I don't know--I did get a free strawberry/lemonade from McDonald's last week. Can Uncle Sam top that?

>> ^Ti_Moth:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Ti_Moth:
I've always wondered, in a libertarian society what is to stop the super rich from creating their own states? Surely it wouldn't be hard, without a government to rein in their powers they could just hire a bunch of mercenaries and live like kings (whilst fighting other kings for land/resources). Libertarianism just seems like a massive step back to me.

Um? What is your definition of "own?" The rich already own all three branches of the US government--for the most part. And they own the same on the states' level. But to physically "own" would mean expending their resources to control--and why would they do that when they can just expend taxpayers' resources?
The idea of libertarianism is not to lessen government, it is to distribute the power between 50 states so that one authority doesn't have the power to crush one state's opposition.
Liberatarianism means that people have more responsibility and power, but I doubt they could handle that (Look up "Tea Party" for an example.)

I would imagine in a libertarian world, these kings could tax the people in their thrall and it would be similar to the world we live in today but without any concessions to democracy or human rights.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^Ti_Moth:
I've always wondered, in a libertarian society what is to stop the super rich from creating their own states? Surely it wouldn't be hard, without a government to rein in their powers they could just hire a bunch of mercenaries and live like kings (whilst fighting other kings for land/resources). Libertarianism just seems like a massive step back to me.

Um? What is your definition of "own?" The rich already own all three branches of the US government--for the most part. And they own the same on the states' level. But to physically "own" would mean expending their resources to control--and why would they do that when they can just expend taxpayers' resources?
The idea of libertarianism is not to lessen government, it is to distribute the power between 50 states so that one authority doesn't have the power to crush one state's opposition.
Liberatarianism means that people have more responsibility and power, but I doubt they could handle that (Look up "Tea Party" for an example.)


I would imagine in a libertarian world, these kings could tax the people in their thrall and it would be similar to the world we live in today but without any concessions to democracy or human rights.

>> ^Ti_Moth:

I've always wondered, in a libertarian society what is to stop the super rich from creating their own states? Surely it wouldn't be hard, without a government to rein in their powers they could just hire a bunch of mercenaries and live like kings (whilst fighting other kings for land/resources). Libertarianism just seems like a massive step back to me.


Um? What is your definition of "own?" The rich already own all three branches of the US government--for the most part. And they own the same on the states' level. But to physically "own" would mean expending their resources to control--and why would they do that when they can just expend taxpayers' resources?

The idea of libertarianism is not to lessen government, it is to distribute the power between 50 states so that one authority doesn't have the power to crush one state's opposition.

Liberatarianism means that people have more responsibility and power, but I doubt they could handle that (Look up "Tea Party" for an example.)

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner. I'm on vacation. Take a breather on snap assumptions. I'll be back next week. Don't have my computer with me.
If people don't respond within a day or two take it easy and be patient.


Enjoy your vacation blankie. I hope the sows wherever you are a real friendly.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Why not answer some tough questions?

@blankfist, since you seem to be too chicken to take up DFT's challenge, how about I try to play devil's advocate and try to argue the libertarian position for you.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Underregulated markets in early America resulted in slavery, child labor, monopolies, labor abuse and the great depression. Why should we want to return to those dark days?

We wouldn't return to those days. To take on each in turn:

1. Slavery
   
   No one would be compelled by violence to do anything they like. People may choose to sell their entire lifetime worth of labor voluntarily if they so choose, but they will not be coerced to do so with violence.
   
   
2. Child labor
   
   Again, no one would be compelled by violence to do (or not do) things. If children don't want to work, they may choose not to. But if you're 9 years old and want to work 80 hours a week to help your family, what right does the government have to coerce people not to?
   
   
3. Monopolies
   
   Natural monopolies, where the cost of entering a sector of the market outweighs the expected return, are just part of market economics, and should be tolerated. Market leaders that become a de facto monopoly, but do not actually enjoy 100% market share (such as Microsoft Windows), are not monopolies, and also a natural result of the free market, so government must not interfere.
   
   Government sponsored monopolies, like the USPS, are evil in ways the others are not because their existence is based on violent coercion, not natural market choice.
   
   
4. Labor abuse
   
   Everyone is free to quit and seek employment elsewhere. It isn't abuse if you voluntarily subject yourself to it.
   
