAH FEELINGS then. Clearly your retarded mind couldn't come up with a creative way to sidestep truth this time, hence your newfound way of crying. Keep it up, tubbo.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-07 19:39
>>147
I have decided to completely ignore all arguments which contain the words "butthurt", "retard" and "cry" or ad hominem statements. When you repeat your entire argument without such things I will reply.
Sorry, buddy - as I said your retardation is a fact, and these arguments have been posted before AND you failed to answer them then too, but you didn't cite BAWW UR HURTAN MAH FEELINGS then. Clearly your retarded mind couldn't come up with a creative way to sidestep truth this time, hence your newfound way of crying. Keep it up, tubbo.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-08 2:20
>>149
I have decided to completely ignore all arguments which contain the words "butthurt", "retard" and "cry" or ad hominem statements. When you repeat your entire argument without such things I will reply.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-08 7:51
>>150
Still running away from ownage, eh, retarded loser? Come back when you have the mental capacity to answer.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-08 14:38
>>151
When you repeat your entire argument without the words "butthurt", "retard", "cry" and other ad hominem statements I will reply.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-08 15:25
>>152
That doesn't explain why you didn't answer them when they were posted before, then you hadn't found a way of running away like UR HURTAN MAH FEELINGS!!!
Sorry retard, unlike you I don't deny truth, and your retardation is a solid fact proven again and again, not only by your extremely stupid delusions, but also by your complete inability to comprehend.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-09 1:15
>>153
When you repeat your entire argument without the words "butthurt", "retard", "cry" and other ad hominem statements I will reply.
That doesn't explain why you didn't answer them when they were posted before, then you hadn't found a way of running away like UR HURTAN MAH FEELINGS!!!
Sorry retard, unlike you I don't deny truth, and your retardation is a solid fact proven again and again, not only by your extremely stupid delusions, but also by your complete inability to comprehend.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-09 9:18
>>156
When you repeat your entire argument without the words "butthurt", "retard", "cry" and other ad hominem statements I will reply.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-09 9:25
>>37 >>155
Microsoft isn't stifling competition, it is based largely on research and development which is an investment in which returns are proportional to the total deposit. Also if their research had no value their temporary near-monopoly wouldn't be such a big deal would it? Compare today with 10 years ago, integrated circuits are literally ricocheting off the walls and crawling out of people's assholes while they're asleep and mac has a cult following even though it's a pretty shitty OS, if microsoft's intention was to monopolised all computers everywhere all the time they certainly have not succeeded.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-09 9:25
Investment value is proportional to the total deposit rather.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-09 9:39
>>158
How can you read the entire thread from the very beginnig and yet completely miss the resolution of that conversation?
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-09 12:19
>>158
If RISC/CISC means Microsoft/Apple to you, then you should just shut up - just like people who think socialism is statism.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-09 23:32
how does a person claiming bush is a socialist make libertarianism bunk?
I don't see bush as a socialist, I am not american and I don;t follow american politics close enough to know bush's stance on every issue. I do know that he was responsible for various tax cuts and is generally opposed to big government. On the other hand, fighting a war in iraq is not a libertarian act. Does communism tend towards war, I would say yes on the grounds that communism is usually statist. Of course, communism is not necessarily statist so pursuing acts of war does not make one a communist.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-10 14:31
>>162
Thanks for the post with no substance. That retard makes libertarianism "bunk" because he stands as a testament to how deluded and stupid the average libertarian can be, however that doesn't really fail libertarianism, it's theory is there for that job.
Also, communism can't be STAYTIST because there is no state in communism - that's socialism. But luckily you saved yourself from epic failure with the last sentence.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-10 15:10
>>162
>Does communism tend towards war, I would say yes on the grounds that communism is usually statist.
US is less statist than Sweden. Therefore US is less warmongering?
Libertarian logic lol.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-10 22:16
Can't there be at least one country in the world where you can be a transexual prostitute, wear headscarves in school or bear arms and not have to give a fuck what other people think?
>>167
I do understand, actually - though I also do understand why you made such a comment, as "understanding" is a completely foreign concept to your limited mind.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-11 23:41
>>164
US may be less statist than Sweden, but Sweden is less of a state.
>>173
Sorry, I wrongfully assumed you had the ability to read and comprehend what was inside, but apparently to your retarded mind it corresponded to "getting a wikipedia article". Sorry I keep underestimating your stupidity.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-15 8:30
>>174
It's obvious they are just pretending to be a country, in truth they would not be able to withstand total war against the US.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-15 13:56
The US can't stand a partial war with Iraq, and you think that Canada would not do the same as the Iraqis? It would be far easier for Canadians to infiltrate the US in a war and the US would have a situation similar to Iraq but in the US.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-16 15:21
>>176
But the US would win a total war. Also the surge is working, cry harder over the fact that the US has won.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-16 19:31
>>177
AMERIKA FUK YEAH!!! WHAT A NATION IS ONLY DETERMINED BY ABSOLUTE MILITARY POWAH!!!
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-17 1:56
>>177
You butterballs cant even keep a few rag heads down in a fucking bunch of hills
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-17 11:51
US has a history of - what, ten seconds?
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-17 16:50
>>178 >>179 >>180
Is that jealousy I hear? Besides, America's success is only an effect of it's freedoms. I consider Switzerland a country and they have no nukes. Can you guess why? They will never submit to the will of tyranny, even as the axis surrounded their country they knew they had 0 chance of occupying Switzerland. This is also why I do not consider liberals true americans since they seem to enjoy spreading their ass cheeks the moment the next obscure political/religion group from fuck knows where on this planet decides to stir some shit up.
