Tsk. Tsk. You lose one of your own and you have to attack her looks?

Nearly all good Democrats are an economics class away from being a true Liberty loving Liberal. What can I say? Voting Democrat will never give you the freedom and liberty you seek. Gays will always be second class citizens. You'll never be allowed to put into your body whatever drug you choose. Don't mock those bright enough to recognize that and seeking true change.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'snaggletoothed, libertarian, obama, new hampshire, ayn rand' to 'snaggletoothed, libertarian, obama, new hampshire, ayn rand, free state project' - edited by blankfist

This is why statists encourage illegal immigration. As more people wake up, more illegals are necessary for statists' votes-for-welfare exchange.

Hey Blank,

True enough that the attack on her dental state is kind of irrelevant, but someone that changed their minds TWO WEEKS after obama got into office can hardly be called a die-hard anything... clearly she's part of those who sway with the media's daily attack on whatever.

When you come down to it; homosexuals deserve equal rights, us attacking first without reason is wrong, and the world IS getting warmer (regardless of the cause). Republicans have been consistently burying their heads in the religious, conservative, and outdated social norms.

I'm not saying that the democrats have it right, I'm just saying that the erroneous title of this video doesn't change the fact that the conservative right in this country is out of touch and has no real solutions to the problems we are in, still they have nothing but criticism for an alternative view, rather than trying to do something different and giving it a chance...

Oh well, whatever...

Ad hominem title aside, I think this young woman is quite impressionable and really has no intellectual foundation for her beliefs. It seems she went to reason.com and talked to a couple of people with convictions, and decided to move to NH?!?!

I've gotta assume that if you locked her in a room with a radio blasting Limbaugh for a few days, she would emerge a hardcore neocon.

What's worse is that the fools who filmed and uploaded this think that this airhead (ok--there's my ad hominem) can sway anyone with a shred of conviction. Maybe she is their version of Obama girl ?

blanky, you've got qm using your derogatory euphemism for democracy. If you can convert him to Libertarianism and videotape it, I promise not to make fun of his choppers.

More proof that those living in New Hampshire as part of the "free state project" are full of shit.

>> ^ponceleon:
I'm not saying that the democrats have it right, I'm just saying that the erroneous title of this video doesn't change the fact that the conservative right in this country is out of touch and has no real solutions to the problems we are in, still they have nothing but criticism for an alternative view, rather than trying to do something different and giving it a chance...


I'm a bit confused. Libertarians aren't conservatives. They're classic liberals.

I just have to giggle at seeing yet another person say "Obama is doing things he said he wouldn't do". Which things are those?

There are things lefties didn't like that Obama clearly promised to do (ramp up the number of troops in Afghanistan, "look forward" with regard to Bush administration crimes, refuse to try for a single-payer healthcare plan, etc.). There are things Obama had promised that he hasn't done yet that we wish he'd move faster on (close Guantanamo, overturn DADT, implement cap & trade). But he hasn't started any preemptive wars, or implemented any kind of health care reform, much less one that "forces other people to pay for it" (which isn't in the offing at all if you're paying even casual attention to what both sides are saying).

It's not like Obama is a monarch. Those of you who claim to believe in limited government should be just fine with the idea that Obama can't snap his fingers and reshape the country in the first 6 months after becoming President.

This country's left-leaning grassroots are trying to build popular support for our ideas, so we can put them into place. Libertarians and Republicans seem to think they can skip that step for some reason. As far as my own political agenda is concerned, I hope you continue to think that for decades to come.


>> ^ponceleon:
I'm not saying that the democrats have it right, I'm just saying that the erroneous title of this video doesn't change the fact that the conservative right in this country is out of touch and has no real solutions to the problems we are in, still they have nothing but criticism for an alternative view, rather than trying to do something different and giving it a chance...

>> ^blankfist:
I'm a bit confused. Libertarians aren't conservatives. They're classic liberals.


Okay then, if libertarians differ from the Republican-style right wing with regard to ponce's critique, what are the issues that people are most concerned about, and what are the governmental policies you would enact to solve them?

>> ^NetRunner:
I just have to giggle at seeing yet another person say "Obama is doing things he said he wouldn't do". Which things are those?