   
5. The Great Depression
   
   This was caused by government interference in the market, an no amount of historical or economic facts will ever convince me otherwise.
   

Of course there's no guarantee that none of these dark things will come back, I'm just saying it's totally legitimate for them to come back provided no violence is used to coerce people. Coercion in the form of economic desperation is totally okay though.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Deregulation and privatization always seem to result in massive unemployment, economic inequity, inflation and corruption. Is this the desired effect?

Deregulation in Chile is a huge success story. Ditto for China, Ireland, southeast Asia, etc.

On the other hand, the economies of Cuba and North Korea have remained depressingly stagnant. Everyone's equally poor.

To use John McCain's turn of phrase "I'm not worried about who's getting a bigger slice of the pie, I'm trying to grow the pie!"

Just...don't ask me about Sweeden, they give me a rash with their high equality, high tax, high growth model. Must be something unique and exceptional about Scandinavians that's superior to us Americans.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
There is no evidence to suggest a libertarian society would function at all. Why should I join you on blind faith?

It's about doing what's right. When Lincoln tried to free the slaves, no one knew how the economy could function without slave labor. They did it anyway, because you have to do what's morally right!

In this case, we're talking about ending violent coercion, because everyone knows that only people who work for the government ever use violent coercion. Eliminate government, and it'll be gone forever!

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Why do corporations fund your movement? What do they have to gain out of supporting your cause?

Good question, it must be patriotism, or altruism. Rich people are actually really nice, and very generous!

They're willing to adopt a radically unregulated, untaxed world, knowing that it's somehow against their interests. Much more altruistic than agreeing to let their taxes go up so the government can waste it on children's education, helping the poor, the sick, the elderly, maintaining roads...

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Why does this American version of libertarianism require absolute fealty to market capitalism? Doesn't that kind of totalitarianism go against the concept of liberty?

No, you must adopt my narrow conception of liberty! Government telling you that you have to serve black people = tyranny, businesses telling you that you have to submit to a drug test as a condition of employment = liberty.

Once properly understood, it's about fealty to nonviolence, at least government-based nonviolence. Corporations using violence to enforce their rules on the use of their property is self-defense, and therefore totally morally justifiable. Duh.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Why is it that violence, blackmail and intimidation seem to be the primary ways of bringing these kinds of free market changes to other countries around the world? Liberty at the butt of a gun?

Only governments do those things! Wealthy businessmen would never go along with that, because they're all paragons of moral virtue. They'd never let a thing like considerable personal gain motivate them to call for these things in the first place...

>> ^DerHasisttot:

Can someone explain to me how a libertarian society would not end in the rich getting richer and the poor poorer and deader? (This question is not derisive, I really want to know.)


I'll take a stab. Well, the current system has a government that intervenes in every single market. And what we've seen as a result is opportunistic politicians colluding with corporations to pass legislation that creates more corporate welfare and subsidies paid for by tax dollars; creates regulations and restrictions on markets that benefit the corporations or at the very least closes out competition from small businesses who cannot afford to pay the regulatory fees and permits; and there's a healthy dose of nepotism as those politicians give business contracts (sometimes no-bid contracts) to those select corporations.

This kind of market intervention isn't a free market. And what results from it is the rich getting richer from our tax dollars and other subsidies. This creates a huge gap between the rich and the middle class/poor. A free market offers no certain guarantee of protection, but what it does do is put the power of each industry and each market into the hands of the many instead of the hands of the few. And because the poor and middle class out number the rich, more people from the bottom will generate wealth and respectively less from the top.

What tends to scare people about free markets is that there's no guarantee of protection. But that should be viewed from a perspective of reason and seen as a potential for good instead of seen from a perspective of fear and seen as dangerous and scary. A free market means there are no central planners, therefore no collusion on a top level. That's the biggest benefit of a free market, IMO, because in regulated markets the "guarantees" are the exact thing that make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Successfully processed your "amazon" invocation - view all Amazonized posts here

Love the rebellious image of anarchism but not interested in giving up property rights, class privilege and your sense of entitlement? Well don’t let these gross contradictions hold you back one day longer.