>>181
Aww look, the retarded loser shares us what he considers a country and what he does not! Man, I'm interested in learning what epically retarded ignorant American morons tell themselves to sleep at night!
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-18 11:27
Not Jealousy, I'm just tired of the US messing up other countries for no good reasons (who helped Fidel in Cuba? who gave weapons to Saddam, to the Taliban?).
Why did the US go in Iraq? Because they were AFRAID Iraq MIGHT send nukes to the US. Even though most other countries said there was no menace to begin with (wich was later proven). Why do most US gun carrying people have guns? Because they are AFRAID they might be attacked. A courageous country? No, a fearful country. Nothing to be jealous about. And if I were you, I would not declare victory yet, the Bush admin did this and eventually came to realize it was a huge mistake.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-18 13:06
>>183 (wich was later proven).
Prove it then. Show the evidence. Why do most US gun carrying people have guns?
Why do most European clothes-wearing people have clothes? Because they are AFRAID they might be attacked. A courageous country? No, a fearful country.
We have feral niggers, you have mudslimes. We can, if necessary, protect ourselves and you can't because the government doesn't trust you enough to give you the right to bear arms. Saying that it's because the government *fears you* and that's awesome is pretty asinine, because one could make a similar argument against free speech. Nothing to be jealous about.
You seem butthurt enough to whine here. And if I were you, I would not declare victory yet, the Bush admin did this and eventually came to realize it was a huge mistake.
Proof.
Oh, and I'm not anyone else ITT, in case you want to assume that.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-18 15:09
No WMD: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/apr/06/20060406-112119-5897r/
"President Bush said yesterday that he was "just as disappointed as everybody else" when U.S. troops failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq..."
"I fully understand that the intelligence was wrong, and I'm just as disappointed as everybody else is," Mr. Bush said.
>Why do most European clothes-wearing people have clothes?<
You forgot this part: "Because they are AFRAID they might be attacked." It was a rhetorical question.
We can't because we don't want to. We don't live in FEAR unlike a lot of people in the US.
I'm not "butthurt" like you say. If I reply you will say that I'm "butthurt" and if I don't you will say that I was afraid to reply. You setup a lose-lose situation so you can't lose by default, but I think that most people here know this.
"President Bush is well aware that the banner should have been much more specific and said "mission accomplished for these sailors who are on this ship on their mission." And we have certainly paid a price for not being more specific on that banner." Said by Dana Perino.
WMD or not, the US still attacked because it was AFRAID.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-18 16:08
>>183
The US also gave industrial support to the USSR, does that mean the US is responsible for everything the USSR has done since it avoided obliteration by the nazis? I'm tired of demagogues who base their arguments on how "non-conformist" or "shocking" it is, when in fact most uptight conservative christians have heard the same arguments since the 60s and no one really cares anymore. The world is far more complex than that, go tell your conspiracy theories to 16 year old girls who listen to greenday.
>>186
Oh you poor retard, crying so hard to deny reality. Lern2weltpolitik before you do so next time.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-19 12:06
>>187
Sorry but you used the word "retard", so I have no choice but to completely ignore your argument until you remove all ad hominem logical fallacies.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-20 0:21
>>188
Aww look, the retarded loser is again butthurt, trying to avoid reality in every way he can so that he can stick to his retarded libertaryan delusions.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-20 6:57
>>189
Sorry but you used the word "retard", so I have no choice but to completely ignore your argument until you remove all ad hominem logical fallacies.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-20 11:46
>>190
Retarded loser is still crying, his meager mind unable to face facts and reality...
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-21 3:36
>>191
Sorry but you used the word "retard", so I have no choice but to completely ignore your argument until you remove all ad hominem logical fallacies.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-21 3:57
>>192 Still crying, retarded loser? Facts must be shocking for you. I'll wait until you finish crying to reality.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-21 5:58
>>193
Sorry but you used the word "retard", so I have no choice but to completely ignore your argument until you remove all ad hominem logical fallacies.
Given that neither of you delivered an argument so far, there's no argumentum ad hominem. Those are just plain old insults.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-21 7:35
>>195
You must be new here. There were arguments, but they are long lost in the stream of denial this retard created to run away from getting owned. The most lauded example of his "arguments" is, of course "Bush is left-wing socialist".
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-21 17:17
>>196
No, actually, I'm way longer here than anybody else. You already had a talk with me, Mr. computer engieer. And up to this date the entire board is devoid of any arguments whatsoever and probably will stay that way indefinitely.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-22 0:24
>>197
Then I suggest you re-read the thing, though it is a waste of time seeing that any facts mentioned are long buried in the stream of libertaryan denial.
Coercion is unethical. Liberty is the absence of coercion.
This is not a perfect world and people will always attempt to coerce others thus it is ethical to coerce people not to coerce others since this is the best way of keeping coercion to a minimum.
The state represent a monopoly over violence. In order for a state to be ethical it must define justice as the preservation of liberty, for the state to be controlled by consensus through a system of representation and for the state's only authority to be the enforcement of justice.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-22 2:04
200 get
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-22 3:11
>>199
Ahh, more bullshit with no substance and theoretical basis, ignoring reality for weasel words - there is no argument there other than STAYT IS EEVIL. I seriously wonder, did the state rape you as kids or something?
