*promote. It's long... but it's interesting.

This shows how much Libertarians are divided on issues. The basic ideas of freedom we agree on, but the details is where we're divided. If you have some time, I'd recommend giving this one a watch. Good stuff.

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, April 19th, 2010 4:22pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter blankfist.

I'm no prophet, but I bet this will make it into the top 15! [snicker]

I see this show, and then look down and see those stock exchange ticker tabs; I am disheartened. Not only does government need to be limited but corporations need to be limited, yet again.

Citizens United, the Conservative lobby, has successfully convinced the SCOTUS to overturn the laws that limited their political contributions, or "1st ammendment rights".

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

the party of of the unashamed selfish. I've debated several libertarians in the past. when you get right down to it they don't care about anyone but themselves. the irony is, the ones i talked to were not in the upper 2% of the wealthiest of the population and would therefore be enslaved by their own cause. If you want to get down to it with one of them, ask them a few of the following questions:

if you are not rich and your road gets a pot hole in it, who fixes it?
if you are not rich and your house catches on fire, who puts it out?
if you are not rich and someone tries to kill you, who stops them?
if you are not rich and your kid gets very sick, who heals them?

the answer to all of these questions from a pure libertarian is "screw you. take care of yourself."
They are the party that most supports corporations controlling the entire society, though they don't often talk about it directly. It's a free country, right? if wal-mart makes enough money to buy run out all the competition and have a monopoly over the lives of every person on earth for their own profit, then good for them.
i really hate the libertarian philosophy.

Geeez, I typed up a huge response only to have videosift refresh the page to lose it all, thanks videosift.
Anyway, here goes one more time...

You have the audacity to be so ignorant as to claim that an entire group of a wide variety of people are all unashamed and selfish - all the while I've met several democrats and republicans whom are unashamed and self-righteous people (not all of course), but I wouldn't be so blatantly ignorant as to group the entire lot as such.
People of all walks of life end up being in the middle politically because they realize the partisan bullshit of a two party system that is both corrupt to the core (politically) and constantly lying to us to get elected and/or remain in office.

Many libertarians share common values with those on the right and left. Not all libertarians believe in a completely open free-market society. Many of us like myself demands a regulated market. There will always be some issues that you may disagree with or feel a little differently about no matter what party you are in.

Civil rights, sound monetary policy, limited international intervention and proper checks and balances in a small federal government sounds like the most logical I've heard of out of all the parties available. I don't agree with the abortion issue because I'm non-religious and I feel a woman should have the right to choose, yet this should be highly regulated and it shouldn't be a federal issue, but one for the states individually to decide.

Now, to answer your questions (again):
1.) "if you are not rich and your road gets a pot hole in it, who fixes it?"
Ans: That would be the STATE taxpayer funded infrastructure dept. (i.e.: Caltrans, DMV)
I have no problem paying state taxes so long as the funds are not abused, used up in bureaucracy, paying extravagant salaries to executive, lost via corruption, etc.) The income tax goes only to pay for interest the national deficit (thanks to fractional-reserve fiat banking and systematic removal of the gold standard).

2.) "if you are not rich and your house catches on fire, who puts it out?"
Ans: That also is the STATE taxpayer funded Fire and Rescue departments.

3.) " if you are not rich and someone tries to kill you, who stops them?"
Ans: That also is a STATE taxpayer funded Law Enforcement division.
Note: The FBI is a great Federal law enforcement agency (when not hampered by bureaucracy, politics and corruption). This being said I feel some federal taxes are fine. One third of my pay is gross taxation though and it's gotten a bit out of hand thanks to bankers and corrupt politicians creating and controlling economic policy.

4.) " if you are not rich and your kid gets very sick, who heals them?"
Ans: Usually myself because I am not rich. If I have to take them in, then my kids get healed from the doctor I have from my medical plan that I and my company pays into. The federal or state govt. has not assisted with me on this!