I'm sure Obama's laundry list of lies is just as long as any politician, and I know I've heard a few. Here's a guy who has a list of 100, which is probably a bit more nitpicky than necessary.

http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2009/04/first-100-days-list-of-100-of-obamas.html



>> ^NetRunner:
Okay then, if libertarians differ from the Republican-style right wing with regard to ponce's critique, what are the issues that people are most concerned about, and what are the governmental policies you would enact to solve them?


You don't see Libertarians in favor of this war. You do, however, see Democrats in favor of it. You don't see Libertarians in favor of drug laws, but you do you see Dems in favor of them. Libertarians despise inequality and are in favor of ensuring all men (and women) are equal regardless of sexual or religious orientation. Dems vote in favor of denying gays' rights to marriage.

Who now is closer to the Republicans? Certainly not the Libertarian. We're classic Liberals. We disagree with Democratic and Republican violence and tyranny. We embrace freedom for everyone. Any questions?

I wouldn't ever want to live in a world run by Libertarians. It just looks like a terrible world where nobody cares about anybody else.

^Libertarians care about everyone's individual liberty. Not just some people's liberties, but everyone's.

Furthermore, I doubt you'd ever find a Libertarian wanting to "run" the world.

>> ^blankfist:
&I'm sure Obama's laundry list of lies is just as long as any politician, and I know I've heard a few. Here's a guy who has a list of 100, which is probably a bit more nitpicky than necessary.
http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2009/04/first-100-days-list
-of-100-of-obamas.html


Heh, that's amusing. The list was 100 things the author didn't like, and very few were broken promises. Of the claimed broken promises, only the one about signing statements is both important and accurate (#9).

Many of the things on that list are petty or misrepresented, and towards the end, things I was very happy he managed to get done.

I think if they needed to get that petty about things just to get to 100, Obama's doing really, really well so far.

You don't see Libertarians in favor of this war. You do, however, see Democrats in favor of it. You don't see Libertarians in favor of drug laws, but you do you see Dems in favor of them. Libertarians despise inequality and are in favor of ensuring all men (and women) are equal regardless of sexual or religious orientation. Dems vote in favor of denying gays' rights to marriage.
Who now is closer to the Republicans? Certainly not the Libertarian. We're classic Liberals. We disagree with Democratic and Republican violence and tyranny. We embrace freedom for everyone. Any questions?

I don't know of any elected members of the Libertarian Party, either. I guess your point is that because the 315-316 Democrats in Congress sometimes have a handful of defectors, Democrats then should never get any more votes?

I'm all for primarying the Democrats who've broken ranks on crucial issues, but at the moment all of those come from other states or house districts. I'll probably donate to key campaigns in 2010, once it becomes more clear which seats are really in play.

In any case, my questions were "What are the issues people are most concerned about" and "What are the governmental policies you'd enact to solve them"?

If your answers to the first question are 1) "The War" 2) Drug laws, and 3) Gay rights, you're at least out of touch, because only one of those is even on the list -- "The War" -- but that's a distant 2nd or 3rd after economic concerns, and it usually is expressed in the plural, since there are two countries with active combat missions right now.

I'm also not seeing any solutions, and far from seeing a plan for how to enact those solutions without building a popular consensus first.

>> ^NetRunner:
I think if they needed to get that petty about things just to get to 100, Obama's doing really, really well so far.

I disagree with your logic. Like I said, the list is certainly petty, but 100 is a large number. I don't even think Bush did 100 bad things in 100 days that wouldn't be considered nitpicking. So, does that mean Bush did really, really well in your eyes?


I don't know of any elected members of the Libertarian Party, either. I guess your point is that because the 315-316 Democrats in Congress sometimes have a handful of defectors, Democrats then should never get any more votes?

There are some Libertarians elected into office, but there are so few. This is reasonably to be expected because the party has only been around since the 1970s, whereas the Dem & Repub parties have been around since the 1800s. And, I'm not speaking about Democratic defectors, unless you're talking about Obama being one? Obama said, and I quote, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage." link.

It's your entire party, NetRunner. They talk as if they care about people's rights and personal liberties, but every time they get into office, they contradict themselves. If they didn't, then every time your party got elected into office, you'd see great things like legalization of drugs and equal rights for everyone.

And, War is the biggest issue. And, Obama is looking to extend that effort into Afghanistan. What's your point? That he's "talking" about ending the war in Iraq? He's talking about downsizing that effort, and he certainly won't pull out of Iraq. The Dems will act like the Repubs for the next year saying "if we broke it, we bought it" to *promote their disgustingly partisan bullshit.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Sunday, June 14th, 2009 5:51pm PDT - promote requested by blankfist.

