What's so bad about the Libertarians?
Here's a good article to start off with
"The perfect liberty they seek is the liberty of making slaves of other people." -- Abraham Lincoln http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html

I'm not a libertarian anymore, but the simplicity of the poll question forced me to vote good.

It's meant to be simple so people feel compelled to speak to their vote.

I'm not a libertarian anymore, but the simplicity of the poll question forced me to vote good.

Because there was no "Justin option", you mean?

Here's a good article to start off with
http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html
I voted bad

That article you linked to is excellent!

Because there was no "Justin option", you mean?

Yes, a Justin option is always necessary.

hey, I've got an idea. How about if somebody makes a post with some substance!

Terran, and Della April, why don't you tell us in your own words why you don't like libertarians?

I'm not a fan of Libertarianism, but the article linked to is an unfair smear, and makes some rather strange assumptions, like linking Ayn Rand to Lew Rockwell. The two groups (Objectivists and Anarchocapitalists) despise each other. The Ayn Rand Institute even has as an official dogma an article titled "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty," which as best I can tell does not exist on-line, but the title pretty much sums up the view they take to Libertarianism. And here's a sample of what Lew Rockwell's site has to say about Ayn Rand:

The Libertarians’ Albatross
http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer89.html

Randians for Mass Murder
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/batiste1.html

The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html

Yeah, the two groups are allies. :rolleyes:

Also, I have no idea what the author of this garbage meant with the utterly pointless references to Nietzsche. They don't make any sense.

Also, I have no idea what the author of this garbage meant with the utterly pointless references to Nietzsche. They don't make any sense.

Well, neither does anything else relating to Nietzsche :shrug:

I'm a libertarian, although more towards the left. I believe in 100% personal freedom and responsibility. Leave me alone and let me live my life, as long as I don't hurt anybody, and I'll do the same thing to you.

I do believe in capitalism, free trade, small taxes, no welfare (other than to people who really are not able to work), however I do think that there must be some social responsiblity, and I'm against child labor, VERY LOW minimum wage and I think that we should be responsible for people who really are unable to help themselves because of something that is not their fault.

I'm FOR gun-rights, I do not think that the second amendment give you the right to have ANY weapon, but guns should not be restricted to people not convicted with violent crimes, and in fact I believe that banning guns would only help criminals to commit crimes against decent people, since they get their guns illegaly anyways. If you are gonna blame "guns" for crimes, and not people, you might as well blame your spelling errors on your pen.

As far as social issues are concerned, I'm very very libertarian, I believe in ending the war on drugs and cleaning the records of all non-violent drug "criminals". Drugs should be legal, or at least 100% decriminalized. We should STOP enforcing underage drinking laws, and treat it as easy as underrage smoking. I'm actually against all victimless "crimes" to be treated like crimes at all.

All "sex-laws", as long as it is about people of the age of 17 and older who agree to have sex, should be thrown away and be forgoten, as should all restictions on pornography (other than with children of course).
Abortion should be legal in every state at least for the first 4-5 month, without any restrictions to the woman's and her doctor's choice. Death penalty should be VERY VERY VERY RARE, but violent criminals who did something really really bad should be put to jail forever.

Censorship should be illegal, unless it's a private property. Also, I believe that we need to finaly end all racism, become 100% colorblind and do even more to promote mixing of the races so that racism will finaly be dead and burried :cool:. Police should be very well regulated all the time, to make sure that they always respect human and legal rights, and never break any constitutional laws, and if they do, they should be punished very hard. They should NOT be even allowed to try to enter somebody's property unless they have real evidence that a violent crime is going on there, nor should they be allowed to listen to people's phone calls or anything that has to do with privacy. If they break such rules, they must be fired and punished as well.
Oh yeah, and police brutality (without a REAL GOOD REASON that must be proved) should put the cop behind the bars for quite a few years too. :D

I believe that the government should be small enough to fit the constitution, but strong enough to enforce it and to make sure that especially the first amendment is enforced, as well as freedom and human rights within this country. I'm against useless wars especially when our soldiers are dying, but if we're attacked by fanatics, I really wouldn't mind just killing their leaders and throwing a few bombs that will end the war in shorter and eaiser way. Since I'm also a big human-rights supporter, I would support strong economic pressure on muslim and other radical countries to become non-religious, free countries where human rights are respected.

That's it for right now, these are some of the reasons why I'm mostly a libertarian.

Here's a good article to start off with
http://www.zompist.com/libertos.htmlThis guy goes in about ten directions at once and contradicts himself several times as well. This isn't an article about libertarianism. It's just another bizzare rant from a whiny liberal.

This is oh-so-true though :rofl:

The anti communism:

Property is theft Property is sacred
Totalitarianism Any government is bad
Capitalists are baby-eating villains Capitalists are noble Nietzchean heroes
Workers should rule Worker activism is evil
The poor are oppressed The poor are pampered good-for-nothings

Communists actually think that property is theft?

I thought communists didn't believe in property. So, the word "theft" shouldn't even be in their vocabulary. I'd like to see someone try to define "theft" without any references to the concept of ownership.

He is probably comparing to Nietzsche because Nietzsche said Man must move beyond morals in order to become a Übermensch. He was saying this is similar to libertarianism i.e. complete freedom, lack of compassion or morals, selfishness.

Communists actually think that property is theft?

I thought communists didn't believe in property. So, the word "theft" shouldn't even be in their vocabulary. I'd like to see someone try to define "theft" without any references to the concept of ownership.

Actually, the statement "property is theft" is Proudhonian, not communist. Proudhon, however, predated the Anarchist-Communist split within the First International, so...

hey, I've got an idea. How about if somebody makes a post with some substance!

Terran, and Della April, why don't you tell us in your own words why you don't like libertarians?
Years ago, my brother and sister and I used to debate each other on a message board called vote.co.nz which is now defunct. Set up as 'neutral', it was actually libertarian. So, yes, I know why I despise libertarians. My sister was one (I think she's moderated her views a bit, since life upped and bit her on the behind, as it does, and she became one of the 'poor' she used to despise.
Why I don't like libertarians. They're whiny, greedy people, who bang on all the time that taxation is theft, they want to be robber barons, they think 'bugger you Jack, I'm all right, sod the proles, the poor can all suffer and die, and Money is god." (If you doubt the latter, just read Atlas Shrugged, and the scary/funny scene in Galt's Gulch, where they erect a gold $ sign on a pole and worship it! I've read every piece of dreck that ever issued from Ayn Rand's typewriter, painful though it was, and I've read all the aspersions cast on her by libertarian rivals. I know whereof I speak, and the article terran linked to, puts it all much better than I could. It's pretty accurate, very accurate actually in conveying the whinging done by the New Zealanders and Americans on vote.co. I have to say, too, that terran was there for a while as well, so he knows the kind of tripe they spout.

Communists actually think that property is theft?
And libertarians think taxation is theft. :rofl:

" A Libertarian is a conservative who wants to smoke dope"-Criminal.

" A Libertarian is a conservative who wants to smoke dope"-Criminal.

LMAO, that is the most accurate definition I have heard yet. Thanks for sharing that.

This guy goes in about ten directions at once and contradicts himself several times as well. This isn't an article about libertarianism. It's just another bizzare rant from a whiny liberal.
Actually this is just the perfect example of a whiny libertarian with zero substance to his acusations "This guy goes in about ten directions at once and contradicts himself several times as well." - if there's an example in there, I didn't see it.

Homer Simpson said something that tracks pretty well about libertarians but he was talking about christianity. "you mean the religion with all those well meaning rules that don't work out in real life..."

When I speak about libertarians I have to speak from my experience of them.

hey, I've got an idea. How about if somebody makes a post with some substance!

Terran, and Della April, why don't you tell us in your own words why you don't like libertarians? Well that is a rant. I had no gauge of the opinions of people yet to post and if you'd bother to read, the question was not mine but I thought it deserved a thread.

People, please recognise that the article I posted is/was an example not the basis of an argument.

worried about word count...

I'm not a fan of Libertarianism, but the article linked to is an unfair smear, and makes some rather strange assumptions, like linking Ayn Rand to Lew Rockwell. The two groups (Objectivists and Anarchocapitalists) despise each other.
This is very deceptive because the article does not link them but uses them as examples and states in the first few paraghraphs that there are distinct groups that do not agree with each other.

I remember a libertarian on another board who did not like libertarianism being painted by objectivism stating (in his view) "Objectivists are a subset of libertarianism".

I'm a libertarian, although more towards the left. I believe in 100% personal freedom and responsibility. Leave me alone and let me live my life, as long as I don't hurt anybody, and I'll do the same thing to you.
This is not something to claim as libertarian. This is pertty much a democratic tennant.

I do believe in capitalism, free trade, small taxes, no welfare (other than to people who really are not able to work), however I do think that there must be some social responsiblity, and I'm against child labor, VERY LOW minimum wage and I think that we should be responsible for people who really are unable to help themselves because of something that is not their fault.
I see this as very mixed. Most libertarians I have crossed would be screaming communist at you and the literature they've quoted at me say that anything finantial from the government in charity and demand tat that be handled by private organisations.

Personally I see someone who says no welfare as not having a very good grasp of how an economy works (I may write something long and detailed later or find something I've already written)

Censorship should be illegal, unless it's a private property. Also, I believe that we need to finaly end all racism, become 100% colorblind and do even more to promote mixing of the races so that racism will finaly be dead and burried :cool:. That not something libertarians can claim either. Freedom of information/expression is another old tennant of democrary. In fact one cannot exist without the other.

Also libertarianism promotes the "freedom" to discriminate because any kind of equality would come from an "overbearing" government.

Of the libertarians that I've crossed that all seem to have an unrealistic fantasy that the rich and powerful, left to their unfetid devices would not form exclusive groups and discriminate and that the children of the poor could somehow (with no government funded education) have a chance to make something of themselves.