It seems you need to rethink a few things here. You don't seem to really understand the general Libertarian philosophy. People tend to mock what they don't understand or they have an agenda for their own party of trying to stamp out competition (an ambitious form of monopoly over the lives which they try to influence).


>> ^daxgaz:

the party of of the unashamed selfish. I've debated several libertarians in the past. when you get right down to it they don't care about anyone but themselves. the irony is, the ones i talked to were not in the upper 2% of the wealthiest of the population and would therefore be enslaved by their own cause. If you want to get down to it with one of them, ask them a few of the following questions:
if you are not rich and your road gets a pot hole in it, who fixes it?
if you are not rich and your house catches on fire, who puts it out?
if you are not rich and someone tries to kill you, who stops them?
if you are not rich and your kid gets very sick, who heals them?
the answer to all of these questions from a pure libertarian is "screw you. take care of yourself."
They are the party that most supports corporations controlling the entire society, though they don't often talk about it directly. It's a free country, right? if wal-mart makes enough money to buy run out all the competition and have a monopoly over the lives of every person on earth for their own profit, then good for them.
i really hate the libertarian philosophy.

if you are not rich and your road gets a pot hole in it, who fixes it?
if you are not rich and your house catches on fire, who puts it out?
if you are not rich and someone tries to kill you, who stops them?
if you are not rich and your kid gets very sick, who heals them?

Roads can be paid for by user fees and excise taxes, and so can a lot of basic infrastructure and services.

The question was who, so who are those fees and taxes paid to for doing the work?

billing people for services after the services are completed the way hospitals do it now is a good place to start.

The question, again, was who gets to bill after putting out the fire?

If your kid gets sick, hospitals currently treat them. And I'd doubt a hospital would turn away a sick child.

If you believe that then you've been very lucky to live in the right part of the world. If you are dirt poor and no one is willing to heal your child and bill you later, what does your philosophy provide as an answer?

So.... basically you are saying "screw you. take care of yourself."

>> ^blankfist:

if you are not rich and your road gets a pot hole in it, who fixes it?
if you are not rich and your house catches on fire, who puts it out?
if you are not rich and someone tries to kill you, who stops them?
if you are not rich and your kid gets very sick, who heals them?

Free market capitalism has nothing to do with liberty. What Stossel and blankfist consider libertarianism would be much more accurately described as free market fundamentalism - with the emphasis on 'mental'.

You guys act like government is only roads, fire departments and public schools. You paint a wonderful Norman Rockwell painting of government.

But let's not forget where your money also goes: bank bailouts, nationalizing corporations, massive defense spending, war, bans on gay marriage, militarizing local police, etc. Wonderful fight you're fighting there, guys.

You guys act like government is only roads, fire departments and public schools. You paint a wonderful Norman Rockwell painting of government.

But let's not forget where your money also goes: bank bailouts, nationalizing corporations, massive defense spending, war, bans on gay marriage, militarizing local police, etc. Wonderful fight you're fighting there, guys.

And you describe taxes as theft implemented with force. The closest the world can come to your tax free ideal is places free of any government at all. Somalia comes to mind.

Articulate your alternatives and defend them. If taxes are 'theft', then explain how even rudimentary law and order is supposed to be provided for in your better alternative. Pointing out how terrifically broken our system is doesn't count, we all agree. It's solutions that are needed, and we're merely pointing out that your so called solutions are anything but.

It seems you need to rethink a few things here. You don't seem to really understand the general Libertarian philosophy.

References please.

If the general Libertarian philosophy is actually described somewhere please point us to it. For the most part it seems that Libertarianism is nothing more than a catch all for anyone disillusioned with both the Dems and the Reps, hardly a 'movement' with any kind of unified policies. That very ethereal lack of any consistent policy is exactly the criticism made of Libertarianism.

The only common belief seems to be the 'your freedom ends were mine begins' philosophy, which arguably is already the underlying goal of a great many democratic constitutions universally rejected by Libertarians. If you hold to both those thoughts, your 'philosophy' is no longer consistent with itself, and you can't expect it to be taken seriously.