A statist not a follower of democracy, a statist believes that government has all the answers and that the people must be regulated and controlled--micromanaged, really.

The statist has an oversimplified answer to libertarianism, which is anyone opposing the latest round of socialist nonsense must be an anarchist (or AYN-archist).

Against Obamacare, global weather, gun control, Head Start? You are a anarchist!

The LP is a mess and would do better effecting change inside the GOP, like RoPaul.

I hope you're not trying to push this as an accurate representation of all libertarians. It's a shame they chose to use this woman as a mouth-piece for the movement in this video.

I'm not anything, no party involvement, I'm generally apathetic, but I have to say that I've noticed most Dems have their heads so far up Obama's ass; their noses completely shit-brown, that they can't see the light. Not the light of Libertarianism, the bright light of blatant BULLSHIT with its ever-growing glowing glare shining all around them.

>> ^quantumushroom:
A statist not a follower of democracy, a statist believes that government has all the answers and that the people must be regulated and controlled--micromanaged, really.
The statist has an oversimplified answer to libertarianism, which is anyone opposing the latest round of socialist nonsense must be an anarchist (or AYN-archist).
Against Obamacare, global weather, gun control, Head Start? You are a anarchist!
The LP is a mess and would do better effecting change inside the GOP, like RoPaul.

Too bad if the GOP is ran by neo-cons f*ckin' up everybody's day...

>> ^blankfist:
I disagree with your logic. Like I said, the list is certainly petty, but 100 is a large number. I don't even think Bush did 100 bad things in 100 days that wouldn't be considered nitpicking. So, does that mean Bush did really, really well in your eyes?

Obama did a lot in his first 100 days, and I liked almost all of it. Libertarians didn't, and one wrote down 100 things they hated. I don't think the latter fact tells you much about Obama, but it tells me plenty that most of his list was "I didn't like this promise Obama kept", vs. your implied "Obama has broken many promises".

I couldn't tell you a thing about what Bush did in his first 100 days, but I wasn't terribly interested in politics then, either.

I don't think the things Obama will be remembered for have happened yet, which is why I think attempts to characterize him as having been some sort of failure or overbearing dictator is premature, to put it mildly.

Obama said, and I quote, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage." link.

Yes, many conservatives like to cherry pick that quote. Here's a quote from whitehouse.gov:

He supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. He supports repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security, and also believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation.

>> ^NetRunner:
War is the biggest issue.
Out of touch. The economy is the biggest issue.

Am I out of touch? How much has this war cost us? Military spending is 56% of the federal budget. Our nation is going broke from that war and all of the borrowing necessary to maintain our hegemony. Maybe you don't see the connection between the war and the economy because that Bush fella isn't in office any longer, but the rest of us do. Maybe you should get in touch.

Aside from that, your rhetoric above is starting to sound very pro-war much like the Republicans when their guy was in office. Interesting how that works in your two party system.


If you can convince me that there's no threat of Al Qaeda gaining control of Pakistan or its nuclear weapons (or that those things aren't a danger to our safety), then I'm all for full withdrawal from the whole area. If you can't, tell me how we prevent it, and still withdraw all our troops.

Obviously you don't believe they attacked us for our freedom, do you? I hope not. I hope you realize there would be no threat if we weren't spreading hegemony abroad. If we weren't meddling in foreign affairs, we would've never experienced 9/11.

To ensure our safety, yes, I do believe we need to march out of the Middle East. It's just that simple. We should also march out of the 130+ countries overseas and close down our 700+ bases there. Remove Al Qaeda's incentive to attack us and you will have your peace.

/watches netrunner and blankfist spar..
eh..im part of the WHIG party..oh wait,yeah..forgot about that.
they are TOAST!
ok..after watching this 15-16 yr old?
i have decided im going libertarian.
aaah man,who am i kidding! im an anarchist!
fuck em all,bring the whole putrid heap down in a firey ball of scandal and revolution.
wake me when the whole ball of wax is going to shit-town,ill be sleeping on QM's couch.
i vote netrunner for diplomatic leader,and blankfist defense minister(so he can blow stuff up).

politicians have consistently used the dreams and visions of the common man to invoke,insight and otherwise inspire good people to do things they normally would not do.they are the whores of babylon,and i will not give one ounce of trust to them.it is the community in which i live that i place my care and trust,local government is where change REALLY starts.