They seem to invisage something other than the industrial revolution all over again with sweat shops and the whole package. The other group of libertarians just don't care and think that rich people are somehow better people, born to money or not.

" A Libertarian is a conservative who wants to smoke dope"-Criminal.

As a libertarian I disagree. If you mean "old conservatives" that's one thing, but how many modern conservatives do you know that would agree with me on most, if any, of my social views?

Also, how many libertarians do you know that support Bush and his war? I don't know many. That's kinda like saying that libertarians are liberals who hate big taxes.

I see this as very mixed. Most libertarians I have crossed would be screaming communist at you and the literature they've quoted at me say that anything finantial from the government in charity and demand tat that be handled by private organisations.

I'm not that extreme on economy.

Also libertarianism promotes the "freedom" to discriminate because any kind of equality would come from an "overbearing" government.

Equality is protected by the constitution. True libertarians support the government enforcing the constitution, and that's why I'm against legal discrimination and I support the government enfrocing 1964 civil rights act, because it protects people's constitutional rights.

And libertarians do not all have the same views, just like liberals and conservatives.

I agree with some of the libertarian social ideas, but I don't fit neatly into any category at all. There are some libertarian ideas that go strongly against my conscience, so as a whole I have to vote "bad".

Years ago, my brother and sister and I used to debate each other on a message board called vote.co.nz which is now defunct. Set up as 'neutral', it was actually libertarian. So, yes, I know why I despise libertarians. My sister was one (I think she's moderated her views a bit, since life upped and bit her on the behind, as it does, and she became one of the 'poor' she used to despise.
Why I don't like libertarians. They're whiny, greedy people, who bang on all the time that taxation is theft, they want to be robber barons, they think 'bugger you Jack, I'm all right, sod the proles, the poor can all suffer and die, and Money is god." (If you doubt the latter, just read Atlas Shrugged, and the scary/funny scene in Galt's Gulch, where they erect a gold $ sign on a pole and worship it! I've read every piece of dreck that ever issued from Ayn Rand's typewriter, painful though it was, and I've read all the aspersions cast on her by libertarian rivals. I know whereof I speak, and the article terran linked to, puts it all much better than I could. It's pretty accurate, very accurate actually in conveying the whinging done by the New Zealanders and Americans on vote.co. I have to say, too, that terran was there for a while as well, so he knows the kind of tripe they spout.


Well, Im glad to hear that you're familiar with the Internet, but that wasn't what I was asking. I read that whole thing, and the only reason for disliking libertarians that I could find is because "they don't like the poor." And I disagree with that.

All of you authoritarian leftist types always ride the assumption that your economic policies are the only way to help the poor, and anyone who disagrees with them must dislike the poor. But in reality, leftist economic policies hurt the poor more than anything else.

Welfare creates dependance and lowered expectations. The minimum wage eliminates jobs and causes inflation. Trade restrictions drive up the price of everything and disrupt the economy's ability to function smoothly, which ultimately hurts the poor more than anything else.

Libertarian economic policies, on the other hand, are aimed at making the economy grow, which creates jobs, which means that more opportunities to succeed will be available to the poor. There's really no question that the countries with the biggest economies also have the least poor people. So if you really want to help the poor, you should be worried about economics, not your misguided ideological plan to help them through brute force legislation.

So, Libertarians don't dislike the poor any more than you do. We just disagree on how best to help them out.


And libertarians think taxation is theft. :rofl:

When the tax dollars are being taken from someone who earned it and given to someone who didn't, I don't see how you can not call that theft.

Why I don't like libertarians. They're whiny, greedy people,

Let's see...I'm definately not one, nor are any other libertarians I know.

Just because we don't believe that the government has to force people into giving away their money as the government decides, doesn't mean that we are personally greedy, not at all. In fact, I help my friends with money whenever I can, I give money to charity, I even played several concerts where all the money went to New Orleans victims and disabled people. I am many things, but definately not greedy. You people just don't get that only because I support people's LEGAL RIGHT to be greedy, does not mean that I personaly support it or practice it. Just like I support women's LEGAL RIGHT for abortion 100%, but it doesn't mean that I think abortion is such a great thing.

bang on all the time that taxation is theft

IT IS!! If you take people's money for whatever reason by force, is a theft. Being realistic however, I do believe it is a necessary evil, and we need SOME taxation, however not too big.

the poor can all suffer and die, and Money is god."

I don't know any libertarians who believe that. Some just think that private organizations could be good enough to help the poor, without any govenment intevention, and that people have the right to keep their money that they worked for.

Also, I do believe that people who are not good enough physically or mentaly to work for living should be helped, but only the people who REALLY need the help. If you are just a lazy piece of sh!t who doesn't like to work hard and waste all your money on dope and then you ain't got no money, then it's your problem, I don't HAVE to give you my money...I can if I want to, but the government shouldn't MAKE me.

Years ago, my brother and sister and I used to debate each other on a message board called vote.co.nz which is now defunct. Set up as 'neutral', it was actually libertarian. So, yes, I know why I despise libertarians. My sister was one (I think she's moderated her views a bit, since life upped and bit her on the behind, as it does, and she became one of the 'poor' she used to despise.

Why would anybody despise the poor? Just because some people don't believe that government should make all people help the poor? Why do even people need the government to help the poor?

I came from a VERY poor background, try being Jewish in communist USSR...few if any people in the west could understand how poor we were, because of a deadly mix of anti-semitism, socialism, communism and dictatorship. And yet, we were able to turn into a middle-class family, not once but twice, since we started from point zero when we moved to Israel, and then again when we moved to America. Why is that? Because my family are responsible people who believe in hard work, education, they don't drink, smoke or snort their money away, nor do they believe in asking anybody for anything. If we didn't ask for any help or get any help, let alone from the government, why can't everybody else who are able work, especially in America? I don't mind helping people who REALLY NEED help, but why should the govenrment take the money away from me, divide half of it between democrats and republicans, and spend the rest on all kinds of stupid sh!t, including lazy and irresponsible people.

All of you authoritarian leftist types always ride the assumption that your economic policies are the only way to help the poor, and anyone who disagrees with them must dislike the poor. But in reality, leftist economic policies hurt the poor more than anything else.

:nice:

Welfare creates dependance and lowered expectations. The minimum wage eliminates jobs and causes inflation. Trade restrictions drive up the price of everything and disrupt the economy's ability to function smoothly, which ultimately hurts the poor more than anything else.

I agree with the most, I still believe there should be a minimum wage, because paying somebody less than 5-6$ an hour is just not right, and we do need to take some social responsiblity for people who really can't work and really do need our help, but otherwise, you are correct.

So, Libertarians don't dislike the poor any more than you do. We just disagree on how best to help them out.

That's right. If the government will keep taking our money by force and give it to people who need it because they are lazy and not responsible, they will keep being like that. That won't help them. They need to stop smoking crack, get their asses up and go find a job. That will be better for all of us.

Great post :nice: you phrased a few things better than I could have.

I still believe there should be a minimum wage, because paying somebody less than 5-6$ an hour is just not right,


Well, what is $5-6 worth? You can buy a meal at McDonald's for that. But what if you could buy a meal at McDonald's for $1? Would $1 then be an appropriate minimum wage? Well, if McDonald's could pay their employees $1/hour, then they might be able to offer meals for $1.

You see, raising the minimum wage increases the cost of producing goods, which raises the price of goods just as quickly as it raises the income of the poor. So, it doesn't really make the poor more wealthy, all it does is make the dollar worth less.


and we do need to take some social responsiblity for people who really can't work and really do need our help, but otherwise, you are correct.


I agree. Some people really do deserve our help. And private charities do a much better job of directing the money to people who really need it. Plus, when a private charity stops doing its job well, you can always stop contributing to them.

But when the government stops doing its job well, you sure can't stop contributing to their budget. All you can do is vote against the incumbant, hope he loses, then hope the chalenger fixes things. And that's not a very safe bet, considering that the challenger is just as likely to be influenced by special interests as the incumbant was. Basically, when the government stops running efficiently, there's not much you can do to fix it.

Feenix/Ganja 08'

Got my vote!

Well, what is $5-6 worth? You can buy a meal at McDonald's for that. But what if you could buy a meal at McDonald's for $1? Would $1 then be an appropriate minimum wage? Well, if McDonald's could pay their employees $1/hour, then they might be able to offer meals for $1.

You see, raising the minimum wage increases the cost of producing goods, which raises the price of goods just as quickly as it raises the income of the poor. So, it doesn't really make the poor more wealthy, all it does is make the dollar worth less.


You have a point, but then again, if one gets $1 an hour, he/she won't be able to afford much of anything else, even if they could afford McDonald's.

I agree. Some people really do deserve our help. And private charities do a much better job of directing the money to people who really need it. Plus, when a private charity stops doing its job well, you can always stop contributing to them.

I agree, but I'm not 100% sure that charity money alone is always enough. Again, my point was just that if we REALLY HAVE TO, I don't mind paying tax money for people who really really need it, but only if it's a necessary evil and the government actually gives all of the money to these people and ONLY to them.

But when the government stops doing its job well, you sure can't stop contributing to their budget. All you can do is vote against the incumbant, hope he loses, then hope the chalenger fixes things. And that's not a very safe bet, considering that the challenger is just as likely to be influenced by special interests as the incumbant was. Basically, when the government stops running efficiently, there's not much you can do to fix it.

I agree, and that's why I support a very very small government. Still, I think the government should have some power, enough to enforce constitutional rights and protect people's freedom and human rights as well, and there should be some tax (although very small) as well...however I want the government to be so small that it wouldn't even really matter who is the president or who are in the congress.

Feenix/Ganja 08'

Got my vote!

:nice:

You have a point, but then again, if one gets $1 an hour, he/she won't be able to afford much of anything else, even if they could afford McDonald's.


Well, obviously, abolishing the minimum wage wouldn't just apply to McDonald's. Everyone's production costs and prices would go down.