I have given solutions. Income tax is theft of labor. Excise taxes and user fees could be used to fund any number of government goods and services. They currently exist now. Here are a few examples:

Bus fair covers the cost of buses.
Gasoline tax covers roads.
Camping fees for parks.

But to say this everyone immediately wants to paint the Libertarian as hating children and poor people. The truth is we just don't like aggression, violence and our money being stolen to pay for wars and bad government policy. I could paint you as someone who hates gays and support the war in Iraq because you defend the income tax, but would that be fair?

I have given solutions. Income tax is theft of labor. Excise taxes and user fees could be used to fund any number of government goods and services. They currently exist now. Here are a few examples:

Bus fair covers the cost of buses.
Gasoline tax covers roads.
Camping fees for parks.


Thank you for the specifics, this may be the closest you and I have come to actually understanding each other .

Those are excellent examples, which is why they are widely implemented that way already in a great many places. Fire fighting can't entirely rely on volunteers, nor can it entirely rely on free market pricing. How do you pay for policing and a judicial system to arrest thieves, rapists and murders? How do you pay for an army to stop the dictator next door from walking in and shooting all your policemen and taking over?



The truth is we just don't like aggression, violence and our money being stolen to pay for wars and bad government policy.
Nobody does. But people disagree on what bad government policy is, and even in many cases on the difference between war and national self defense. That's why we need more than a blanket 'do away with income taxes'. We need to additionally agree on the services to cut which that money pays for.

With the amount of money the government has, why are there so many volunteer firefighters? That's the question you should be asking. The second question should be how often have you used the fire department's "fire fighting" services in your lifetime? I'd wager not often if at all. This shows me that fire departments can run effectively and have run effectively with realistically little funding, and I think it goes without saying that we all agree they are necessary.

The question is "how do we fund them"? I say there are voluntary ways to do that such as my previous example of a user fee, which is they'd bill you for their services. Or it could come out of the gasoline tax that is meant to cover infrastructure. There are many ways to do it, I'm sure.

How do you pay for policing and a judicial system to arrest thieves, rapists and murders? How do you pay for an army to stop the dictator next door from walking in and shooting all your policemen and taking over?

But people disagree on what bad government policy is, and even in many cases on the difference between war and national self defense. That's why we need more than a blanket 'do away with income taxes'. We need to additionally agree on the services to cut which that money pays for.

when you get right down to it they don't care about anyone but themselves.

I came to libertarianism as a political system which is the best for the poorest in the world. Though the above comment talks about the poor, it's pretty clear he's only talking about the poor in his country. If you really want to talk about the poor it's not anyone in the US or the first world. Libertarianism by advocating open borders and open trade, would the most quickly allow the real poor in the world to escape poverty by allowing them to sell their labor to the rich world.

If you really care about the poor I don't think there's anything better that you can do than this.

Blankfist said this re: Firefighters
The question is "how do we fund them"? I say there are voluntary ways to do that such as my previous example of a user fee, which is they'd bill you for their services. Or it could come out of the gasoline tax that is meant to cover infrastructure. There are many ways to do it, I'm sure.

But why should I have to pay for firefighting services just because I want to buy gasoline? It doesn't seem that far removed from a general sales tax to me. And a general sales tax isn't far from income tax. I would argue that for firefighting, some kind of general tax, like your suggestion of a gasoline tax, is needed to adequately provide fire fighting services. My municipality does very nearly that right now, they tax my land instead of my gasoline is all. Status quo already matches what you are arguing for, or at least close enough it's not such a big deal.

Police are also necessary, but I don't want to pay for jackbooting militarized police units, and I should have a say in that.

As you said before though, the question is who or how do we fund them? Raise the gasoline tax again? A more general land or even sales tax? As for a say in it, I get to vote on the nature of the funding three times over: Federal, Provincial and municipal. It's not perfect, but better alternatives aren't so obvious to me, do you have any?