/end incoherent rant

Let's *promote for the discussion.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Monday, June 15th, 2009 1:11pm PDT - promote requested by blankfist.

>> ^Yogi:
I wouldn't ever want to live in a world run by Libertarians. It just looks like a terrible world where nobody cares about anybody else.

It might seem that way because of your apparent ignorance of Libertarianism.

I actually think libertarians care more about fellow human beings than others.

I don't care if that chick might look stupid or is uneducated and impressionable. If she's a libertarian, she's already a lot smarter about politics than any socialist on this planet.

I'd do her! .... I know... I feel bad already. I'm just saying.

>> ^blankfist:
Am I out of touch? How much has this war cost us? Military spending is 56% of the federal budget.

Military spending is more like 20% of the budget, and I do want that to shrink. But our government's national deficit isn't why the economy is tanking. On the contrary, our economy tanking is responsible for a healthy chunk of our national debt.

Obviously you don't believe they attacked us for our freedom, do you? I hope not.

No, I think they attacked us because they feel aggrieved for actions we've taken in the past. I also think they use hatred of us as their entire way of attracting and retaining followers -- we're a convenient scapegoat.

Sort of like libertarians and government.

I hope you realize there would be no threat if we weren't spreading hegemony abroad. If we weren't meddling in foreign affairs, we would've never experienced 9/11.
To ensure our safety, yes, I do believe we need to march out of the Middle East. It's just that simple. We should also march out of the 130+ countries overseas and close down our 700+ bases there. Remove Al Qaeda's incentive to attack us and you will have your peace.

I agree that if we had never meddled in the affairs of others, Al Qaeda would probably be attacking the Third Reich instead, or the Soviet Union, or whoever the world superpower is in that alternate reality.

In our timeline of events, I don't think withdrawing from everywhere would make Al Qaeda turn peaceful. On the contrary, I think they'd think they were winning, and keep right on stoking hate towards us, and looking to seek vengeance.

I do think our fixation on them as some sort of existential threat only made them stronger, and that using the US military on them is like trying to kill a gnat with a bazooka. This needed to be a public relations war and law enforcement effort more than a shooting war.

I want us out of Afghanistan. As near as I can tell the argument for staying is to help get their government established to the point where they can keep the Taliban and Al Qaeda at bay, but I'm not so sure that's doable with troops, unless the idea is to wipe out Al Qaeda (but they aren't in Afghanistan). But I don't have access to the same information the President has, and unlike Bush, I trust Obama's motives. I don't think he's in favor of fighting wars just to fight wars (or to secure oil rights, or to try to one-up his daddy).

So, I'm not going to scream out against it yet, but I do think he needs to talk more about it, and try to build up a consensus for it if it's really a necessary war. If it's not, he needs to start bringing it to a close.

But I don't have access to the same information the President has, and unlike Bush, I trust Obama's motives.

Shudder. Vomit. Cry.

It's hard to have a debate with someone so staunchly aligned to cling blindly to whatever their party offers up as talking points. Sad.

Also, military spending isn't 20%. You're looking at what the Federal government shows as Defense Spending which doesn't include past military spending (which is half of what we spend currently, I believe, so that would increase your chart to 30% or so, right?). I did misspeak however, because the 56% is income tax spent on military (current and past). You know us Libertarians, always thinking about income tax.

Still, I think you're being a bit too apologetic toward your party even when they're doing a lot of what the Republicans did when their guy was in office.

A statist believes that government has all the answers and that the people must be regulated and controlled--micromanaged, really.
-quantumushroom

You should be careful not define your opposition out of existence.

I don't know a single liberal that believes a) the government has all the answers or b) that everyone must be controlled and micro-managed. If that's what a statist is, then I am with you and blankfist 100%.

I see no need for the government to open a chain of themed restaurants, or to launch a line of cosmetics, however, I am pleased that we have civic solutions for problems that the private sector is ill-equipped to deal with, such as education, highway systems, court/legal systems, police, military, utilities, healthcare, etc.

ps: I love the new and improved pseudo-libertarian qm. It's a nice step in the left direction.