I agree, but I'm not 100% sure that charity money alone is always enough. Again, my point was just that if we REALLY HAVE TO, I don't mind paying tax money for people who really really need it, but only if it's a necessary evil and the government actually gives all of the money to these people and ONLY to them.


I wouldn't have a problem with a law saying that everyone has to donate to charity, as long as we all individually get to decide which charity our money goes to.


I agree, and that's why I support a very very small government. Still, I think the government should have some power, enough to enforce constitutional rights and protect people's freedom and human rights as well, and there should be some tax (although very small) as well...however I want the government to be so small that it wouldn't even really matter who is the president or who are in the congress.

Yeah, the government must exist to protect the people from violence and coersion.

Also, I think the government should run things like highway construction and fire departments, and the anti-trust laws should be enforced to prevent corporations from forming monopolies.


Feenix/Ganja 08'

Got my vote!


woohoo! :nice: wanna be our campaign manager?

As a libertarian I disagree. If you mean "old conservatives" that's one thing, but how many modern conservatives do you know that would agree with me on most, if any, of my social views?

Also, how many libertarians do you know that support Bush and his war? I don't know many. That's kinda like saying that libertarians are liberals who hate big taxes.

Hey,it was just a joke by our bud Crim.

And while I know that is not true for all Libertarians,I also know it is true for many.

I think true Libertarianism looks good on paper, but I don't think it can work on practice.

This is very deceptive because the article does not link them but uses them as examples and states in the first few paraghraphs that there are distinct groups that do not agree with each other.

Where? I went back and re-read the article and I don't see this stated anywhere, that Objectivists and most Libertarians get along like oil and water. Certainly Rothbardian libertarians and Objectivists.

Also, is the ORIGINAL article cached somewhere so we can see what the edits are? I'm not even certain what was re-written; what is there now seems every bit as incoherent as what was there before. Obviously clarity of thought is not high on the author's list of concerns.

I remember a libertarian on another board who did not like libertarianism being painted by objectivism stating (in his view) "Objectivists are a subset of libertarianism".

Some libertarians might think this, perhaps more moderate ones in the Milton Friedman mold. However the anarchocapitalist types like Rothbard and Rockwell would reject this claim. And on the Objectivist side of things, if you're referencing the 'official' voice of Objectivism, the Ayn Rand Institute, they would also reject this. The splinter group of neo-Objectivists centered around David Kelley and Nathaniel Branden at the The Objectivist Center are a bit more open to discussion with libertarians, but they have so few followers their influence is probably just about nonexistent.

Originally Posted by GanjaFreebird
I agree, but I'm not 100% sure that charity money alone is always enough. Again, my point was just that if we REALLY HAVE TO, I don't mind paying tax money for people who really really need it, but only if it's a necessary evil and the government actually gives all of the money to these people and ONLY to them.


Fine, lets help people who really, really need it. All the poor people can move to the states where the citizens are compassionate and willing to pay the local and/or state government to distribute money to the poor. Keep the federal government completely out of it.


I wouldn't have a problem with a law saying that everyone has to donate to charity, as long as we all individually get to decide which charity our money goes to.This isn't much better than what we have now. How can it be charity, if we're forced by law to give money to it? Freedom is also non-participation. If you really want laws like this, they should only be done at the local or state level.

Hey,it was just a joke by our bud Crim.

LOL, I know.

And while I know that is not true for all Libertarians,I also know it is true for many.

Yeah, I have friends who are mostly conservatives but since they really like smoking dope they don't like republicans that much either, so they think they are libertarians.

But in order to be a REAL libertarian, one should disagree with conservatives on many issues other than legalization of pot.

I think true Libertarianism looks good on paper, but I don't think it can work on practice.

Not 100% libertarianism (no taxes or government AT ALL), I agree, and that's why I'm more moderate on economy than I used to be, as well as some other issues, but I'd vote for libertarians any day over republicans or democrates, just for social issues alone.

Yeah, the government must exist to protect the people from violence and coersion.

Also, I think the government should run things like highway construction and fire departments, and the anti-trust laws should be enforced to prevent corporations from forming monopolies.


What libertarian theorist do you subscribe to? Friedman? Its just that what you're describing doesn't sound particularly libertarian to me, based upon what I've read. :confused:

Welfare creates dependance and lowered expectations. The minimum wage eliminates jobs and causes inflation. Trade restrictions drive up the price of everything and disrupt the economy's ability to function smoothly, which ultimately hurts the poor more than anything else.

Libertarian economic policies, on the other hand, are aimed at making the economy grow, which creates jobs, which means that more opportunities to succeed will be available to the poor. There's really no question that the countries with the biggest economies also have the least poor people. So if you really want to help the poor, you should be worried about economics, not your misguided ideological plan to help them through brute force legislation.

So, Libertarians don't dislike the poor any more than you do. We just disagree on how best to help them out.



When the tax dollars are being taken from someone who earned it and given to someone who didn't, I don't see how you can not call that theft.
Wow a very one eyed view of economices. How about I give a real world example. Me.
After highschool I went on to higher education with a student loan and something you lot would call welfare - a student allowance.
I left my higher education in the middle of an economic recession with bugger all jobs around. So I needed unemployment and did work when I could find it.
After 2 years of this I found full time employment and I have been a tax paying consumer ever since. I contribute to the economy. There are/were government grants to help employers employ staff (the grants run for a limited time ofcourse)
In a libertarian world I and thousands of others would be living under bridges and the economy would be weaker.

That's just one example of how libertarian economics works only if you close your eyes and have faith. The rest of us live in the real world.

Well, what is $5-6 worth? You can buy a meal at McDonald's for that. But what if you could buy a meal at McDonald's for $1? Would $1 then be an appropriate minimum wage? Well, if McDonald's could pay their employees $1/hour, then they might be able to offer meals for $1.

You see, raising the minimum wage increases the cost of producing goods, which raises the price of goods just as quickly as it raises the income of the poor. So, it doesn't really make the poor more wealthy, all it does is make the dollar worth less.
Do you really believe that? Pratice shows that when the minimum wage is frozen then employers will stick to paying nothing more than the minimum wage. Nothing happens to the price if goods - profit margins just get fatter. Smells like you just like the idea of keeping people down, does the idea make you feel more well-off? or does it just keep the rif-far away from you and yours?

I have a general question for libertarians. Can any of you afford to pay for what the government does? Private police force?, fire, military etc etc?

What libertarian theorist do you subscribe to? Friedman? Its just that what you're describing doesn't sound particularly libertarian to me, based upon what I've read. :confused:
See what I mean GanjaFreebird (member.php?u=1519), Ironweed is an example of some of the libertarians I've crossed. Even in this thread you a small number of people can't even agree.

I can see here the two groups I mentioned. Libertarians who think they have a good idea that would benefit people and the other group that doesn't care.

I'd like to how the second group were they'd be in life now after growing up in a true libertarian paradise with privatised everything from their birth.

I have a general question for libertarians. Can any of you afford to pay for what the government does? Private police force?, fire, military etc etc?

F#CK THE POLICE!!

LOL, but really, yeah, there should be some police (who deals just with violent crimes, not arresting teenagers who smoke pot :p ), fire, military, all of that. As I said, there should be some government and some taxes, just not so much.

See what I mean GanjaFreebird, Ironweed is an example of some of the libertarians I've crossed. Even in this thread you a small number of people can't even agree.

1. Libertarians don't have to always agree on everything, just like liberals and conservatives.

2. I never said I was a pure libertarian. 100% libertarianism doesn't work, at least not the way things are right now in this world, however, if we can be logical and reasonable with it, it would definately work very well.

I have a general question for libertarians. Can any of you afford to pay for what the government does? Private police force?, fire, military etc etc?

We already do, through taxes. The money has to come from somewhere!


This isn't much better than what we have now. How can it be charity, if we're forced by law to give money to it? Freedom is also non-participation. If you really want laws like this, they should only be done at the local or state level.

I'm a moderate libertarian, thats why my ideas don't sound too different from what we have now.

And I totally agree that every law about social spending should be at a state and local level. The federal government has no business telling anyone how to care for the less fortunate.

What libertarian theorist do you subscribe to? Friedman? Its just that what you're describing doesn't sound particularly libertarian to me, based upon what I've read. :confused:

You seem to ONLY be able to talk about names of theorists. Do you even understand their theories? Or do you just like to repeat their names. I think for myself, I don't follow any theorist.

Wow a very one eyed view of economices. How about I give a real world example. Me.
After highschool I went on to higher education with a student loan and something you lot would call welfare - a student allowance.
I left my higher education in the middle of an economic recession with bugger all jobs around. So I needed unemployment and did work when I could find it.
After 2 years of this I found full time employment and I have been a tax paying consumer ever since. I contribute to the economy. There are/were government grants to help employers employ staff (the grants run for a limited time ofcourse)
In a libertarian world I and thousands of others would be living under bridges and the economy would be weaker.

That's just one example of how libertarian economics works only if you close your eyes and have faith. The rest of us live in the real world.

Maybe if we followed what the radical libertarians wanted, then yes. But that'll never happen. I'm a moderate libertarian, and I have always held that public funds should be used for education. The only thing I would change about education is the way that the funds are distributed. I would introduce competition into the equation.


Do you really believe that? Pratice shows that when the minimum wage is frozen then employers will stick to paying nothing more than the minimum wage. Nothing happens to the price if goods - profit margins just get fatter. Smells like you just like the idea of keeping people down, does the idea make you feel more well-off? or does it just keep the rif-far away from you and yours?

That's totally bogus. When profit margins get bigger, new companies open up to take advantage of them. Then the competition forces the profit margins to go back down again. Unless, of course, there's too much gov't regulation getting in the way of people opening up new companies. That's usually why profit margins go up.

And I totally agree that every law about social spending should be at a state and local level. The federal government has no business telling anyone how to care for the less fortunate.

This is not the philosophy of a Libertarian, or a libertarian.