Courts are necessary, and they're also covered by user fees currently.

Only for Civil courts, and we were talking about criminal court. In any 'the people' vs. cases somebody other than the victim and accused will need to pay for the related costs. I'm happy to suggest those convicted pay the costs, but that is most likely not going to cover 100% and will mean more taxes/theft through violence.

They don't have a standing army, and yet the dictator next door hasn't marched in there.

I reject the idea of a nation remaining free without a standing army as Ahistorical. You really wouldn't argue that simply not having a standing army is a good plan? Assuming not, the question again is how to fund it but through yet more tax/theft.

That's the problem with income tax. It's not voluntary like excise tax or user fees, therefore it can be taken in high amounts from each of us to fund whatever the government chooses.

Is your argument as simple then as limiting spending and replacing income tax with sales taxes wherever possible? That's a much more moderate suggestion than is generally associated with Libertarianism. In principle it even could be called arguing semantics, and simply rename 'income tax' into a series of government "user service fees" for things like the police, army and national debt.

government isn't just fire departments, public schools and roads. It's war, it's inequality, it's corporate collusion, and it's theft.

Government is nothing more than the general co-operation of society. Your right on both counts, it plays a role in everything humans do. That isn't the 'problem' though, it's the definition. War, inequality, collusion and theft will also all continue to exist in the absence of government. In many cases, it is in fact made much worse. It is no coincidence that the worst places in the world are generally the ones with the least stable, or even non-existent governments. It is no coincidence that the nations that are generally the best places to live, are similarly those that have the most stable governments.

We are easily agreed that our governments are in terrible need of massive reform, but it needs to be done without throwing away the benefits that we've built up over the last century.

Funniest thing I've read all year!

I mean, we all know that insurance companies and for-profit hospitals would never in a million years turn away a sick kid! So then, this is funny. It's a funny statement, and BF was just being sarcastic.

>> ^blankfist:

I'd doubt a hospital would turn away a sick child.

>> ^volumptuous:

Funniest thing I've read all year!
I mean, we all know that insurance companies and for-profit hospitals would never in a million years turn away a sick kid! So then, this is funny. It's a funny statement, and BF was just being sarcastic.
>> ^blankfist:

I'd doubt a hospital would turn away a sick child.

Being happy to do something, and being able to do something, are unfortunately the difference between someone elses life/wealth and death/poverty.

>> ^KnivesOut:

>> ^volumptuous:
Funniest thing I've read all year!
I mean, we all know that insurance companies and for-profit hospitals would never in a million years turn away a sick kid! So then, this is funny. It's a funny statement, and BF was just being sarcastic.
>> ^blankfist:

I'd doubt a hospital would turn away a sick child.

>> ^bcglorf:

How do you pay for policing and a judicial system to arrest thieves, rapists and murders? How do you pay for an army to stop the dictator next door from walking in and shooting all your policemen and taking over?

The truth is we just don't like aggression, violence and our money being stolen to pay for wars and bad government policy.
Nobody does. But people disagree on what bad government policy is, and even in many cases on the difference between war and national self defense. That's why we need more than a blanket 'do away with income taxes'. We need to additionally agree on the services to cut which that money pays for.


Do you mean the dictator that we had installed after inciting the last coup or just some random dictator?

The thing is National Defense is one thing, while unjustified wars where we've been lied to from black flag operations is another (i.e.: gulf of tonkin incident). How many of our men and women died for that great cause? How much money did it cost us? How many family units were torn apart? How many more of these must we endure and funnel more money into when we could have been beefing up our actual real National Defense?

^ The Gulf of Tonkin, and making sure all citizens (kids!) get a decent education and health services, and the promise of not being poisoned by their food, air and water, are a bit different.

>> ^volumptuous:

^ The Gulf of Tonkin, and making sure all citizens (kids!) get a decent education and health services, and the promise of not being poisoned by their food, air and water, are a bit different.