I don't care if that chick might look stupid or is uneducated and impressionable. If she's a libertarian, she's already a lot smarter about politics than any socialist on this planet.
-gtjwkq

So, as long as she wears the same color jersey, nothing else matters? Sounds like a nice way of saying beggars can't be choosers.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I see no need for the government to open a chain of themed restaurants, or to launch a line of cosmetics, however, I am pleased that we have civic solutions for problems that the private sector is ill-equipped to deal with, such as education, highway systems, court/legal systems, police, military, utilities, healthcare, etc.


Who says the private sector is ill-equipped to handle those things? We already have arbitration, so obviously we know privatized courts is a possible option. Privatized roads? Have you been to Disneyland? Damn, them some good roads, bub. Possibly the best I've ever seen.

And the education I got in my public school was shameful. Private education doesn't have to mean McDonalds creates educational franchises. It would be a great thing for communities to have multiple options for private schooling without having to conform to a terrible homogenized public school curriculum.

And why couldn't private healthcare (not corporate healthcare, which is what we have now thanks to government legislation passed in favor of them) be a wonderful thing. Imagine all the good that can be done if you could go see a nurse directly for simple medical treatment instead of going to the doctor's office? Nurses could treat a lot of ailments without the absorbent overhead of a licensed doctor you rarely see for longer than three minutes per trip. Or imagine if you didn't need a prescription for medicine you know you already need? Or imagine if we allowed prescription drug imports without the FDA?! Imagine the savings!

I'm not saying I'm for privatizing everything, at least not open to the idea of doing it overnight, but it's possible. And if you have private options without the government sticking their hands up your back, you could have way better and more affordable options.

The private sector thinks in terms of money and does not function well when profit is not the top priority. Take the California energy privatization disaster, for instance. Corruption, fraud and negligence were almost instantaneous. Thankfully, the public legal system stepped in, but what would have happened if Enron owned the court system as well? Honestly, it just seems to me that libertarians don't think this kind of stuff through.

Public systems should be under public control, period. I'm not sure how this is even controversial. It's just so plain, simple and obvious. Private businesses should be under the control of private individuals; Public works and systems should be under the control of the public. DUH!

If you are concerned about our school system, the last thing you would want to do is to relinquish transparency, oversight and the power of your own voice over to some CEO. Talk about tyranny - when the private national school system fails, who are you going to complain to? Ron Paul?

As far as healthcare goes, I don't understand why you can't get on board with the single payer program. It leaves all of the hospital staff and facilities in private hands, but manages the cost like one large insurance plan, with the sheer volume of participants keeping the costs low. As a perk, it would also destroy the HMO industry - good fucking riddance.

The nurse thing sounds great, and there is no reason you couldn't implement it into any system (included our mutually dispised current system).

I'm with you on the big-Pharma run FDA too. If the FDA was privatized, do you think Big-Pharma might be interested it? Nah, never.....

PS: Do you think your shameful public education is to blame for the frequent gaps of logic in your arguments? (i kid, you are the smartest libertarian I have ever known)

>> ^blankfist:
Shudder. Vomit. Cry.
It's hard to have a debate with someone so staunchly aligned to cling blindly to whatever their party offers up as talking points. Sad.

All I said is I'm willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. It's not clinging blindly, you haven't even tried to present an argument in response to any of my points, just attempts to insult my intelligence for not blindly mistrusting government, or perhaps just for my belief that Al Qaeda is not a rational actor.

Also, military spending isn't 20%. You're looking at what the Federal government shows as Defense Spending which doesn't include past military spending (which is half of what we spend currently, I believe, so that would increase your chart to 30% or so, right?). I did misspeak however, because the 56% is income tax spent on military (current and past). You know us Libertarians, always thinking about income tax.

Blah, blah, blah. It's hard to have a debate with someone so staunchly aligned to cling blindly to whatever their party offers up as talking points facts. Sad.

Still, I think you're being a bit too apologetic toward your party even when they're doing a lot of what the Republicans did when their guy was in office.

You aren't offering me an alternative that's more aligned with my desires.

Will libertarians give me a single-payer health care system? Or will you just shut down the FDA, EPA, and OSHA as unnecessary and authoritarian?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
The private sector thinks in terms of money and does not function well when profit is not the top priority. Take the California energy privatization disaster, for instance. Corruption, fraud and negligence were almost instantaneous. Thankfully, the public legal system stepped in, but what would have happened if Enron owned the court system as well? Honestly, it just seems to me that libertarians don't think this kind of stuff through.