You seem to ONLY be able to talk about names of theorists. Do you even understand their theories?

Apparently I understand them better than you do, since I have enough knowledge of what constitutes the common points of libertarian thought from Friedman through Rothbard to know that you have nothing in common with any of them. And that you appear utterly ignorant of this fact.

Or do you just like to repeat their names.

Nope. I've read Friedman's Free to Choose, Boaz's Libertarianism: A Primer, all of Rand's turgid novels, and once I finish a historical perspective on the New Testmant, I plan to attempt Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand again, though it is so poorly written I'll probably skim some of the worst parts this time, instead of tossing it aside in frustration like I did over the summer. I've also read a bunch of her collections, including Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and The Virtue of Selfishness.

I admit to having read Rothbard to no great detail, only a few articles he wrote, about him and his Anarchocapitalism, mostly at Rockwell's site. But I feel confident in saying you have absolutely nothing in common with his thought. (I consider Anarchocapitalism utterly ridiculous and don't plan on wasting any of my time reading any more about it.)

So Mr. "moderate libertarian." :rolleyes: Is it fair to state that the horde of "moderate libertarians" of which you are so able a representative believe that:

(1) Government should retain the power to tax

(2) It is acceptable that Government at the local level engage in "social spending"

(3) Government should continue to underwrite public education

In which case, your beliefs have nothing in common with any of the ideas anyone else I've ever seen who has claimed to be a Libertarian or libertarian or an Anarchocapitalist. You don't even support the platform of the Libertarian Party, either, since they consider all taxation immoral.

In sum: You sure are something, but you sure ain't no Libertarian. :) Please start calling yourself something else.

Any puritanical ideology is hard to deal with. All fundamentalists want to set up a utopian paradise but in the meantime they are all very happy tellling everyone that that is how we should relate to the world even though this utopia has not yet been achieved.

Ganjafreebird expressed this pretty well with his mix of conservatism and liberalism when he said the world should "be made colorblind". I am not sure that that is such a great idea to start with, but you can't start dealing with the world like it is colorblind. Nor should the libertarians try to deal with the world as if everyone sees it the way they do.

I have to say that the libertarians and especially the CATO Institute are good limiting organizations on the Republican party. And most "real" libertarians I have met, heard, or talked with are very honest and very consistent in their political views. (The ones not in politics anyways).

Hah, no wonder I agree with feenix so much. He's almost a social liberal!

Ironweed, no offense, but you seem completely incapable of thinking for yourself.

since you're such a big fan of reading, please click here: http://www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml and read the Libertarian Party platform. I agree with 99% of it.

The Libertarian party does believe that the government is necessary to protect people from violent criminals, which requires police, which require money, which requires taxation.

The Libertarian party also advocates for a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for charitable donations. This is essentially social spending, because it's forcing everyone to either donate to charity OR pay taxes, which currently go into social spending. The thinking is that no one would choose to pay for government social spending when given to option to give their money to charities instead, which would effectively kill every government social program. But it's still mandatory social spending, even if it's not being touched by the government.

I don't know where the Libertarian party stands on education, but I formed my own opinion on the issue. AND I'M ALLOWED TO DO THAT. and so are you. maybe you should try doing that once in a while instead of getting all of your opinions out of books.

in :cooldance

That's totally bogus. When profit margins get bigger, new companies open up to take advantage of them. Then the competition forces the profit margins to go back down again.
Well that's rubbish. That only happens in basic text books and very small example snapshots.

Unless, of course, there's too much gov't regulation getting in the way of people opening up new companies. That's usually why profit margins go up.
Lack of regulation leads to price fixing, price sheparding and monopolies. People compare economies to ecologies but an economy is not self regulating outside of therotical economics.

But in reality, leftist economic policies hurt the poor more than anything else.
Welfare creates dependance and lowered expectations. The minimum wage eliminates jobs and causes inflation. Trade restrictions drive up the price of everything and disrupt the economy's ability to function smoothly, which ultimately hurts the poor more than anything else.
Assertion without proof. This would seem to be an article of faith for libertarians and conservatives.

Libertarian economic policies, on the other hand, are aimed at making the economy grow, which creates jobs, which means that more opportunities to succeed will be available to the poor.
Ah, the discredited 'trickle-down' theory. The only thing that trickles down, is urine...

When the tax dollars are being taken from someone who earned it and given to someone who didn't, I don't see how you can not call that theft.
All 'welfare' is taxed, here at least,and probably also in the USA. So, 'tax dollars' are being taken from everyone.


In fact, I help my friends with money whenever I can, I give money to charity, I even played several concerts where all the money went to New Orleans victims and disabled people.
Oh, I am sure that makes you feel very good about yourself, but it's a pathetic pittance compared to the amount needed. That's why private charity replacing 'welfare' is a sick joke.
If you are just a lazy piece of sh!t who doesn't like to work hard and waste all your money on dope and then you ain't got no money, then it's your problem, I don't HAVE to give you my money...I can if I want to, but the government shouldn't MAKE me.
This is the way people like you like to characterise the unemployed. That makes me wish a spell of involuntary unemployment on all libertarians, so they'll be forced to realise that being 'a lazy sh1t has nothing at all to do with it. I've been looking for a job for 20 months now, and I've had a few months temping work here and there. (That should show you I'm neither lazy nor stupid, but it probably won't). I gather you'd rather see me and people like me living under a bridge somewhere, but thankfully, I live in a more rational, sensible country.

Fine, lets help people who really, really need it. All the poor people can move to the states where the citizens are compassionate and willing to pay the local and/or state government to distribute money to the poor. Keep the federal government completely out of it.

Like the poor people have the money to up stakes and move to other states! If they did, they'd use the money to move to where they might have a better chance of a job.
F&L, it seems you know zip about 'poor people'. But if you lost your job, or your trust fund, or whatever you depend on, you could well be one. Then we'd see how happy and willing you'd be to move to a state where there were private charities abounding.
Well that's rubbish. That only happens in basic text books and very small example snapshots.


Lack of regulation leads to price fixing, price sheparding and monopolies. People compare economies to ecologies but an economy is not self regulating outside of theoretical economics.
Well said, terran.

Like the poor people have the money to up stakes and move to other states! If they did, they'd use the money to move to where they might have a better chance of a job.
F&L, it seems you know zip about 'poor people'. But if you lost your job, or your trust fund, or whatever you depend on, you could well be one. Then we'd see how happy and willing you'd be to move to a state where there were private charities abounding. The point is it should never be forced. Once you realize that, you will understand freedom. Until then, you will wallow in the entrails of stupidity. Compassion is best fed by liberty, not dependence.

Well said, terran.And this seems to be the ridiculous reponse of most of your posts.

The point is it should never be forced. Once you realize that, you will understand freedom. Until then, you will wallow in the entrails of stupidity. Compassion is best fed by liberty, not dependence.
Libertarianism must be based in faith. I've yet to see a libertarian utter anything of substance rather than the above rhetorical BS.

Another sign that libertaranism is a faith is how quick libertarians resort to anger and childish name calling when their faith is challenged.

The thread started with nothing of substance. Garbage in, garbage out. If you don't like my posts, put me on ignore. See if I care.

My inclination is to say the impulse the public already has that is in line with libertarian thought (individualism) has created a cultural decay in which mediocrity is king and the selfish desire to avoid boredom is creeping towards the highest priority of Americans.

"Your rights end where others' begins" is a fine and dandy maxim to live by and I agree entirely with it, but the fact is that nothing you do happens in a vacuum, and in some way, shape, or form, affects others. A parent may technically have the right to be lenient in raising their children, but to the extent those children direspect authority, are lazy, and are selfish, society has been affected by the "personal" choices of the parent and has every right to pass judgement on that parent. It's "personal choices" such as that which have led our culture into a race towards mediocrity.

I've got to admit, Robert Locke's editorial "Marxism of the Right" had a pretty big influence on my negative attitude towards libertarianism. I recommend it to everyone:
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_03_14/article1.html

edit...the concluding paragraph:

This contempt for self-restraint is emblematic of a deeper problem: libertarianism has a lot to say about freedom but little about learning to handle it. Freedom without judgment is dangerous at best, useless at worst. Yet libertarianism is philosophically incapable of evolving a theory of how to use freedom well because of its root dogma that all free choices are equal, which it cannot abandon except at the cost of admitting that there are other goods than freedom.

Libertarian Party :nice:

Ignorant New Zealanders :not:

My inclination is to say the impulse the public already has that is in line with libertarian thought (individualism) has created a cultural decay in which mediocrity is king and the selfish desire to avoid boredom is creeping towards the highest priority of Americans.Individualism has been eroding in the US for quite some time. Mediocrty is caused by liberals who aspire to a collective philosophy that teaches children self esteem instead of principle. Our children are unfortunately taught to the lowest common denominator.

"Your rights end where others' begins" is a fine and dandy maxim to live by and I agree entirely with it, but the fact is that nothing you do happens in a vacuum, and in some way, shape, or form, affects others. A parent may technically have the right to be lenient in raising their children, but to the extent those children direspect authority, are lazy, and are selfish, society has been affected by the "personal" choices of the parent and has every right to pass judgement on that parent. It's "personal choices" such as that which have led our culture into a race towards mediocrity.Our current environment in the US is one that removes children from bad parents. And the fact is that choices have been removed or disallowed. You have it all backwards.

I've got to admit, Robert Locke's editorial "Marxism of the Right" had a pretty big influence on my negative attitude towards libertarianism. I recommend it to everyone:
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_03_14/article1.html

edit...the concluding paragraph:

This contempt for self-restraint is emblematic of a deeper problem: libertarianism has a lot to say about freedom but little about learning to handle it. Freedom without judgment is dangerous at best, useless at worst. Yet libertarianism is philosophically incapable of evolving a theory of how to use freedom well because of its root dogma that all free choices are equal, which it cannot abandon except at the cost of admitting that there are other goods than freedom. The fact that freedom requires judgement is hardly news. If you are incapable of good judgement, then you will have problems. Choices are never equal, but don't you think you should have the freedom to make a choice instead of having it made for you by government. Do you really want someone to teach you how to use freedom? Are you so overwhelmed by choices that you find yourself incapable of making a good one? I submit that you simply don't want to deal with the choices freedom provides. You would rather be controlled by others like an irresponsible puppet, than decide what's best for you. Same goes for Mr. Locke.