Precisely.

And you don't need to be a Libertarian to see the difference between national defense and carpet bombing Cambodia into the stone ages and support for the Khmer Rouge's campaign of brutality on those left alive.

@bcglorf, I'd ask why there's a "people vs." case in the first place? For court cases, the victim or victim's family should be the one suing. You don't need a "people vs." case for victim crimes such as murder, rape, etc. And all other cases are civil, and therefore the person claiming damages would be suing.

Who's the victim in a "People vs." case? Typically it's a judgement of ethics, right? I'd love to be proved wrong. If you have specific examples of cases that require tax funding, then please offer them up.

Also, I know a lot of Libertarians would disagree with any form of taxation, but in finding common ground I offer the excise tax and user fees as options. These are nothing like income tax or sales tax. User fees are fees paid directly for a service. Excise taxes are placed on non-essential goods like gasoline, because you have a choice as to whether or not you choose to drive making it voluntary. A tax on food isn't voluntary because you need it to survive. See how that's different? Clothing would be a necessity, so it wouldn't be taxed, etc.

As for the standing army and how to fund it; that's a good question. I would start by asking questions like I did above, which is, "do we really need one?" The one we have didn't prevent 911. The one we have is also being used to spread and maintain hegemony throughout the world. That should be enough to make you question whether we need it or not. I was in the military, and I can tell you what I saw wasn't great. We dumped big five galloon buckets of old paint into the ocean and plastic bags of garbage among other things. All with your tax dollars. And you have no choice but to put up with it.

Now, if the US Government had to compete for the funding of that military through more voluntary means, I think we could see an improvement. And who says an armed citizenry like Switzerland is a bad thing? I think that would be the ideal solution, in my eyes, though probably not in yours.

It's all food for debate. But I think we should be debating it instead of personally attacking one another over political differences. I'm enjoying our civil conversation.

@BF

I'm enjoying civil conversation too. I mean, you can't spell "libertarian" without a "liber"al.

Exactly! Libertarians are liberals! That's what liberals are... well, used to be.

btw:

"AND NOW, THE MAN WHO SHATTERS CONVENTIONAL WISDOM....JON STOSSEL!"

hahahahaha!

ok oh wait.

John Stossel interviewing PJ O'Rourke and "Judge" Naploitano. Good lord.

Cat liberty: I believe that all animals should be able to eat whatever they want, whenever they want. A cat should be able to eat a mouse and a mouse should be able to eat a cat. Fair is fair.*

Mouse liberty: Please don't eat me.

*Sorry that I had to make the cat the bad guy in this metaphor, issy.

I'd ask why there's a "people vs." case in the first place? For court cases, the victim or victim's family should be the one suing.

You need the "people vs." for crimes were there isn't somebody to represent the victim. Like when a dead John Doe turns up, or the murdered person has no family to pursue a case. This is probably a far afield sideline though.

If you have specific examples of cases that require tax funding, then please offer them up.

Well, aside from the above mentioned victims that have nobody but the state to represent them, it still doesn't seem like 'victim pays' is an ideal approach. Rape victims have a hard enough time coming forward in our current system, adding court costs on top doesn't seem prudent. Putting the court costs in the hands of the victim would also interfere with the notion that the quality of justice should be blind to the wealth/means available to a victim. If you want to mandate fixed court costs, isn't that just more regulation? Again, how do you decide who makes that call?

Also, I know a lot of Libertarians would disagree with any form of taxation, but in finding common ground I offer the excise tax and user fees as options.

I wouldn't say it's even 'common ground', unless real world applications are the common ground. As with any ideas the devil is in the details, and cutting or paying for basic services is one that has to be answered by any political ideal.

Clothing would be a necessity, so it wouldn't be taxed, etc.

There are two tricks though. First and foremost is deciding who gets to pick what is essential and what isn't? Shelter is essential, but does that include a $30 million home? What about $500k or $100k? The second trick is each item marked as untaxable increases the taxation required on what's left in order pay for the services everyone agrees are needed to protect the line where 'my rights begin'.