Psssfff... That was the sound of me opening a can of whoop ass.

Like I said, Democrats are one economics class away from being Libertarians. We have thought this through, and all of your examples show the greed of public companies known as Corporations. Why my great Demsocratic friends continue to confuse corporations with capitalism is beyond me.

Let me put it this way, did the government prevent Enron from creating the energy crisis? No. Could they? Yes. Why?? Because.... "The company's exotic capital structure was driven by our inscrutable tax code. And Enron's accounting scheme was aided by the Financial Accounting Standards Board, a government-appointed monopoly that lent credibility to methods designed to deceive or evade. The true libertarian approach -- market competition in accounting standards -- would have yielded financial transparency, not collapse." cite.



We will agree against corporations unanimously. That's where you and I agree, but you have to separate corporations from private business. Dag owns a private business, for instance. Do you distrust him? No.

Would you trust him to open a small school if he chose to do so? Or would that be handing over transparency and power to a mighty, mean CEO? Come on.

^How does libertarianism ward off corporate power and influence?

^First, Libertarians do not believe government should be involved in private contracts except to enforce them in court should a civil dispute arise. The short of it: government shouldn't be in the business of private business.

Being that corporations are created by government, that would mean they shouldn't exist in the first place*. Corporations use government to get favorable legislation passed that makes small business difficult to compete with them.

By wanting to increase the size of government to play watchdog for those who are using that very mechanism in the first place to pass legislation in their favor, you're only fanning the flames, right?


* to circumvent an unnecessary argument, I understand corporations are well established in this country and they cannot be done away with overnight. It's the political and philosophical direction that is important here, because it focuses on change instead of band-aiding a bad system.

^Wave the magic wand of libertarianism, and every little thing gonna be alright?

Is there any reason to believe a tiny, weak libertarian government wouldn't be instantly annihilated by these huge, powerful corporate monoliths? By shifting the emphasis from civic responsibility to personal responsibility, you'd only be making it that much easier for big business to divide and conquer.

^You have no proof of that. You speak in fear only.

I would say 98% of people in this world are good and want to get along. It's the 2% we try so hard to protect ourselves against, and we do so with lots of fear-driven legislation which leads to tyranny. No one ever said freedom was safe, but at least within itself it isn't tyranny.

But, when your party or the Republicans wave their magic wand, where does it get us? I mean, after the finger pointing is done between the two parties, what do we have left? We still have big corporations, big government, lots of taxes, piss poor infrastructure, and a perpetual military effort abroad.

I think the Republican and Democratic Parties' attempts at band-aiding the problems are myopic. The bailouts (the real wave of the wand) are a great example, if you'll permit me a tangent. We've mortgaged our grandchildren to temporarily save our asses today. How can anyone want to associate themselves with any of those two parties after that is mind blowing.

>> ^blankfist:
Being that corporations are created by government, that would mean they shouldn't exist in the first place.

What is government doing to keep the concept of corporations in existence that private citizens wouldn't be able to do through contract?

By wanting to increase the size of government to play watchdog for those who are using that very mechanism in the first place to pass legislation in their favor, you're only fanning the flames, right?

I think you misunderstand the progressive position. It's not about "growing government to play watchdog", it's about the people pushing for laws to set limits on what business can do, in order to protect people from schemes they may not be able to detect or understand, and then have the government use its law enforcement powers to monitor that in ways private citizens would not (or should not) be able to.

To mildly rephrase dft's question, how does libertarianism defend against private power and influence taking advantage of people's lack of information or knowledge to their own detriment?

If that's what they think will make them so much profit that they are willing to bribe government to let them do it, why do you think getting government out of the equation will lead to superior outcomes for regular people?

>> ^NetRunner:
What is government doing to keep the concept of corporations in existence that private citizens wouldn't be able to do through contract?

Corporate power depends greatly on the intervention of government - how often do you see private business (read: small business) receive subsidies and bailouts? Ever heard of Corporate welfare? Yes? Ever heard of private business or free market welfare? No? Hmm.

How about protectionist tariffs? Heard of those? Grants of monopoly privilege? Seizing of private property for corporate use via eminent domain (as in Kelo v. New London)? Shall I go on or can we stop there?



To mildly rephrase dft's question, how does libertarianism defend against private power and influence taking advantage of people's lack of information or knowledge to their own detriment?