>>201
If you are right you should be able to prove it.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-22 8:45
>>203
It's funny because it came right after >>202
Enjoy your butthurt delusions that are in no way connected to reality, your statements are incorrect simply because they lack any sort of factual basis - they are just random strings spurted out by an ignorant fool, proving something so obviously fucking wrong from observation is a waste of time, and since you hilariously keep "defending" these retarded delusions, you should try to "prove" them yourself first (of course, I realize that you can't do this because they are outright wrong). Screaming PROOV ME RONG!!! doesn't make Bush a socialist - sorry, retarded loser.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-23 18:02
>>204
I'm not asking you to prove me wrong, I am asking you to prove your assertion.
You laugh, but fifty years ago my Republican Party would have accused this President Bush of being a socialist and trying to undermine the free market.
Socialism by revolution certainly is the most dramatic, but Republicans have historically recognized that socialism by evolution, a gradual and inexorable expansion of government responsibility, was in some ways a greater danger. Fear of creeping socialism was a primary reason that Republicans were so adamantly against government deficit spending. Republicans recognized that perhaps the ONLY way to control the growth of government was to force voters to pay for it as they used it. Decoupling government spending from taxes almost guaranteed that the amount of money government spends would grow, and thus the government’s intrusion into our economy and lives would grow as well.
As importantly, budget deficits undermined belief in the free market. Explicit in a budget deficit is the idea that the free market won�t grow and prosper on its own, that government intervention and control of supply and demand are necessary for the health of our economy. Republicans were concerned that if voters came to accept the idea that the government needed to manipulate and control the economy to insure growth, then any shortcomings in the economy would lead to demand for government to do more. Once this cycle was started, each swing in the business cycle would result in ever greater government spending, ever larger deficits and even greater intrusion into the economy. Who knew where this might lead - would government eventually lose confidence on people's ability to decide which agricultural products to buy, or to oversee their children's education?
And Republicans recognized that at some point, deficit spending would have to come to an end our country would actually have to pay for all of the services being provided by our government. Modern fiscal conservatives seem to have this fantasy that in this situation the government would largely collapse, unable to pay for everything it is doing. Republicans who had lived through the Depression realized that in a democracy the answer is far more likely to be confiscatory tax policy government would simply increase its tax rates on those who controlled the means of production to pay for the services government provided to those who didn't. Republicans worried that bankruptcy wouldn't be the end of Big Government - it would be the practical end of private ownership of the means of production.
Republicans also recognized that supporters of Socialism were more than willing to lie about what they were trying to accomplish, so sure were they of the rightness of their eventual goal. Republicans were cautious to judge politicians by their policies, not their platitudes; the one thing that doesn't lie is the math of government spending.
Math has many very harsh things to say about this President Bush. He has doubled farm subsidies, greatly increased government involvement in education, has substantially increased government spending and is running the largest deficits in the history of our country. He no longer even bothers to promise a balanced budget his best case scenario plans on a permanent budget deficit. Math says that this President Bush will go down in history as the Republican president who most increased the tax burden on U.S. citizens.
So is Bush a closet socialist? For all of his talk of the free market, does he actually believe that more government is the answer to almost every problem? Unfortunately, it is hard for me to think of a problem he hasn't suggested throwing money at yet. Certainly our historical situation has changed, and we no longer worry about government seizing the means of production. But it is still unsettling to realize that 50 years ago a whole host of prominent Republicans would have been calling the President *Red George* and accusing him of trying to sneak socialism into our government.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-24 2:35
>>206
Confronted with your entirely valid and watertight argument I have no choice but to accept defeat. Or I could just go "BAAWWW LIBERTARYANISM SOSHALIZM STATISM HURR DURR YOU'RE A RETARDED RETARD BAWWW". Give me some time to decide....
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-24 3:56
>>207
Ahh the same retard is crying, ignoring the fact that his "watertight" argument is one based on ignorance, and in fact unfortunately yet again exposes his retardation. It doesn't matter how many times or how long you repeat it - socialism is not statism, the amount of crying you do only exposes your ignorance more. Crying BIG GUV'MANT!!! ANYONE NOT FREE-MARKET FUNDEMENTALIST IS A SOSHALIST is not a watertight argument by any degree, sorry retarded loser- you have lost again.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-24 3:57
>>205
My assertion is that you are hilariously and obviously wrong, and that your claims are unproved - and, unprovable bullshit. Keep crying in denial, retarded loser.
Name:
Libertaryan2008-06-24 4:02
OH MAN I KNEW IT!!! IT'S A KOMMUNIST CONSPIRACY!!! AND THEY TOLD ME I WAS EPICALLY RETARDED WHEN I SAID I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STATISM AND SOCIALISM, LOOK AT THAT LONG POST REPEATING THE SAME RETARDED BULLSHIT, NOW IT IS PROOVD, BEKUZ IT'S LONG TEXT!!!! BUSH IS SOOSHALIST!!! AND A LEFT-WING SOSHALIST!!