As for the standing army and how to fund it; that's a good question. I would start by asking questions like I did above, which is, "do we really need one?"

And I went beyond saying yes to declaring that any contrary position was Ahistorical. Argue as much as you want about the failings of your military(I'm Canadian), that doesn't make you better of without one. Take an honest look at just the last 100 years and try to picture where America would be with no standing army to speak of. We can follow that line for pages, but I don't honestly believe anyone can say America would be better off, if it would even exist at all. I know you seem inclined to believe the world would be better off, but remember we are then imagining a world where Stalin has been the sole nuclear superpower since the 50's.

And who says an armed citizenry like Switzerland is a bad thing?

Nobody is saying it's bad, just that it's not enough all by itself. Switzerland has trading partners that aren't keen to see it run over. America has a similarly armed citizenry, and I think that is probably the key factor in keeping it the 'best' democracy around. The fear of it's own well armed people necessarily keeping things at least partially in check.

@dystopianfuturetoday. Let's use your example. Cat wants to eat the mouse, but by doing so it would be encroaching upon the mouse's life. That doesn't work.

@bcglorf:

...it still doesn't seem like 'victim pays' is an ideal approach. Rape victims have a hard enough time coming forward in our current system, adding court costs on top doesn't seem prudent... If you want to mandate fixed court costs, isn't that just more regulation?

There are two tricks though. First and foremost is deciding who gets to pick what is essential and what isn't? ...The second trick is each item marked as untaxable increases the taxation required on what's left in order pay for the services everyone agrees are needed to protect the line where 'my rights begin'.

Argue as much as you want about the failings of your military(I'm Canadian), that doesn't make you better of without one. Take an honest look at just the last 100 years and try to picture where America would be with no standing army to speak of.

I'm glad we have a healthy debate going here

SO, what i have not heard from any of the pro-libertarian group is how corporate monopolies would not run absolutely wild and end up ruling the world. I'm not even exaggerating here. Already corporations control way too much and have insane amounts of power. If libertarian beliefs were put in to practice there would be absolutely nothing stopping giant corporations from buying up every piece of land and every natural asset and then subjugating the entire population. Who's going to stop them?

Also, what about the environment? Under the hard core libertarian stance i have heard, If i want to dump toxic waste in my back yard, who is going to tell me i can't? so what if it leaks in to the ground water. that's for some other guy to take care of.

I get what you're saying, but a victim can and would sue for the court costs as part of their settlement. That's pretty routine.

It's routine in civil cases, not as much in criminal. If it's still innocent until proven guilty and shadow of a doubt, suddenly suing for costs is small consolation for the victim's worries about being stuck losing an honest case and being out both their innocence AND their cash. Child abuse cases are hard enough to prove already, making the victim pay actually creates more injustice.

The essentials are pretty clear.

You'd think so, but try and get a few million people to agree on it. I know here in Canada we already have removed taxes from 'essential' items. So there is no sales tax on milk, butter or flour, but there is on bread. I know for anyone living outside urban centres the only means of transportation available is automobiles, is it essential in those areas? Even if you say it isn't, what's done about the dissenting minority?


Is it a $30 million dollar home? Why not?

Tax shelter by any other name would sound as sweet?

How many times has Canada been invaded by foreign nations? Seriously. Think about that.

I certainly have. We survived the entire Cold War, and we were practically neighbouring the USSR and all we had was an army they could've defeated in 24 hours. It's almost as if there really were some other factor staying their hand against us, as we had also made it clear we were an active enemy of the USSR. You can chalk that up to some unknown force and declare that you don't need an army. I'm going to take the conventional and more mundane explanation that the USSR was pretty sure any invasion into Canada would've been met by more than just the Canadian armed forces. Take away America's army and my Russian would be better than my grandfather's was.