Hardly "mildly" rephrased. Corporations and private are hugely different. That aside, your point is very valid. Let me ask you this? What has stopped this from happening now? Government is the power in that scenario, and they steal our money and use it to fund war and pay out no bid contracts to very powerful corporations. Your petty watchdog programs aren't working. Government is the power and influence.

And government certainly takes advantage of those who are less educated. Have you read any of the tax codes? Hey, ever heard this one: "Ignorance of the law is no excuse!" Would you dare agree with me that it's impossible to know all the laws, so therefore it's inevitable for you to be ignorant of them? Your government is "taking advantage of people's lack of information of knowledge" and doing so with our money.

Any questions?

>> ^NetRunner:
What is government doing to keep the concept of corporations in existence that private citizens wouldn't be able to do through contract?

>> ^blankfist:
Corporate power depends greatly on the intervention of government - how often do you see private business (read: small business) receive subsidies and bailouts? Ever heard of Corporate welfare? Yes? Ever heard of private business or free market welfare? No? Hmm.
How about protectionist tariffs? Heard of those? Grants of monopoly privilege? Seizing of private property for corporate use via eminent domain (as in Kelo v. New London)? Shall I go on or can we stop there?

Progressives don't like it when big business get our tax dollars. Usually we argue for things like small business subsidies, regular welfare (ya know, for poor people), anti-trust legislation and enforcement, etc.

We also don't like corporate tax loopholes, capital gains tax cuts, or attempts to eliminate or reduce estate taxes, or the porcine industry-specific tax cut.

We don't like when people are putting their hands in the cookie jar who shouldn't be, we just don't think getting rid of the jar will help fix the problem.

Me: To mildly rephrase dft's question, how does libertarianism defend against private power and influence taking advantage of people's lack of information or knowledge to their own detriment?
blankfist: Hardly "mildly" rephrased. Corporations and private are hugely different. That aside, your point is very valid. Let me ask you this? What has stopped this from happening now? Government is the power in that scenario, and they steal our money and use it to fund war and pay out no bid contracts to very powerful corporations. Your petty watchdog programs aren't working. Government is the power and influence.

I fail to see how detaching power and influence from the constraint of law, or the accountability of a ballot box improves anything.

If you have a suggestion on how to make sure that the people our Constitution and our democracy empower to make decisions regarding when to go to war will always use it wisely, I'm all ears.

And government certainly takes advantage of those who are less educated. Have you read any of the tax codes? Hey, ever heard this one: "Ignorance of the law is no excuse!" Would you dare agree with me that it's impossible to know all the laws, so therefore it's inevitable for you to be ignorant of them? Your government is "taking advantage of people's lack of information of knowledge" and doing so with our money.
Any questions?

Yes, are you nuts?

The tax code is too complex, but the real issue with it is not the complexity, it's the fact that most of that complexity is designed to benefit people with multiple homes, businesses, yachts, and complex investment portfolios.

The free market provides me with tax preparation services, though most of them tell me "you don't own enough for us to do much for you" (though they say it very differently).

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but when's the last time you faced a legal penalty for anything bigger than a traffic violation? For that matter, have you ever gotten a traffic violation for something you didn't know was illegal?

To turn that around, do you understand your credit card agreement? Your cellphone contract? Have you ever received a bill that included a fee you were charged for doing something you didn't realize they could charge a fee for? Should they be able to sell the information you provided them without your consent?

Why isn't the free market stopping that stuff from happening already?

NetRunner: "Progressives don't like it when big business get our tax dollars. Usually we argue for things like small business subsidies, regular welfare (ya know, for poor people), anti-trust legislation and enforcement, etc. We also don't like corporate tax loopholes, capital gains tax cuts, or attempts to eliminate or reduce estate taxes, or the porcine industry-specific tax cut."

How's fighting the good fight working out for you? Obviously not well so far. Don't worry, keep at it, and maybe in another two hundred years this big government thing will finally work itself out and become that nonincentivized national utopia you and the neocons always wanted.


NetRunner: The free market provides me with tax preparation services, though most of them tell me "you don't own enough for us to do much for you"

Ah... It's a personal vendetta. Now I'm seeing it. Mad at the world because it hasn't made good on the things you felt entitled to? Mommy told you you were special and you believed her, didn't you? I can see why you are how you are now. LOL!