I've got to admit, Robert Locke's editorial "Marxism of the Right" had a pretty big influence on my negative attitude towards libertarianism. I recommend it to everyone:
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_03_14/article1.html

I am reading this article now, Themistocles.

All 'welfare' is taxed, here at least,and probably also in the USA. So, 'tax dollars' are being taken from everyone.

Welfare doesn't even belong to them the first place, they got it from the money of hard-working people, so how is it taken from them? :confused:

Oh, I am sure that makes you feel very good about yourself

It sure does :D

but it's a pathetic pittance compared to the amount needed.

Oh yeah, and how much money did YOU give to these causes or any other? Pathetic? No, you are the one who is, because apparently you just sucking community's blood while I'm helping people that truely need it and you have the nerve to say anything negative about that.

That's why private charity replacing 'welfare' is a sick joke.

No, it might be not 100% possible, but it's a great theory to say the least, since welfare is basically government playing robin hood, stealing money from some people and giving it to others (most who don't even deserve it really).

I don't care about all these emotional arguements, stealing is wrong, and people do have the right to freedom, including to be greedy. We DO need to help those who really deserve and need it, even if it means welfare to them, but it's still a necessary evil at best.

This is the way people like you like to characterise the unemployed.

Jobs are availible everywhere, at least in America. Not the best money, not the best jobs, but there is no excuse for anybody who is able to work not to work.

That makes me wish a spell of involuntary unemployment on all libertarians, so they'll be forced to realise that being 'a lazy sh1t has nothing at all to do with it.

I am a lazy person myself, and yet I still make money and when I don't, I don't ask anybody for anything, because it's my problem, and I don't want anybody forcing anybody to do me any favors.

I've been looking for a job for 20 months now, and I've had a few months temping work here and there. (That should show you I'm neither lazy nor stupid, but it probably won't).

If you are really a hard-working and (at least in some ways) smart person, you must be living in a piece of sh!t country with a horrible system if you can't find a job here and really realy trying to.

Here in America, even any dope addict I know who is willing to do something for living, other than be a lazy and get hight, can find a job and will earn enough for himself, even if he spends half of his money on drugs, lol. If you can't find a job, move to America and stop complaining, that's pretty much what my family did in fact, since my dad wasn't making AS much money in Israel.

I gather you'd rather see me and people like me living under a bridge somewhere,

No, I wish you people all the best, including to put down the crack pipe and the needle, get off your lazy asses, get your life together and stop blaming all your problems on the "capitalist system", but rather be productive to the society. What I am against, however, is the government stealing my money by force and giving it to some people because of whatever problem they have with working themselves (other than having a physical/mental disability that prevents them from working).

but thankfully, I live in a more rational, sensible country.

No, lol, you can't find a job and live poorly because you live in a country with a bad economic system. If you lived in America and you weren't too lazy to work, you'd be just fine. Trust me, I know a bunch of "losers" here, and they live probably better than the average person in your country, :p

Like the poor people have the money to up stakes and move to other states! If they did, they'd use the money to move to where they might have a better chance of a job.

No, most of them just wanna be wherever the welfare money is bigger, because they are addicted to it by now, and forgot what it's like to get a job.

But if you lost your job, or your trust fund, or whatever you depend on, you could well be one. Then we'd see how happy and willing you'd be to move to a state where there were private charities abounding.

It would be then my problem. I would work on finding another job, make more money, and not only I wouldn't ask the government to force other people to help me, I might actually have enough self-respect not to even accept money from private charity, since I believe in personal responsiblity and not owing anybody NOTHING.

Individualism has been eroding in the US for quite some time. Mediocrty is caused by liberals who aspire to a collective philosophy that teaches children self esteem instead of principle. Our children are unfortunately taught to the lowest common denominator.

And that lowest common denominator inevitably becomes "me, me, me!" We can split hairs on what's really "individualism" and what's really "collective", but the common thread of what is eroding our culture is rooted in selfishness.

Our current environment in the US is one that removes children from bad parents. And the fact is that choices have been removed or disallowed. You have it all backwards.

I'm not following you. Seems like a LOT of children have bad parents. Incompetent parents. And it's not a crime to be an incompetent parent, but it is a social malignancy.

The fact that freedom requires judgement is hardly news. If you are incapable of good judgement, then you will have problems.

The thing is that these problems often times are passed on to other people, other people who have less of say on the choices and freedoms of others. Therefore, other people have a right to be concerned with the choices of others.

Choices are never equal, but don't you think you should have the freedom to make a choice instead of having it made for you by government.

If choices are never equal, then the answer to this question cannot be universal.

Do you really want someone to teach you how to use freedom? Are you so overwhelmed by choices that you find yourself incapable of making a good one? I submit that you simply don't want to deal with the choices freedom provides.

It's not a matter of personal taste to suggest that the choices some people make are irresponsible and are the basis of social degredation which affects us all.

You would rather be controlled by others like an irresponsible puppet, than decide what's best for you. Same goes for Mr. Locke.

I think there is an inherent value to showing reverence for tradition and that social stigma can serve as a beneficial balance against mediocrity.

I'm not suggesting hard and fast rules of do's and don'ts, but rather that I don't believe apathy and selfishness make a very good bedrock for civilization.

Another pair of paragraphs from the link I would like to stress:

The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple: freedom, though a good thing, is simply not the only good thing in life. Simple physical security, which even a prisoner can possess, is not freedom, but one cannot live without it. Prosperity is connected to freedom, in that it makes us free to consume, but it is not the same thing, in that one can be rich but as unfree as a Victorian tycoon’s wife. A family is in fact one of the least free things imaginable, as the emotional satisfactions of it derive from relations that we are either born into without choice or, once they are chosen, entail obligations that we cannot walk away from with ease or justice. But security, prosperity, and family are in fact the bulk of happiness for most real people and the principal issues that concern governments.

Libertarians try to get around this fact that freedom is not the only good thing by trying to reduce all other goods to it through the concept of choice, claiming that everything that is good is so because we choose to partake of it. Therefore freedom, by giving us choice, supposedly embraces all other goods. But this violates common sense by denying that anything is good by nature, independently of whether we choose it. Nourishing foods are good for us by nature, not because we choose to eat them. Taken to its logical conclusion, the reduction of the good to the freely chosen means there are no inherently good or bad choices at all, but that a man who chose to spend his life playing tiddlywinks has lived as worthy a life as a Washington or a Churchill.

The thread started with nothing of substance. Garbage in, garbage out. If you don't like my posts, put me on ignore. See if I care.
You're amusing for now, you make as much sense as a four year old but for now you're amusing.

Themistocles, I rarely agree with what you write, but I must say you warmed my heart with your assessment that selfishness cannot serve as the bedrock of society.

Libertarian Party :nice:

Ignorant New Zealanders :not:
http://www.libertarianz.org.nz/

Ignorant libertarians :nice: :rolleyes:

302Riz you are keeping up the fine tradition of libertarian arguments of substance.

LIbertarian arguments of freedom is specious as for reasons which some I have already pointed out, libertarian freedom is a freedom of one group over another. We've already had libertarians here argue against pro compedative regulation and the minimum wage.

Jobs are availible everywhere, at least in America. Not the best money, not the best jobs, but there is no excuse for anybody who is able to work not to work.

Well that's a smelly load. Do you just not understand real life? Zero unemployment has almost never existed, anywhere.

I know people who live in your fantasy world and I've love to live there, where unemployemeny is always a choice. Unfortunately I like millions of others live in this world the real world.

Well that's a smelly load. Do you just not understand real life? Zero unemployment has almost never existed, anywhere.

No sh!t, but that's because either some countries have sh!tty systems, or in some countries like America, some people don't want to work at certain jobs. It's always possible to find a job here if REALLY REALLY needed, even illegal immigrants without a visa can do it. I can bet that if there was no welfare, there would be MUCH MUCH less unemployment, mostly limited to people who are unable to work.

http://www.libertarianz.org.nz/

Ignorant libertarians :nice: :rolleyes:

302Riz you are keeping up the fine tradition of libertarian arguments of substance.

LIbertarian arguments of freedom is specious as for reasons which some I have already pointed out, libertarian freedom is a freedom of one group over another. We've already had libertarians here argue against pro compedative regulation and the minimum wage.

Ugh, I think you arent worth the time to argue.

Welfare doesn't even belong to them the first place, they got it from the money of hard-working people, so how is it taken from them? :confused:



It sure does :D



Oh yeah, and how much money did YOU give to these causes or any other? Pathetic? No, you are the one who is, because apparently you just sucking community's blood while I'm helping people that truely need it and you have the nerve to say anything negative about that.



No, it might be not 100% possible, but it's a great theory to say the least, since welfare is basically government playing robin hood, stealing money from some people and giving it to others (most who don't even deserve it really).

I don't care about all these emotional arguements, stealing is wrong, and people do have the right to freedom, including to be greedy. We DO need to help those who really deserve and need it, even if it means welfare to them, but it's still a necessary evil at best.



Jobs are availible everywhere, at least in America. Not the best money, not the best jobs, but there is no excuse for anybody who is able to work not to work.



I am a lazy person myself, and yet I still make money and when I don't, I don't ask anybody for anything, because it's my problem, and I don't want anybody forcing anybody to do me any favors.



If you are really a hard-working and (at least in some ways) smart person, you must be living in a piece of sh!t country with a horrible system if you can't find a job here and really realy trying to.