Now look at Afghanistan. It's a fraction the size of the US, and many nations have tried to occupy it. None have done it successfully. Now imagine a nation trying to take over this country where so many citizens are armed. First we have a sprawling land mass. Second we have an armed population. They'd never succeed. Never.

Yes, let's please take Afghanistan as an example. Afghanistan is a desolate waste land with no resources even worth taking, and nation after nation has invaded and occupied it over and over again. It is one the poorest, least educated places on the planet, with some of the highest infant mortality rates in the world as well. When they weren't being invaded by foreigners though, the civilians were being crushed between one warlord after another. Afghanistan is the perfect example of why any nation worth living in needs both a strong police force and army in order to stay that way. Does it really matter if the USSR could never have fully conquered the US without an army? Isn't the ability to turn it into a desolate, ravaged third world while trying incentive enough?

I have charts to help people out with ideas on what all those eeeeeevil taxes are really spent on:

http://www.offthechartsblog.org/where-do-your-federal-and-state-tax-dollars-go/

The answer? Most of your Federal taxes go towards insurance of one sort or another -- Social Security for if you live past 65, Medicare in case you need medical treatment after you turn 65, Medicaid if you need medical treatment and are poor, CHIP/SCHIP in case you need medical treatment for your kids and are relatively poor, Unemployment if you get laid off, disability if you are unable to work because of illness or injury, food stamps if you need to eat if you're poor, TANF aka "welfare" if you're poor, etc.

Defense is the only big-ticket non-insurance cost, and I'm all for cutting it. However, even if we zeroed out defense we wouldn't be able to eliminate federal taxes, or even give that big of a tax cut to regular joes, since most of our taxes are payroll taxes tied explicitly to Medicare and Social Security.

But mostly, I find it fascinating that everyone focuses so much on the tax thing.

Personally, I'm a liberal, and not a conservative or a libertarian, because I think you need to make proactive attempts to insure that people's individual exercises of freedom don't cause harm to others.

Libertarians have this whole witchcraft approach to that topic, where they feel that the threat of post-damage monetary settlements are more effective (and more libero-freedom-y) than preemptive safety regulations coupled with the threat of post-damage monetary settlements. Personally, I'd rather people took steps to make sure they avoid injuring or killing me, rather than just resting comfortable in the notion that I can sue people who injure me, and my surviving family can sue people who kill me.

I also think that despite all the flowery rhetoric about human rights being natural and innate, they only exist when there's a government backing it up. Otherwise, my rights are limited to what I can defend with the martial strength I can gather together myself.

@NetRunner. You also forgot that we don't like preemptive wars, bailouts of corporations and banks, laws against free individuals who have not created a victim, which goes against your modern "liberal" ideas of preemptive safety. If that's a witchcraft approach, I suppose I'll go dance around the fire and sacrifice my goat for rain.

@blankfist, umm, which liberals support preemptive war? For that matter, which liberals think bailing out corporations is something we love, and need to do more of?

I don't understand why you seem intent on disputing what overlap there is between liberals and libertarians.

Neither of us want a war on drugs.

Neither of us want a war on terror.

Neither of us want our government to be able to wiretap us without a warrant.

Neither of us want our government to torture anyone, for any reason.

Neither of us want a global military empire.

Neither of us want corporations to be unaccountable.

Neither of us want government to be unaccountable.

Neither of us want to discriminate against people.

Neither of us want to limit free speech.

Neither of us want our government to be corrupt.

Neither of us want indefinite detention without trial for anyone.

You dispute many of these, for no rational reason that I can discern.

There's plenty of stuff that we really disagree on that we could debate. I'm not sure why you can't seem to find a way to argue against my real positions.

For example, I think government should make sure children's toys don't have lead paint on them. I presume, since this is a law "against free individuals who have not created a victim", you are opposed.

What do you propose we do to keep children safe from lead paint on children's toys?

What is a Libertarian? (The Cliff Notes Version)

1. Shallow
2. Selfish
3. Short-sighted