You're right, though, I don't fully understand my credit card agreement. And, when I feel it's unfair I disagree to it, and typically they want to rectify the issues to ensure I remain their customer. I also pay them off. I also understand credit isn't a right. Maybe to those who think the world owes them something may also think the credit card companies owe them free money.

Credit card companies can appear to be unscrupulous at times, but people still see enough of a demand to use them so they can afford to be that way. If the demand for credit was much lower, then they would probably make their agreements more customer friendly. But, because people want it, they can be a bit more unruly with the terms of conditions.

But, you have a choice whether or not to sign that contract. You don't have a choice in signing a contract with the government. Consider this. If you wanted to borrow money (credit) you don't have to do so at the bank, you could do it from your friend, and you can work out any agreement you choose. However, if you decide to get married, you are forced to sign a contract with the government as they see it should be written.

Try negotiating your contract with the government and let's see how that works out for you. At least with the credit card companies everything is negotiable.

>> ^blankfist:
^You have no proof of that. You speak in fear only.


I have no proof that your radical, untested style of government would fail. You have no proof that your radical, untested style of government would even function at all. I'm skeptical of your faith.

>> ^blankfist:
How's fighting the good fight working out for you? Obviously not well so far.

I've really only just gotten into any form of activism in the last 3 years, and in those 3 years, I've seen my party retake the House, the Senate, and the White House. I've seen the policies I'm in favor of go from 40% support to 60+% support.

I'm surfing a wave, but it's been good to be a liberal. Where things go from here is the big question, but I like what I've seen so far.

How's pushing for a third party workin' out for ya?

Try negotiating your contract with the government and let's see how that works out for you. At least with the credit card companies everything is negotiable.

Really? Which credit card company do you have? I think it usually works out the same; they tell me if I don't like it I can leave.

DFT: I have no proof that your radical, untested style of government would fail.

It was tested when this country started... and probably really died at the start of the 20th century. We had a great run. And, yes, it was radical.


NetRunner: I'm surfing a wave, but it's been good to be a liberal.

More like a Neoliberal. You know, the one that hates the classic Liberal and prefers foreign polices like that of the Neocons.

I hope you keep on that wave. In 4 to 8 years I will hopefully be there to remind you of this when the other team's guy is in office and you're crying in your beer because the other team is using all the new powers you gave your guy.

It was tested when this country started... and probably really died at the start of the 20th century. We had a great run. And, yes, it was radical.


I guess that explains why libertarians are almost exclusively white male land owners.

Blanky, go look up neoliberal, it doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

If I were in your shoes, I'd be trying to buddy up to progressives.

For one, we're destroying the faux-conservative Republican party, exposing them for the crackpot radical authoritarians they have been since Nixon. Every success we make in that area means there are an increasing number of right-leaning independents frustrated with the Republicans, and distrustful of Democrats...prime candidates for winning over to either a Libertarian reshaping of the Republican party, or support for the existing Libertarian party.

Appeal to progressives for help with this, because if the Republican party becomes the Libertarian party, the entire anti-war and civil-rights segments of the Democratic party platform will get their agendas passed with 80 votes in the Senate.

If we can use Libertarians as reasonable alternatives to proto-Republican Democrats (Arlen Specter, Ben Nelson, etc.), it'll either result in more Libertarian seats for you, or more progressive Democrats for me.

Once it's just Democrats vs. Libertarians, then the only thing separating the two parties is their outlook on economic policy. If you're right about the nature of economics, all of our policies will lead to clear and obvious disaster, and people will flock to your party in droves.

And then it's just libertarians arguing with each other over whether there needs to be a state, or whether private services could take over police, fire, and road duty. Then I would be left in despair, taking pleasure only in teasing you about being an evil left-wing statist for arguing in favor of the existence of a state, and refusing to "let freedom work".

Just a little free political advice from me on how to help the libertarian party. I fully expect you to ignore it, but I think it's worth planting the idea in your head that maybe you'll attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Otherwise, I'll be there to remind you in 40 years of the good old days when a center-right party like the 2009 Democrats were considered the left-wing party, while you're crying into your feeding tube, provided by the government run universal health care plan, and paid for by Medicare.

Jeremy and Ben sitting in a tree. Et cetera. Et cetera.

And in case it's not apparent... sex!

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
So, as long as she wears the same color jersey, nothing else matters? Sounds like a nice way of saying beggars can't be choosers.

Now I'm not sure if you're trying to misinterpret what I said or if you're just being a socialist.