well whether or not bush is a socialist has nothing to do with whether or not libertarianism is infallible. I don't think you could call Bush left-wing, but he certainly has promoted socialist policy in a number of areas as 206 said. Deficit spending is a major socialist move because the debt is obviously socialised.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-24 13:58
>>212
Again, statism is not socialism, crying "deficit spending is socialism" is epically retarded there is no right-wing socialism so saying "left-wing socialism" is retarded, and uttering these phrases exposes a significant lack of knowledge. But, expectably, retarded libertaryans deny reality and cry about this perpetually, like they do with their "INFALLIBAL" fallacious cock-sucking scheme.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-25 1:03
>>212
This discussion is not purely about the bush administration. Feel free to submit your queries. See >>199. >>213
Socialism is not a subjective ideal, it has a set definition. Any instance of communal ownership of property with no private property rights is socialism. >>208 >>209 >>210
"retard is crying"
"crying in denial, retarded"
"I WAS EPICALLY RETARDED"
Same person. Ad hominems.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-25 1:54
>>213 Deficit spending means taking on debt. When a government takes on debt, the debt is socialised. Tax payers will pay the debt. I'm not crying you idiot, I'm pointing out the facts. In governments today, both the left and right favour socialism on many issues. I believe this is because socialism tends to be popularist and politics has been reduced to popularism all over the world.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-25 3:45
>>214 >>215
When will you finally understand the extremely simple fact that socialism is statism, and label every administration which has nothing to do with socialism, like the bush administration as LEFT WING SOSHALIST and instead of cry BAWW AD HOMINEM when you are being called a retarded loser in denial, think on why it is being done?
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-25 6:16
>>216
>socialism is statism
I see that libertaryan brainwashing got to you
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-25 7:15
>>216 you don't even know what you're saying. What libertarians oppose is COERCION. Like when governments coerce people to pay taxes (or surreptitiously tax through inflation) for the purpose of funding wars. If a socialist-like arrangement occured without coercion from the government or any other group, then that would be fine to libertarians.
The facts are that some of the Bush administration's policies are socialist. That does not make the republicans left-wing. Left-wing and right-wing are comparitive terms. If the republicans changed nothing and the democrats become extremely right-wing then the republicans would, by staying where they were, become left-wing.
Anyway, libertarians are neither left-wing nor right-wing, they believe in personal liberty. Any individual can live their life left-wing or right-wing under a libertarian government.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-25 10:05
>>218
Thanks for proving that libertaryans are retards who don't understand anything about economics or politics. None of Bush's policies are socialist, and even if they were, they wouldn't be socialist - but as a retarded libertarian you are still insisting that statism is socialism. More hilarity ensues when the retarded libertaryan doesn't understand the meaning of left-wing and right-wing in his period of crying, which is natural because these people make statements like "Bush is left-wing socialist". The only thing you can do about these is cry more.
The fact is, libertarians cry about "coercion" and "evil guv'mant", and think that without it somehow privately owned bodies won't replace that - even though these bodies won't be directly responsible to the people, and only working for the maximization of profit. The only thing their limited mind can respond to this fact is "MARKUT FORSAZ" or "INVIZIBUL HAND", which, of course, is retarded.
As you see, my dear retarded libertaryan friend - you can deny reality as long as you want to, but it doesn't go away. Just accept that you are into this to suck your masters cock and shut up.
Geez, you're not even trying any more. You're just putting words into my mouth.
To your point that corporations will coerce people if there is no 'protection' from government, there is one big difference between governments and corporations. Corporations operate profitable businesses, if the business isn't profitable it doesn't last long. Governments, on the other hand, are not profitable, they don't actually do anything, they don't offer services, they don't sell products. They take money away from people who earn their money, and then they give that money to other groups.
In order for a business to be profitable, it must supply some product or service that has value to people. Governments don't have that restriction.
Governments do answer to the people, that is right. People need to start calling for a libertarian government. I don't believe in conspiracies, I believe that governments are inherently there to destory value. Politians don't know how to run businesses, if they did they would be working in the corporate world.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-25 12:49
>>220
Ahh, you and your ever more monotone denial of reality.
Not only you have yet again ignored the fallacies pointed out as always in the style befitting a libertaryan retard with no knowledge or intelligence, you also have admitted inadvertently what makes "free" markets fail, because everyone isn't an expert on everything to buy, and the ones with deeper pockets push for more marketing, and ignorant retards like you buy that crap - remember they aren't there to make better things, they are there to make more money, and having a surplus can safely surpass that necessity for a long while - then again your kind has a knack for things like denying the existence of sputnik etc. If your ignorant sequence of crying had any semblance to truth there wouldn't be a thing such as "badge engineering" - and then we come to the traditional libertaryan BAWWW TAXUS!!! DEY GIV MAH MONEY TO NIGGERS!!!, which is unfortunately not a real argument by any means.
Also, your last paragraph should be shown to everyone ever considering becoming a libertaryan - maybe they'll just decide they are too intelligent to be associated with people who genuinely are that butthurt and ignorant to cry like that. Apparently BUSH IS SOSHALIST!!! CHECK THE ZIONOFASCISM BLOG!!! GUV'MENT IS EEEVIL!!!! etc. is apparently not delusional conspiratorial crap in the pathetically retarded mind of yours.
Libertarians doesn't suppose that everyone will make good decisions with their money. There may be corporations that exist due to there being a large supply of idiots willing to buy their goods. If that were the case that would be fine. No problem there. There are not right or wrong products, just products of different value. Everyone is free to choose how to spend their money.
What you say about surplus is wrong. If a company is jacking up the prices and making a huge surplus then another company can come in and offer the same products at lower prices and steal the marketshare.
But I think your main problem is you are being pessimistic. You say capitalism fails because people will make mistakes about how their spend their money. But if that were the only problem facing society then surely the solution would be for people to begin placing more value on education. Libertarianism fails because people are too stupid, that's what you're saying. But libertarianism actually helps people see how they fail by being uneducated, thus it encourages them to become educated.