Koch Industries, the makers of Brawny™ Towels and Third World Misery™, is proud to announce NEW and IMPROVED: CAPITALIST ANARCHISM™.

CAPITALIST ANARCHISM™requires no protesting, no book learning and no understanding of politics or economics beyond the information we provide through our media subsidiaries, like The Cato Institute, The Heritage Foundation and ReasonTV (Hosted by everyone’s favorite TV funnyman, Drew Carey) .

Be sure to try our other sponsored product lines, such as THE TEA PARTY™ and THE AMERICAN LIBERTARIAN PARTY™ .

TL;DR version - my team is better than your team.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I'm sick of fan-boy politics. Do you have any ideas of your own, beyond my team is better than your team? I'm sick of liberal fan boys, conservative fan boys and libertarian fan boys. Instead of insults and distractions, why not put forth a fucking original thought for once. Behind each of these political brands are real life ideas that we can talk about. Let's shut off Glenn Beck and Air America and ReasonTV and do some thinking for ourselves. These motherfuckers do not speak for us. These motherfuckers do not work for us. These motherfuckers do not think for us.
Glenn Beck is sick in the head, and if him calling for the execution of his opponents isn't reason enough for you to abandon him, then you've got problems. What if I said bobknight should be shot in the head and skull fucked? Would you find that to be enlightening discourse? Would you consider that left wing slant? Or would you consider that the unproductive words of a sociopath?
There is nothing wrong with political slant. You have a slant. I have a slant. Anyone with any understanding of politics has a political slant, and to attempt to hide that slant just makes you deceptive. The bigger problem with the concept of 'bias' or 'slant' is that it causes people to shut off their brains if they are exposed to anything outside of their own ideology. 'Bias' serves as a default argument for people not informed enough to form their own arguments. How many times have you seen an argument dismissed entirely because of 'bias'. Arguments ARE bias. Liberals should listen to conservative and libertarian slant, conservatives should listen to liberal and libertarian slant, libertarians should listen to conservative and liberal slant, if for no other reason than to challenge their own belief systems, to make sure they aren't suffering from the echo chamber syndrome.
Do you know that if you took a more intellectual approach to political discourse, that you'd get more respect and your arguments would be much more persuasive? Flush Fox news down the toilet and pick up a book. Surely the right must have their own Howard Zinns and Noam Chomskys, right? Take back your ideology from these manipulative corporate media clowns.
Talk to Geesussfreek. I don't agree with him, but he's obviously well read, intelligent and knows how to put an argument together. I'd like you to be a more formidable political adversary and to stop wasting your breath with "Glen Beck is great. Far better that any of the slanted leftest pukes on MSnbc". I know you can do better. I know you could kick some serious liberal ass on this site if you educated yourself.
Same goes for liberals. Enough with the namecalling. If we are going to take this country back, we are going to have to do it with ideas, not with insults. I've been guilty of all of this stuff too, and I'm making efforts to change. If I engage in useless idea-free insults in the future, you should call me on it .
Note for any future reference back to this comment: insults and criticism are not the same thing


>> ^bobknight33:
Glen Beck is great. Far better that any of the slanted leftest pukes on MSnbc

I'm sick of fan-boy politics. Do you have any ideas of your own, beyond my team is better than your team? I'm sick of liberal fan boys, conservative fan boys and libertarian fan boys. Instead of insults and distractions, why not put forth a fucking original thought for once. Behind each of these political brands are real life ideas that we can talk about. Let's shut off Glenn Beck and Air America and ReasonTV and do some thinking for ourselves. These motherfuckers do not speak for us. These motherfuckers do not work for us. These motherfuckers do not think for us.

Glenn Beck is sick in the head, and if him calling for the execution of his opponents isn't reason enough for you to abandon him, then you've got problems. What if I said bobknight should be shot in the head and skull fucked? Would you find that to be enlightening discourse? Would you consider that left wing slant? Or would you consider that the unproductive words of a sociopath?

There is nothing wrong with political slant. You have a slant. I have a slant. Anyone with any understanding of politics has a political slant, and to attempt to hide that slant just makes you deceptive. The bigger problem with the concept of 'bias' or 'slant' is that it causes people to shut off their brains if they are exposed to anything outside of their own ideology. 'Bias' serves as a default argument for people not informed enough to form their own arguments. How many times have you seen an argument dismissed entirely because of 'bias'? Arguments ARE bias. Liberals should listen to conservative and libertarian slant, conservatives should listen to liberal and libertarian slant, libertarians should listen to conservative and liberal slant, if for no other reason than to challenge their own belief systems, to make sure they aren't suffering from the echo chamber syndrome.