Here in America, even any dope addict I know who is willing to do something for living, other than be a lazy and get hight, can find a job and will earn enough for himself, even if he spends half of his money on drugs, lol. If you can't find a job, move to America and stop complaining, that's pretty much what my family did in fact, since my dad wasn't making AS much money in Israel.



No, I wish you people all the best, including to put down the crack pipe and the needle, get off your lazy asses, get your life together and stop blaming all your problems on the "capitalist system", but rather be productive to the society. What I am against, however, is the government stealing my money by force and giving it to some people because of whatever problem they have with working themselves (other than having a physical/mental disability that prevents them from working).



No, lol, you can't find a job and live poorly because you live in a country with a bad economic system. If you lived in America and you weren't too lazy to work, you'd be just fine. Trust me, I know a bunch of "losers" here, and they live probably better than the average person in your country, :p



No, most of them just wanna be wherever the welfare money is bigger, because they are addicted to it by now, and forgot what it's like to get a job.



It would be then my problem. I would work on finding another job, make more money, and not only I wouldn't ask the government to force other people to help me, I might actually have enough self-respect not to even accept money from private charity, since I believe in personal responsiblity and not owing anybody NOTHING.


All excellent points there dude. Della has definately got her head up her ass.

All excellent points there dude. Della has definately got her head up her ass.

:nice: She always seems to blame her personal/family/friends problems on the libertarian party and the Jews, lol. She's everything that republicans want liberals to be.

:nice: She always seems to blame her personal/family/friends problems on the libertarian party and the Jews, lol. She's everything that republicans want liberals to be.

If she cant find a job for almost 2 years, blaming everyone but herself seems futile. But she has the nerve to say that her country is better than ours? Since when did this become a childish "my countries economic is better than your countries economic" argument?

If I couldnt find a job for 2 years, Id be living out on the street, more than likely deserved.

If she cant find a job for almost 2 years, blaming everyone but herself seems futile.

No, you don't understand, it's THE JEWS who prevent her from finding a job, especially Ariel Sharon...as well as America :lol: :lol:

But she has the nerve to say that her country is better than ours?

And you know how much I love Isreal...I still would never say that the economy system there is better than in America, although it's not TOO bad either.

Since when did this become a childish "my countries economic is better than your countries economic" argument?

Obviously it's not better, unless she is really lazy and stupid, which she says she's not.

If I couldnt find a job for 2 years, Id be living out on the street, more than likely deserved.

True :nice: Unless of course you are either old or ill enough not to be able to work.

Oh there are plenty of other problems that can lead to unemployment, or at least to falling down to lower classes. Reading a book on it that's on my curriculum - seems it's a big problem that US culture doesn't seem to recognize any other causes.

The first example from the book can be read here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0520218426/ref=sib_rdr_ex/102-4411100-9701761?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S00G&j=0#reader-page

And that lowest common denominator inevitably becomes "me, me, me!" We can split hairs on what's really "individualism" and what's really "collective", but the common thread of what is eroding our culture is rooted in selfishness. Socialism has created the me, me, me philosophy. Everyone wants their free handout. You should know that nothing in life is free.



I'm not following you. Seems like a LOT of children have bad parents. Incompetent parents. And it's not a crime to be an incompetent parent, but it is a social malignancy.Are you saying that parents shouldn't be allowed to raise their children however they want to because society will have to deal with the bad ones later on? What would you propose - government babysitters? We already have that - it's called the public school system. Or, do you think we should lock up bad parents? Who decides if they're bad?




The thing is that these problems often times are passed on to other people, other people who have less of say on the choices and freedoms of others. Therefore, other people have a right to be concerned with the choices of others.
By providing government safety nets which allow people who have made bad choices to not suffer the consequences of their choice, people are destined to fail at will. This removes incentive to suceed. Libertarians want you to live with the choices you've made, because the only safety net is one you provide for yourself. The government shouldn't be there to help you.


If choices are never equal, then the answer to this question cannot be universal. The only universal thing is choice. Like I said choices are never equal, it's up to you to pick the right one. If you choose badly, you have only yourself to blame.




It's not a matter of personal taste to suggest that the choices some people make are irresponsible and are the basis of social degredation which affects us all.
It affects us all because government has been asked to help at our expense. Let them fail and suffer. If they survive, they hopefully they won't make the same mistake.



I'm not suggesting hard and fast rules of do's and don'ts, but rather that I don't believe apathy and selfishness make a very good bedrock for civilization.I agree that as individuals, we shouldn't be apathetic or selfish to social problems. But government should be apathetic and selfish because socialist leanings simply perpetuate problems..

Another pair of paragraphs from the link I would like to stress:

The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple: freedom, though a good thing, is simply not the only good thing in life. Simple physical security, which even a prisoner can possess, is not freedom, but one cannot live without it. Prosperity is connected to freedom, in that it makes us free to consume, but it is not the same thing, in that one can be rich but as unfree as a Victorian tycoon’s wife. A family is in fact one of the least free things imaginable, as the emotional satisfactions of it derive from relations that we are either born into without choice or, once they are chosen, entail obligations that we cannot walk away from with ease or justice. But security, prosperity, and family are in fact the bulk of happiness for most real people and the principal issues that concern governments.
He seems to want security over freedom. This is a basic socialistic thought. The government cannot, never has and never will be able to keep us safe.


Libertarians try to get around this fact that freedom is not the only good thing by trying to reduce all other goods to it through the concept of choice, claiming that everything that is good is so because we choose to partake of it. Therefore freedom, by giving us choice, supposedly embraces all other goods. But this violates common sense by denying that anything is good by nature, independently of whether we choose it. Nourishing foods are good for us by nature, not because we choose to eat them. Taken to its logical conclusion, the reduction of the good to the freely chosen means there are no inherently good or bad choices at all, but that a man who chose to spend his life playing tiddlywinks has lived as worthy a life as a Washington or a Churchill.Locke is trying to convince us that a choice is a choice, it doesn't matter which one we make. I've never heard or read anything from a libertarian that agrees with him. While what Locke proposes is becoming more true as our society becomes more socialistic, the incentive to acheive and progress is lost. When we ask government to ensure that our choices are safe, we remove freedom from those who are forced to pay for our safety. Freedom gives people the opportunity to make good choices and bad ones. Freedom also demands that they live with their decision.

Oh yeah, and how much money did YOU give to these causes or any other? Pathetic? No, you are the one who is, because apparently you just sucking community's blood while I'm helping people that truely need it and you have the nerve to say anything negative about that.
I regularly give money, but the thing is, I don't boast about it, and I am not going to tell you where, what and to whom.

Jobs are availible everywhere, at least in America. Not the best money, not the best jobs, but there is no excuse for anybody who is able to work not to work.
I am sure even you know better. You are such a liar sometimes, that I am certain you do in fact, know better.

No sh!t, but that's because either some countries have sh!tty systems, or in some countries like America, some people don't want to work at certain jobs. It's always possible to find a job here if REALLY REALLY needed, even illegal immigrants without a visa can do it. I can bet that if there was no welfare, there would be MUCH MUCH less unemployment, mostly limited to people who are unable to work.
Yeah, right....
:nice: She always seems to blame her personal/family/friends problems on the libertarian party and the Jews, lol. She's everything that republicans want liberals to be.
Who's she, the cat's mother? You are rude, hostile, spiteful and as is to be expected from such a heavy user of the old Mary Jane, electric puha, in a word, Ganja, you're totally paranoid. There are Jews I like, but you are not one of them, because of your own spiteful hostility. If everyone mistreats you, maybe in your case, it's not anti-semitism, it's just because you're a jerk?

I regularly give money

But you don't even work!! :bowrofl: :bowrofl:

You can give the money given to you by the government to somebody, but that's hardly "your" money the first place :p

but the thing is, I don't boast about it, and I am not going to tell you where, what and to whom

If it's for "palestinian causes" or anything to do with supporting/being appologist for muslim terrorists...you're better off being just being greedy. In fact, I'm scheduled to play at a "Human Rights" event next weekend, but I am going to check what it is all really about and make sure that there's nothing there that may offend me or that I may not like, before I do anything.

I am sure even you know better. You are such a liar sometimes, that I am certain you do in fact, know better.

And you still haven't proved me wrong. You just claim I'm a liar because you don't like what I say :not:

Yeah, right....

Do you really believe that if there was no welfare for people that are able to work, they wouldn't actually go and find a job, but rather die than earn 7$ an hour anywhere? You can't be THAT stupid.

Who's she, the cat's mother? You are rude, hostile, spiteful

Hold on, but wasn't I correct despite being a bit rude? You do not work, and indeed you complain about America, Jews, Capitalists, Libertarians...and why? Because all of us live better than you? Stop being so jealous and expect us to pay for your problems and the problems of people like you. YOU need to help yourself, so why don't you stop complaining, find a job, and if your country sucks that bad, move to a better country and find a job there ;)

as is to be expected from such a heavy user of the old Mary Jane, electric puha,

How do you know I'm a heavy user? I never said I was, I might do it once a month for all you know. And no matter how much do I really get stoned, I still go to a good college, get decent/good grades, make money, pay taxes, use whatever talent I have to help people, nor do I expect anything from anybody. Say what you want about me and my habits, but at least I can afford them!! Can you afford your bad habits? Apparently not, since you can't even find a f#ckin' job in 2 years, LMAO!! :rolleyes:

By the way, since you claim to be a "leftist", you do support my legal right to smoke dope, right?

in a word, Ganja, you're totally paranoid.

How? I ain't the one who's looking for JEWS to blame for everything, lol.

There are Jews I like, but you are not one of them,

Ohhh there are a lot of self-hating Jewish uncle toms around, I'm sure you like them and wished that all the rest of the Jews would know their place as well.

And yes, thank you very much, I'm NOT one of them and want nothing to do with them either. All people are equal, for better and for worse, that includes Jews too.

because of your own spiteful hostility

What about your hostility towards people such as my family and friends who do nothing wrong besides being born Jewish and live in Israel? Why do you support the people who want to murder them?