Giving people freedom to make their own choices is not dangerous, it allows people to learn from their choices and become better people. Restricting choice, like, for example, through censorship, doesn't make people stronger, it makes them weaker, it makes them less able to make their own decisions. By allowing people to make decisions for themselves from day 1, they will inevitably become master decision makers. Society will be a better place for everyone.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-25 14:11
>>222
Again, you are just spurting out fallacious misconceptions with no connection to reality. Wishful thinking is not a proper way to handle things, leaving everything alone and hoping the best outcome is extremely retarded, and calling reality - what is happening now - "pessimistic" is unfortunately retarded. But oh, in the retarded libertaryan mind the current secret is crypto-socialist so reality is not applicable to your retarded delusions, right?
And, LIBERTARYANIZM!!! magically encourages people to be educated! That's nice to know! How? Magic market forces? Bush is socialist? I mean, how fucking retarded are you so that you can spurt out such shit while not realizing how empty and ridiculous they are? And, isn't the fact that almost every libertarian is like you, retarded and uneducated, tell something about your ideology?
I think you'll just have to cry more, retarded loser.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-25 14:18
>>223
Where the fuck did he say that Bush is socialist?!
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-25 14:21
I'll say it...BUSH IS A LEFT WING SOCIALIST!
Y'all niggers know it, too.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-25 15:12
>>224
Do you think there are more than one epically retarded libertaryans here? I think it's nigh-impossible for that many retards to be at the same place at the same time. Besides, look at his stereotypical denial of reality and ignoring the arguments in favor of repeating disproved delusions over and over again.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-26 9:38
>>223
You talk a lot about how everyone else is not in tune with reality yet provide no evidence to back up your statements.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-26 10:00
It should have been a banner year for the libertarians. The republicans are in the toilet and the nation has not fully turned to the democrats. It was a once in a generation chance for the libertarian party to stand up.
But no. Reality had to intervene and prove how totally fallible libertarianism is. Ron Paul fans would whoop and holler, but not only did Ron Paul lose almost every primary he was in, in some states he actually lost to other candidate who had already dropped out! Ron Paul is getting beat by a republican who openly admits he doesn't know much about the economy.
It's time to put this tired faux-political philosophy to bed. The libertarians don't have a chance in hell to win anything, they can't even come together to rally around Bob Barr. Why all the trouble? Maybe because anybody older than 18 with a fucking brain realizes how naive and juvenile the whole platform is. LOL
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-26 10:19
>>227
Anything that needs to be is already so, you must have missed that in your sequence of whining. But then again, as someone who thinks on the lines of "BUSH IS SOSHALIST", "ZIONOFASCIST CONSPIRACY" etc. it is easy for you to ignore them and keep repeating the disproven bullshit you were fed over and over again...
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-27 18:41
>>228
Ron Paul did not win the primaries because the US is a notorious 2 party system with republicans and democrats alike afraid to support 3rd parties in fear of losing to the other.
>>231
Oh, yes, it was another epically retarded libertarian completely out of touch with reality to the degree he perpetrated the bullshit seen in this thread? I see...
Name:
Libertaryan2008-06-27 18:52
>>230
Oh, riight he lost only because of that, in a functioning democracy libertaryans always win, just look at euro-err... forget what I said. THEY ARE SECRETLY COMMUNIST!!! BUSH IS SOSHALIST THAT'S WHY WE LOSE!!!
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-27 21:48
>>230
The democrats lost at least once, I guess they must be 100% wrong about 100% of everything aswell.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-27 21:48
>>233
The democrats lost at least once, I guess they must be 100% wrong about 100% of everything aswell.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-28 4:16
>>234 >>235
But conservatives haven't? And unlike libertarians they haven't always lost.
Also notice how retarded libertarian mind still lumps together every ideology which isn't free market fundamentalism together, assuming the person exposing their retardation to be a democrat.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-28 4:23
>>236
I should add, though, because libertaryans aren't intelligent enough to derive this themselves from the post - it wasn't only about their epic failure at the polls, but also their historical failure and lack of movement, geographic exclusivity (because people in developed countries with better education for some reason don't give a shit about this ideology) and worst of all, in this limited climate it is only perpetrated by very limited people, i.e. handful basement retards who believe bush to be socialist etc.
Name:
Great Idea!2008-06-29 15:35
Let's privatize the police force!
I'm going to hire a persoal guard to protect my house. But then since he costs so much I'll ask my neighbor if he would like to pay 50/50 and have the guard protect both our houses. But since crimes are rather rare, we'll ask if all the people on our street would like to divide the guard's salary between us and have him guard the whole street on a bike that we could buy him. Heck, why not have him protect the whole neighborhood and split his salary even more. If we get even more people, we could buy the guard a car so he could cover more territory and cost even less. But then we could hire a few guards to guard the whole city and hire someone we could call so that this person could dispatch the guards when there is trouble. Liberalism is so much better! But, wait, isn't this what we currently have?! D-Oh!
Name:
Great Idea!2008-06-29 15:48
Anyone can compete!
Let's open a small store (that's all we can do, there's no way we can start as a big chain) and sell at lower prices so we can get customers from the big chains! But wait, we have to buy 1,000 units of a single product to get a good price. Wall-Mart is getting it's stock at even lower prices than we can get them even if we bought 1,000 and they can sell them at our cost! And Amazon is selling it's books also almost at our cost! But let's try to have a very small margin to try to get some business. But the big store is lowering it's prices below our cost to crush us... We're doomed! D-Oh!
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-29 15:54
in b4 privatize my penis copypasta
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-30 16:48
>>238
It's not what we have now. Some people are forced to pay more for their protection simply because they don't have 8 kids or are white males.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-30 16:50
>>239
Instead of competing with them you can cooperate. Obtain an MBA, work for them and purchase shares in the company.