Do you know that if you took a more intellectual approach to political discourse, that you'd get more respect and your arguments would be much more persuasive? Flush Fox news down the toilet and pick up a book. Surely the right must have their own Howard Zinns and Noam Chomskys, right? Take back your ideology from these manipulative corporate media clowns.

Talk to Geesussfreek. I don't agree with him, but he's obviously well read, intelligent and knows how to put an argument together. I'd like you to be a more formidable political adversary and to stop wasting your breath with "Glen Beck is great. Far better that any of the slanted leftest pukes on MSnbc". I know you can do better. I know you could kick some serious liberal ass on this site if you educated yourself.

Same goes for liberals. Enough with the namecalling. If we are going to take this country back, we are going to have to do it with ideas, not with insults. I've been guilty of all of this stuff too, and I'm making efforts to change. If I engage in useless idea-free insults in the future, you should call me on it*.

*Note for any future reference back to this comment: insults and criticism are not the same thing




>> ^bobknight33:

Glen Beck is great. Far better that any of the slanted leftest pukes on MSnbc

Wal*Mart kills small businesses, ships jobs to sweatshops overseas, offers wages so terrible that many of their employees are below the poverty line, are abusive to domestic workers and invasive of their privacy, spy on their workers, bust unions, ect.

There is nothing even vaguely just about this corporation.

I know you love ReasonTV, largely because they tell you what you want to hear. I believe that if you were willing to take a step back and set your partisanship aside, it would become clear to you that this is thinly veiled corporate propaganda, from a media outlet that perverts the concepts of liberty and a free market that you hold dear in order to boost corporate power and profits. Much like the politicians you despise, Reason is on the corporate payroll.

Skepticism. Just do it.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I don't think that's what he's saying. You should watch the video again. Never did he say the way to combat social injustice is to shop. He said lowered prices for the poor helps them, and going after the places that offer lowered prices is adding to the problem.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
The best way to combat social injustice is to shop? At Wal*Mart?! Really!?! Who knew?

Wal*Mart kills small businesses, ships jobs to sweatshops overseas, offers wages so terrible that many of their employees are below the poverty line, are abusive to domestic workers and invasive of their privacy, spy on their workers, bust unions, ect.

There is nothing even vaguely just about this corporation.

I know you love ReasonTV, largely because they tell you what you want to hear. I believe that if you were willing to take a step back and set your partisanship aside, it would become clear to you that this is thinly veiled corporate propaganda, from a media outlet that perverts the concepts of liberty and a free market that you hold dear in order to boost corporate power and profits. Much like the politicians you despise, Reason is on the corporate payroll.

Skepticism. Just do it.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I don't think that's what he's saying. You should watch the video again. Never did he say the way to combat social injustice is to shop. He said lowered prices for the poor helps them, and going after the places that offer lowered prices is adding to the problem.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
The best way to combat social injustice is to shop? At Wal*Mart?! Really!?! Who knew?



(This comment is from a profile to profile discussion, but I thought it relevant enough to this discussion to add it to the thread)

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The Bush corporate tax cuts are not only back on the table, but now top priority. That's a big change. Now why would corporately funded "Reason"TV fail to notice or mention this in this re-education video? hmmmmmmm.....
Sorry brother blankfist, but the same people that fund ReasonTV also fund Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.


A large portion of reason tv is, much like the real news, individual sponsors. I also don't see how a tax cut that has already existed for a good deal of time is that big of change worth mentioning in this non-exhaustive talk on how the parties are more similar than dissimilar; giving 2 trillion away isn't so different than a tax cut.

The Bush corporate tax cuts are not only back on the table, but now top priority. That's a big change. Now why would corporately funded "Reason"TV fail to notice or mention this in this re-education video? hmmmmmmm.....

Sorry brother blankfist, but the same people that fund ReasonTV also fund Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.

Not a big fan of ReasonTV, but this was pretty funny. Don't let it go to your head, Koch Industries.