If everyone mistreats you, maybe in your case, it's not anti-semitism, it's just because you're a jerk?

I don't think that everyone mistreats me, in fact I love my life, thank you very much, I have a great family, great friends, I got most of what I need...I ain't complaining about myself. I'm doing just fine :D , how about you?

Ugh, I think you arent worth the time to argue.
:rolleyes: "time to argue"?

You just look like and angry little man who isn't able.

So far I haven't seen a single libertarian supporter here in this thread who hasn't either been quick to resort to name calling, cheap insults, a mean sprit or display the anger management skills of a 12 year old.

Sadly I'm yet to meet a libertarian who behaves any better than you lot. Appart from the logical agguments its the behaviour of libertarians themselves that answers the central question I quoted in post one.

:rolleyes: "time to argue"?

You just look like and angry little man who isn't able.

So far I haven't seen a single libertarian supporter here in this thread who hasn't either been quick to resort to name calling, cheap insults, a mean sprit or display the anger management skills of a 12 year old.

Sadly I'm yet to meet a libertarian who behaves any better than you lot. Appart from the logical agguments its the behaviour of libertarians themselves that answers the central question I quoted in post one.

Ahh from the few posts I have made in this thread you have concluded that "I'm an angry little man"? Or did you get that from Della.

I dont have time to argue with fools.

If everyone mistreats you, maybe in your case, it's not anti-semitism, it's just because you're a jerk?
I tried hard, really I did but they deserve that :nice:

For all the reasons in my above post.

Ahh from the few posts I have made in this thread you have concluded that "I'm an angry little man"? Or did you get that from Della.
Well just a few posts ago you said someone has their head up their arse. Yes very mature and stable :rolleyes:

I dont have time to argue with fools.
:nice: Well at least you don't talk to yourself then:nice:

Socialism has created the me, me, me philosophy. Everyone wants their free handout. You should know that nothing in life is free.

Socialism can create that mindset, but I think our cultural attitudes have done far greater damage to the necessary balance between self-reliance and decent citizenship than the government ever will. I would bet the majority of instances in which Americans complain about how things are in any circumstance or walk of life, it's not about whether or not they've gotten their fair share, but rather because they believe someone else is overstepping their bounds against them. The Man always likes to hastle the people, after all, right?

Are you saying that parents shouldn't be allowed to raise their children however they want to because society will have to deal with the bad ones later on?

Not particularly. I do think there are tons of parents out there that aren't fit to be parents. Don't you? My point was that parenting was a glaring example of why the phrase "your rights end where others begins" is something of a foolish mantra to parade around when you consider that life isn't so black and white. What people choose to do affects others. It affects others who are not involved in that decision. That is patently true and I believe libertarians forget this and to disagree is to enable complacency.


What would you propose - government babysitters? We already have that - it's called the public school system. Or, do you think we should lock up bad parents? Who decides if they're bad?

I lament the fact that our society no longer has social stigmas. I guess the only taboos we have are against telling people how to be proper parents, because that's "their business", somehow. As for public schools, I would argue the two greatest reasons our system is not "working" are cultural indifference to academic achievement and poor parenting. The blunt argument of "the cream rises to the top" and that it's just tough luck for those who don't achieve is a recipe for apathy, and it's apathy which fuels the two problems I have listed.

By providing government safety nets which allow people who have made bad choices to not suffer the consequences of their choice, people are destined to fail at will. This removes incentive to suceed. Libertarians want you to live with the choices you've made, because the only safety net is one you provide for yourself. The government shouldn't be there to help you.

You overestimate success as an incentive. Many people don't care. Many people are fatalistic. Many people don't have the drive. And now that I think of it, our society does have a social stigma: academic success in schools. To do well in some public schools is to invite the disdain from lesser achieving peers.

And to say "tough luck, sink or swim" is an explicit invitation to mediocrity...Social Darwinism is complacency for mediocrity. It enables mediocrity. By resolving ourselves to the belief that there must be failures in society, we have excused failure. That may be alright for a lesser society, but a great civilization?

Recall that I'm not a leftist, either, as any regular to discussanything knows. You mention the government and socialism, but I don't see either as a particular solution. As a conservative, I think social mores, traditions, and social standards become the most reliable and desirable means. After all, most people tend to follow what is socially acceptable. Libertarians would have you believe that the inherent rewards that come with academic success are sufficient, yet public school students aren't fighting over themselves to be the best they can be, academically. Is it because publicly paid school teachers are lousy? Or is it because social constraints imposed by the students upon each other are stronger than the "inherent rewards of academic success" (for example)?

The only universal thing is choice. Like I said choices are never equal, it's up to you to pick the right one. If you choose badly, you have only yourself to blame.

But not all choices are made in a vaccuum. In fact, most aren't. And in fact, most choices affect other people, who do not make your choice for you. I'm simply arguing that it's wrong to choose to do something and say it's nobody's business. Maybe the interest of others shouldn't be sufficient enough to make a difference. Maybe most choices really should be solely up to the person making them. But no man is an island.

It affects us all because government has been asked to help at our expense. Let them fail and suffer. If they survive, they hopefully they won't make the same mistake.

I can't think of a better way to allow a society to rot from the inside. For one, it is a moral outrage to argue that some people must suffer. Secondly, if we say that you get what you deserve in life, then you must resolve yourself to the fact that the concept of success and failure is both relative and subjective. Why should people aspire to greatness when the path of least resistance seems sufficient?

I agree that as individuals, we shouldn't be apathetic or selfish to social problems. But government should be apathetic and selfish because socialist leanings simply perpetuate problems..

A government which practices popular sovereignty has a moral obligation to be responsive to its population.

He seems to want security over freedom. This is a basic socialistic thought. The government cannot, never has and never will be able to keep us safe.

For one, I don't think Locke said that at all. What he said was that freedom wasn't the only thing in life and that it is not desirable in absolute terms.

Secondly, of course the government can keep us safe. Maybe not at all times and all places, but I can't remember the last time we were invaded, can you? I see cops on every other street in this city and they do a great job. There isn't a place in this city, not even off MLK or in north town, where I'd say you have to roll up the windows, lock the doors, and not make eye contact while driving through. And it's not because this city is polite or everyone is well meaning, but because we have a great police department. Government's doing great there.

Locke is trying to convince us that a choice is a choice, it doesn't matter which one we make. I've never heard or read anything from a libertarian that agrees with him.

So then society and the government do have a right to regulate some personal choices?

When we ask government to ensure that our choices are safe, we remove freedom from those who are forced to pay for our safety.

Not all freedoms are equal in value. And, as much as libertarians would like to believe otherwise, you require safety. Without safety, you have no freedom.

Also, freedom without purpose is selfishness. I'd like to cite a favorite quote from Cicero in saying "The fruit of too much liberty is slavery." Any person who "freely" chose to indulge in drugs and alcohol on a reckless and regular basis can attest....All "personal" decisions libertarians would shrug their shoulders at, yet all selfish actions with negative consequences that affect others with the reduction--not increase--of freedom.

Freedom gives people the opportunity to make good choices and bad ones. Freedom also demands that they live with their decision.

And we all have to live with other people's bad choices.

If someone is killed in a car wreck with a drunk driver, is that "tough luck" for the person who "made the poor choice" of being in the wrong place at the wrong time? The libertarian has to concede that THE GOVERNMENT specifically outlaws such behavior, yet they must philosophically resolve the fact that the drunk driver still made a personal choice with the fact it resulted in the death of an innocent person. I don't see anything fair about the libertarian apathy on that particular example.

I have mixed feelings about libertarians. On one hand, the protection of civil rights and liberties is something I am all in favor of.

But if you are going to abolish Federal Income tax than what are you going to do to raise money? And don't talk about consumption taxes. That will punish the poor unjustly.

If you really are going to enforce civil liberties and protect the rights of all citizens, including their right to a very basic standard of living there is only one answer:

READ AND LEARN (http://www.attackthesystem.com/twentyfive.html)

I dunno man, the rich buy a lot of stupid crap. Perhaps no taxes on certain items for everyone? Mainly food, some medicines, etc...

But you don't even work!!
But I do, just not full time or permanent. So, you see you don't know everything, in fact, you hardly know anything.

How do you know I'm a heavy user?
Paranoia is a symptom of heavy use. That's well known.

By the way, since you claim to be a "leftist", you do support my legal right to smoke dope, right?
No. That's not part of being a leftist any more than supporting abortion/euthanasia etc is being leftist.

What about your hostility towards people such as my family and friends who do nothing wrong besides being born Jewish and live in Israel? Why do you support the people who want to murder them?
I don't support such people, that you think I do is just part of your paranoia.

Socialism can create that mindset, but I think our cultural attitudes have done far greater damage to the necessary balance between self-reliance and decent citizenship than the government ever will. I would bet the majority of instances in which Americans complain about how things are in any circumstance or walk of life, it's not about whether or not they've gotten their fair share, but rather because they believe someone else is overstepping their bounds against them.Government has played a huge part in propogating the cultural mindset you suggest. Why should people try to elevate themselves when the government is always there to bail them out.

The Man always likes to hastle the people, after all, right? Just exactly who is 'The Man'?



Not particularly. I do think there are tons of parents out there that aren't fit to be parents. Don't you? Yes. My point was that parenting was a glaring example of why the phrase "your rights end where others begins" is something of a foolish mantra to parade around when you consider that life isn't so black and white. What people choose to do affects others. It affects others who are not involved in that decision. That is patently true and I believe libertarians forget this and to disagree is to enable complacency.Your correct that life isn't black and white. But, the libertarian point of view is that government should be. What we have now is gray and impossible to control. We have asked government to do too much as it was never intended to deal with social issues.