Yeah, that way you can compete - by not competing. Perfect.
Name:
Great Idea!2008-06-30 18:31
>>241
How much more do they pay? A few cents? Is it worth it to redo the whole system so you can save a few cents? And what if a big business has the whole private guard business? What if they ask you to pay the same as your neighbor or get lost? >>242
So essentially if we can't compete with big businesses we should work for them? That's not really freedom of choice isnt'it? And what if they don't have a job for me because all their jobs are filled with people who can't compete with them? What shall I do then? And what about the customer's choice? If stores can't compete with big businesses this would really limit consumer choices wouldn't it? And wouldn't it make it possible for the big business to eventually raise prices because of lack of competition? And if you think that raising prices will allow smaller businesses to offer their products for less, what about the power of the big business to lower their prices until they break the small business?
I would like to suggest that you watch "Wal-Mart The High Cost of Low Price" on DVD. And why not also watch "Enron The Smartest Guys in the Room" while you're at it.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-30 23:41
I don't get all the criticism against us libertarians. All you do is provide flaws in the capitalist system, but giving no specific answer to them.
But we know there's only two answers... either the government intervention or there's not. Now, you don't want to sound like a statist so you just leave your post like that, with a big question mark. And we don't have to give you an answer either, each problem is one in its own, and yes, some do require government intervention, I believe. Do all of them? No.
The principle is to have the LEAST government intervention as possible, not just remove the government completely. That's anarchism, you should know very well. Even though it's separated by a very thin line, libertarianism does include government to take care of some things.
What exactly? I don't know. Depends on the situation. That is completely debatable. But we don't want to debate real issues do we. Let's just be trolls and flame ourselves to death. Pff.
But I don't care, I rarely even lurk around this cesspit anymore. Just please, stop equaling libertarianism with anarchism, it's so annoying when I do come around and read this same old shit.
>>245
I don't see flaws in the capitalist system. I have nothing against it. What I know is that the weakest link of any system is the human element. We are not robots and whatever system we have there wil be humans who abuse it. No system is as such perfect or infallible. I am all for a capitalist system with has a governmental control over it for regulations and oversight like we currently have in north america.
We need the government to make regulations for the products we consume and for the environment. We need the government to prevent big monopolies. We need the government to make laws and to protect us with an army and police force. We need the government to take care of the poor, the sick and jobless.
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-02 15:01
>>247
>I'm a retard who can't read the thread I posted laid out before me.
Name:
Libertaryan2008-07-02 15:08
>>248
Sorry, LIBERTARYAN logic dictates that you're a SOSHALIST, because in our tiny minds STAYT=SOSHALIZM.
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-03 2:25
>>248
All the issues you have described revolve around the objective of preserving liberty and the role of the state in achieving this, which appears to be something only libertarians understand. Other political parties have a more blunt method of solving problems than deriving their solutions logically from a set of infallible principles, they pass a law which solves one problem and if it causes another they pass another law rather than admit they were wrong, this in turn causes more problems or just masks it and when it eventually surfaces the opposing political party doesn't want to look like it is repealing laws which solve a "problem" and instead pass yet another law and another and another... This makes politicians appear to be problem solvers but it is short sighted and the sprawling bureaucracy needed to administer these laws, along with their loopholes, is not desirable either. This is why libertarianism is associated with small government, it is also why some people view libertarians as ignoring some problems when in reality they have merely taken other issues into account.
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-03 2:36
>>249 >>250
George Bush is more of a anarcho-liberal leninist maoist, not a socialist. Get your definitions straight.
Name:
Great Idea!2008-07-03 10:36
>>251
I didn't know I was a libertarian!
If libertarians don't promote laissez-faire capitalism, what do you call those who promote laissez-faire capitalism? Objectivists?
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-03 21:44
>>253
I never said these problems must be solved by a welfare state, just that I recognise them and have come to the conclusion that such statist practices are undesirable. Libertarians are not saying orphans should be thrown out into the snow, they are saying it is unfair for work able adults to be paid unemployment benefit, free healthcare and state pensions when they should have saved and bought health insurance for all these things themselves. Why must to state step in to wipe people's asses and what's more why should the people who wouldn't have these problems if we were not living in a welfare state have to pay for it?
>>254
And what do libertarians say about artificial unemployment to decrease real labor costs?
Yeeah...
Name:
Great Idea!2008-07-04 15:38
>>254
If these people paid insurance, it would be your insurance who would pay for them. So you would still be paying for them. The question is how do you make sure that all the people pay insurance? Make it so that the state takes the money with taxes. This way, everyone pays and if anyone has a problem the state can take care of them. This would not be a welfare state, it would be like a state insurance.
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-06 3:50
>>255
It still all has to be paid for and the resulting bureaucracy and inefficient management due to seperation from market forces is of greater expense than non-intervention. >>256
"So you would still be paying for them"
And you pay less if the insurance company offers discounts when you install fire alarms, burglar alarms, sprinkler systems, regular check ups with a GP and can prove you are healthy. Of course you have the freedom to sign another deal or go to another insurance company if you believe that these policies unnecessary or you are being charged too much. I'd like to see you talk an IRS agent into giving you a discount for installing a burglar alarm or convince an anal retentive safety inspector your corrugated iron tractor shed doesn't need a sprinkler system.
"The question is how do you make sure that all the people pay insurance?"