I lament the fact that our society no longer has social stigmas. I guess the only taboos we have are against telling people how to be proper parents, because that's "their business", somehow. As for public schools, I would argue the two greatest reasons our system is not "working" are cultural indifference to academic achievement and poor parenting. The blunt argument of "the cream rises to the top" and that it's just tough luck for those who don't achieve is a recipe for apathy, and it's apathy which fuels the two problems I have listed.
For reasons already stated, cultural indifference and poor parenting are social issues that government was never intended to solve. Our current environment gives them chance, it's up to them to take advantage of it.



You overestimate success as an incentive. Many people don't care. Many people are fatalistic. Many people don't have the drive. And now that I think of it, our society does have a social stigma: academic success in schools. To do well in some public schools is to invite the disdain from lesser achieving peers.
Okay, if they don't want success, how about plain old survival. Remove the safety nets and force the lesser achieving to participate or die.

And to say "tough luck, sink or swim" is an explicit invitation to mediocrity...Social Darwinism is complacency for mediocrity. It enables mediocrity. By resolving ourselves to the belief that there must be failures in society, we have excused failure. That may be alright for a lesser society, but a great civilization?
Sink or swim is what will force people to survive without government. By providing safety nets we have excused failure. A civilization is only as great as it lowest member.

Recall that I'm not a leftist, either, as any regular to discussanything knows. You mention the government and socialism, but I don't see either as a particular solution. As a conservative, I think social mores, traditions, and social standards become the most reliable and desirable means. After all, most people tend to follow what is socially acceptable. Libertarians would have you believe that the inherent rewards that come with academic success are sufficient, yet public school students aren't fighting over themselves to be the best they can be, academically. Is it because publicly paid school teachers are lousy? Or is it because social constraints imposed by the students upon each other are stronger than the "inherent rewards of academic success" (for example)?
Many public school teachers are lousy. They stay employed because they have tenure and a union to back them. Again, I believe that the government welfare system is self perpetuating and has created several generations of the bad parents you've mentioned. Bad parents lead to bad students, adults and future parents. I agree that social problems would be more reliably solved within society.



But not all choices are made in a vaccuum. In fact, most aren't. And in fact, most choices affect other people, who do not make your choice for you. I'm simply arguing that it's wrong to choose to do something and say it's nobody's business. Maybe the interest of others shouldn't be sufficient enough to make a difference. Maybe most choices really should be solely up to the person making them. But no man is an island.
As long as you don't ask government to pick you up in a boat there is no problem.



I can't think of a better way to allow a society to rot from the inside. For one, it is a moral outrage to argue that some people must suffer. Secondly, if we say that you get what you deserve in life, then you must resolve yourself to the fact that the concept of success and failure is both relative and subjective. Why should people aspire to greatness when the path of least resistance seems sufficient?
If someone is content being poor there is no problem. If government cuts the purse strings, some won't be able to handle it and society must develop ways to help it's own without government intervention. The path of least resistance is death.



A government which practices popular sovereignty has a moral obligation to be responsive to its population.
The libertarian view is that sovereignty lies in the individual, not society or government. Individuals may choose to help those within society.


For one, I don't think Locke said that at all. What he said was that freedom wasn't the only thing in life and that it is not desirable in absolute terms.

Secondly, of course the government can keep us safe. Maybe not at all times and all places, but I can't remember the last time we were invaded, can you? I see cops on every other street in this city and they do a great job. There isn't a place in this city, not even off MLK or in north town, where I'd say you have to roll up the windows, lock the doors, and not make eye contact while driving through. And it's not because this city is polite or everyone is well meaning, but because we have a great police department. Government's doing great there.
We were invaded just over 4 years sgo. I could take you to places in Atlanta where neither of us would make it a block on foot. Government can't be everywhere for everybody and it never will be able to.



So then society and the government do have a right to regulate some personal choices?
Only as far as harming other people and damaging others property.



Not all freedoms are equal in value. And, as much as libertarians would like to believe otherwise, you require safety. Without safety, you have no freedom.
I expect government to provide a military and a justice system that employs police and judges and such. I don't require the safety of social programs, the FDA, EPA, and several other government agencies.


Also, freedom without purpose is selfishness. I'd like to cite a favorite quote from Cicero in saying "The fruit of too much liberty is slavery." Any person who "freely" chose to indulge in drugs and alcohol on a reckless and regular basis can attest....All "personal" decisions libertarians would shrug their shoulders at, yet all selfish actions with negative consequences that affect others with the reduction--not increase--of freedom.
All I'm talking about is freedom from government interference. The choices of some may affect the freedom of those around them. They do not however affect the entire population like government interference does.



And we all have to live with other people's bad choices.
Yes, but unless someone is physically harmed or property is damaged, the government has no business being involved.
If someone is killed in a car wreck with a drunk driver, is that "tough luck" for the person who "made the poor choice" of being in the wrong place at the wrong time? The libertarian has to concede that THE GOVERNMENT specifically outlaws such behavior, yet they must philosophically resolve the fact that the drunk driver still made a personal choice with the fact it resulted in the death of an innocent person. I don't see anything fair about the libertarian apathy on that particular example.The constitution provides a system of justice to deal with people who damage property or harm others. Libertarians have no problem with this. Where did you get the idea that libertarians would just let a drunk driver walk away? I suggest you read this http://www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml

including their right to a very basic standard of living there is only one answer:

READ AND LEARN (http://www.attackthesystem.com/twentyfive.html)The answer is that no one has the right to a government provided standard of living. Society may choose to accomodate the poor without involving government.

But I do, just not full time or permanent.

Well...maybe that's because you aren't such a great worker????

Paranoia is a symptom of heavy use. That's well known.

Wrong, try again. Only people who don't usually smoke pot get paranoid whenever they actually do get high, lol. Sometimes I used to get paranoid of people finding out I'm high, but that was before I was smoking it very often :p

No. That's not part of being a leftist any more than supporting abortion/euthanasia etc is being leftist.

Oh, so you believe that the government has the right to send non-violent drug users to jail because of what they do to their own body? As well as women who make a choice about their own body? Or if a person tried to commit suicide? Just like you don't believe in gay rights, or the right for Jews to have a country, huh.

EVERYBODY SEE THAT!! That's not a leftist...that's an authoritarian that supports socialist economy AT BEST, just like Stalin and Hitler. That is NOT leftism by any means. No thanks, I'd rather be a Dr. King-supporting zionist liberal-libertarian!!

I don't support such people, that you think I do is just part of your paranoia.

60-80% of palestinians are SUCH PEOPLE by ALL statistics, that's a fact. Unless you will say that you do NOT support most palestinians, you DO support such people, and that is a fact. Good or bad, but you do support people, that mostly want to kill people like my family just because of their nationality.

Well...maybe that's because you aren't such a great worker????
Don't be any stupider than you have to be. You know nothing about me or my circumstances.

Oh, so you believe that the government has the right to send non-violent drug users to jail because of what they do to their own body? As well as women who make a choice about their own body? Or if a person tried to commit suicide? Just like you don't believe in gay rights, or the right for Jews to have a country, huh.{/QUOTE]
See above.

[QUOTE=GanjaFreebird]60-80% of palestinians are SUCH PEOPLE by ALL statistics, that's a fact. Unless you will say that you do NOT support most palestinians, you DO support such people, and that is a fact. Good or bad, but you do support people, that mostly want to kill people like my family just because of their nationality.
You're talking as your donkey guides you. That's what I mean about paranoia, being convinced that "60-80%" of Palestinians are out to kill you. Rubbish. It may suit the IDF and Ariel Sharon to believe that, but in reality, 60-80% of Palestinians are just trying to get on with their lives. Look, you know I don't care what you think, any more. There's no getting through to you, and I am glad to know there are Israelis who want peace, and that fortunately, you don't represent all Israelis. If you're so hot to kill Muslims, what are you doing living in the USA and smoking dope? Why aren't you in the IDF, killing children and demolishing houses?

Meanwhile, let the thread get back on topic.

Don't be any stupider than you have to be. You know nothing about me or my circumstances.

Look, you're trying to sit on two chairs with one ass at the same time here. So you say your country is so great, but yet you can't find a full job for 2 years, and yet you aren't lazy, stupid or bad worker, and you really trying to find a job, but you still can't...it just doesn't make any sense to me...and I thought non-Libertarian system like in your country is supposed to be good for the people which means less unemployment? You gotta chose something here. :nonono:

See above

Hold on, you say you don't believe in my legal right to get high. It obviously means that you think I should be arrested for that, or else what?

That's what I mean about paranoia, being convinced that "60-80%" of Palestinians are out to kill you. Rubbish.

I believe that CowPunk, Coral and others already showed you the statistics from ALL SIDES and these were the numbers of people who support terrorist attacks on Jews within Israel. That's not an opinion, much less paranoia, that's a FACT, deal with it. And yes, it would mean that they want me and people like me to be killed, otherwise, why support terrorism against us, the innocent civilians?

It may suit the IDF and Ariel Sharon to believe that, but in reality, 60-80% of Palestinians are just trying to get on with their lives.

Then why are they killing us?

Look, you know I don't care what you think, any more. There's no getting through to you, and I am glad to know there are Israelis who want peace

I'm pro-peace. I supported Itzhak Rabin and Oslo until it proved itself to be a failure and only increased terrorism against us. I want peace with them, I just want them to leave us alone and stop killing us. I wouldn't care if Israel gives them most of the land that Barak offered, as long as they will stop the violence. What's wrong with that?

fortunately, you don't represent all Israelis.

I do. Most of us want peace, and wouldn't mind a 2-state solution as long as it ends the violence and discrimination against us. We gave peace a chance and many times too, and these bastards keep murdering us.

If you're so hot to kill Muslims, what are you doing living in the USA and smoking dope?

1. I'm a lover, not a fighter :D

2. I don't wanna "kill muslims". I want them to stop killing people like me and I would support anything to make it happen, other than give up my equal rights and freedom.

3. I like living in USA better, at least right now.

4. There's nothing wrong with smoking dope, and maybe if people like you and people that you support so much would do