Why stop there? Why not employ 10000000s of illegal immigrants to line the streets and look both ways for America's citizens before they cross?
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-06 9:29
>>257
>It still all has to be paid for and the resulting bureaucracy and inefficient management due to seperation from market forces is of greater expense than non-intervention.
Thanks, but I wanted an answer to the question, not an irrelevant crying consisting of the usual HURR DURR MAGICK MARKAT FORSAZ INEFFISHUNT DURRRR - but of course a retarded drone can't answer to what his masters couldn't find an excuse for in the first place.
Name:
Great Idea!2008-07-06 12:03
>>257
You talk about the freedom to sign another deal and pay less. I have freedom to change banks if they charge high fees, but they all charge high fees. Same for insurance companies (And this is not counting that they do everything they can not to repay you when you need them). I have the freedom to get gas at another station but they all charge the same price. When I talked about the difficulty of competing with Wal-Mart I got replied that I should work for them instead of trying to compete. I don't see much freedom in the so called free-market.
As for market efficiency, I have worked for a large company and saw a lot of inefficiency in it. I know people who work in large businesses and they also see a lot of inneficiencies in them. These businesses are still working and we pay more for some things because of these ineffiencies. Businesses are still run by people and people are not perfect. Market rules don't influence businesses much in efficiency. When a business becomes large enough, it has the power to crush efficient competition. Just think about Linux and Microsoft. Linux is virtually free but Microsoft is so predominant that the cheaper and probably more efficient Linux is still a rarity on home computers.
The current products market is not real. Most of our products are made in "Communist" China (talk about irony here). Wich means that it would be much like having our products made by prisoners. How can businesses compete with a virtual slave force? We pay much less for products than what they are really worth. How can we have a fair market when such an imbalance exists? Market forces need to be equal for all or there can be no competition and we end up with monopolies wich are much like inefficient governments.
I don't see how you can pretend that the market forces would be better than a government. In your world there seems to be so much freedom and choices, but I don't see them in the businesses I deal with. I would like you to explain to me how this could be.
>>259 I don't see much freedom in the so called free-market.
That's because the free market is just an arena for slaying the poor. The rich and the corporate enjoy rock-solid Socialism from all their buddies in government. Of course, Libertarians would never admit that that's how their ideal system would run.
Market forces are a wonderful thing. But the wealthy and the corporations are more and more insulated from those forces, since they now own the government from all the bribery going on. Look at all those Senators who received sweet mortgage deals from lenders, and so it's not surprising they are all for government bailouts of the entire lending industry.
Why isn't it welfare when a corporation receives it?
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-07 4:02
>>260
>Why isn't it welfare when a corporation receives it?
It is.
Well, they call that "Corporate Walfare"
The Liber-turdians usually denounce that.
But they think that the Fed is a part of the gambit too (yeah right) and their "failed" monetary policies are a case of "gambit intervention", so they are pretty much useless.
Liber-turdians are owned by the jews, that's why the don't tell the truth about the Fed (with rare exceptions) and endorse that hateful jewess, Aynd Rand, like that hateful jew, Jim Whales.
>>266
The Jews who rule the world are NOT invisible and they are NOT untouchable. They are also NOT the kindly Jew running a bakery down the street from you.
When will you stupid fucking GOYIM finally WAKE UP?!?! The plot is perfectly TRANSPARENT. They want you to burn out in ever faster displays of economic stupidity. They want you to take on MOAR debt, MOAR payments, MOAR spending, and just heat up until you fucking MELT DOWN economically. They make money on EVERY transaction. The sinister hand of the filthy Jew is EVERYWHERE in the economy you allowed them to build.
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-08 23:23
Invisible Hand of the Jew
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-09 19:17
>>267
I find it funny that you claim that they are not invisible then spend the rest of your post spewing forth moar diatribe instead of naming individuals and the crimes you are accusing them of.
>>269
The names of the Jews in the media and government are well known. Google those lists for yourself. Also note that the heads of corporations are profoundly staffed with Jews, far in excess of the 1% of the population they are supposed to be. Check that for yourself. You will find Boards of Directors staffed as high as 25% with Jews.
But no, you're not going to check on any of that, will you? You're just going to continue poasting here, eventually screaming ANTI-SEMITE over and over until yet another enemy of the Zionist Takeover Of The West is eliminated ... as you were trained FROM BIRTH to do.
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-10 11:01
>>270
So what? Not only does correlation not imply causation but even if did you still don't know what that cause is. Asians are more likely to get into universities, whites are more likely to get rich and blacks are more likely to succeed as athletes. Does this mean each race has a secrety society which uses intrigue to help them gain dominance in each arena?
Also I never said "anti-semite" until this sentence. You're like this guy who told me I think bush is a socialist when we were discussing something completely different.
>>273
Brain drain. America has the freedoms so smart people are more likely to move here.
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-13 0:06
Libertarianism is socialist by my standards. The government handles the military and courts? Fucking statist assholes want the state to run everything.
Anarcho-liberalism for the win!
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-17 18:32
I am the very model of a modern Libertarian:
I teem with glowing notions for proposals millenarian,
I've nothing but contempt for ideologies collectivist
(My own ideas of social good tend more toward the Objectivist).
You see, I've just discovered, by my intellectual bravery,
That civic obligations are all tantamount to slavery;
And thus that ancient pastime, viz., complaining of taxation,
Assumes the glorious aspect of a war for liberation!
You really must admit it's a delightful revelation:
To bitch about your taxes is to fight for liberation!
I bolster up my claims with lucubrations rather risible
About the Founding Fathers and the market's hand invisible;
In fact, my slight acquaintance with the fountainhead Pierian
Makes me the very model of a modern Libertarian!
His very slight acquaintance with the fountainhead Pierian
Makes him the very model of a modern Libertarian!
All "public wealth" is robbery, we never will accede to it;
You have no rights in anything if you can't show your deed to it.
(But don't fear repossession by our Amerind minority:
Those treaties aren't valid---Uncle Sam had no authority!)
We realize whales and wolves and moose find wilderness quite vital,
And we'll give them back their habitats---if they can prove their title.
But people like unspoiled lands (we too will say "hooray" for them),
So we have faith that someone else will freely choose to pay for them.
Yes, when the parks are auctioned it will be a lucky day for them---
We're confident that someone else will freely choose to pay for them!
We'll guard the health of nature by self-interest most astute:
Since pollution is destructive, no one ever will pollute.
Thus factories will safeguard our communities riparian---
I am the very model of a modern Libertarian!
Yes, factories will safeguard our communities riparian,
He is the very model of a modern Libertarian!
In short, when I can tell why individual consumers
Know best who should approve their drugs and who should treat their tumors;
Why civilized existence in its intricate confusion
Will be simple and straightforward, absent government intrusion;
Why markets cannot err within the system I've described,
Why poor folk won't be bullied and why rich folk won't be bribed,
And why all vast inequities of power and position
Will vanish when I wave my wand and utter "competition!"---
He's so much more exciting than a common politician,
Inequities will vanish when he hollers "Competition!"
---And why my lofty rhetoric and arguments meticulous
Inspire shouts of laughter and the hearty cry, "Ridiculous!",
And why my social theories all seem so pre-Sumerian---
I'll be the very model of a modern Libertarian!
His novel social theories all seem so pre-Sumerian---
He is the very model of a modern Libertarian!
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-20 6:34
Well, that about wraps it up. As mature adults no one should need the state to wipe their ass. Libertarianism it is.
Name:
Anonymous2008-07-29 22:03
>>276
Sorry but libertarianism is not the same as anarcho-capitalism.
Name:
Anonymous2013-07-31 14:52
I think most smart people already know libertarianism works, in principle. We just need to bring it to the surface as it were.
1: Thinking in practical terms. You look at what you can actually do in the real world rather than fixate on "the ideal" and utopias.
2: Comparing things to alternatives, looking at the opportunity cost. Too often I see capitalism in practice compared to utopian socialism.
3: Structural functionalism, capitalism is not some giant entity, it is part of a whole, it shares the crib with statists and other unsavory types and most of the problems attributed to capitalism are really due to his bedfellows. Understanding how different factors affect each other to different degrees and how they are all inter-related.
4: Market forces, autonomy and self-organizing systems. How they work and how coercion is the usual cause of chaos and that tyranny is not the only way of putting order.
5: The necessity of individualism in forming functional groups, how it is necessary for people to think for themselves in order for the group to serve them. How collectivism leads to abusive authority.
6: Objectivity, looking at both the advantages and disadvantages of something, recognizing this is a sign of strength in an argument and better than just purely looking at the advantages of things you have decided are right and only looking at the disadvantages of everything else.
7: Understanding that utilitarian ethics are often misinterpreted. Utilitarianism is not collective hedonism, we are not animals, we are sapient beings there are concepts such as "greater happiness" and philosophy to look into. Lack of information and fallibility means that not everyone can make a snap decision about how many people live or die. We oppose pushing people off bridges because it is very unlikely that they will be in a situation where pushing someone off a bridge to stop a train will save 5 workers down the line.
8: Understanding that utilitarian ethics are compatible with libertarianism and capitalism, that sapient beings need freedom in order to better organize their lives and achieve happiness and greater happiness.
Hope I cleared a few things up.
Name:
Anonymous2013-08-01 15:05
People just don't care about true American values anymore.
Libertarian parties are full of anarchists, crackpots, and demagogues. Most sane people think the idea of voting for libertarians is laughable.
Many people have fear of bad people who will anal their mothers and steal their video games. Thus they will vote for Statist "Law and Order" political parties.
Name:
Anonymous2013-08-06 3:36
>>282
cool ad hominem bro, in reality though most libertarians are good wholesome upstanding citizens with very reasonable opinions. There are a few anarcho-capitalists but I'm not sure what is going on with them, only met a few on the internet. They like to claim they are libertarians but quickly get shot down.
Statism is the opposite of libertarianism, so I'm not sure who you are referring to in the last paragraph.
Name:
Anonymous2013-08-06 5:19
If statism is the opposite to libertarianism, then there is no difference between libertarianism and anarchy. You might be on more solid ground if you said that 'collectivist statism' is opposite to libertarianism. Because it is certainly possible to have a 'night watchman' or 'minarchist' statism which I generally support.
The person on the street who says he is a 'libertarian' may or may not be more reasonable than the libertarian political formations, which have included conspiratards, anarchists, crackpots, and demagogues.
As a property owner, I am happy with a police force which protects my property and a military which protects my country. We also need jails to keep criminals away from the population. I don't see much use for government beyond that. As a business person, I also see the need for some way to mediate contract disputes, and register the ownership of real property beyond any claim of partiality.
Some libertarians are in the right direction, however the brand has been so tainted by opportunists and anarchists that it is of no use now. Libertarianism certainly does not classify as a philosophy beyond politics. Although it needs further development in the light of modern science, objectivism is more encompassing as a philosophy than libertarianism.