The Truth about Libertarians

Originally posted by ziggystrange
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

You ignore the post and concentrate on an example.

I'm not going to rattle off what my businesses give as charity. I can state as a person that knows, and works with wealthy people, that the last thing most of the ones I know care about is the plight of the little people. Sure they will give to their favorite charity to send their tax dollar where they personally want it to go, and where they can personally benefit from it. I call that an investment, and P.R. So do their Accountants.

But hat was not the point of my post.

The point was that just because something sounds reasonable, it's not a a given that it is. Libertarian ideals are admirable on paper but flawed in practice. Monopolies give unlimited market power. We've been there.
Large government is a bad thing, nobody is questioning this.
Government is wasteful, it's corrupt, and unjust.

Adopting the Libertarian platform is not the answer. Deregulation only leads to abuse. The idea that self interest will keep businesses from decimating their sources of income "the consumer" is anathema to Corporate thinking.

I'm a businessman I have nothing against making a profit, but I'm not on a get all I can and to hell with everyone else trip. I believe people can advance their positions in life through hard work. I also understand that not all people can make it on their own for many reasons. I feel we need to help those people. Not as a choice given to the whim of the populace. But as a principle by which we live as a free ethical people.

We live in a country where getting sick can undo the work of a lifetime due to the cost of health care. We can lose all our savings due to an economic collapse caused by profiteering by banking institutions, and illegal stock trading practices. Not to mention wars with no purpose. We have issues in this country and we need to see what those issues really are, and address them. If we become a bunch of fear based factions we are not going to fare well.

Well George bush was a authoritarian. Guess I should be like that guy.

What dictators where libertarians? Name some.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by ziggystrange

 

I fully addressed your post, via your example.

I think what you may have illustrated here is the moral difference by region. Out here in West Texas, people are very friendly with each other. I see, with the exception of the Indian doctors (who feel that they are from a higher caste than us "undisciplined Americans") the upper crust of my community doing what it takes to help their fellow man.

What other town would you see 2 dozen millionaires serving Thanksgiving Dinner to the homeless and mentally ill?

Care and concern are a cultural value. If there isn't any in the culture you live within, it is the values of the people involved. which is kind of the point of my response to you: you gave an anecdote as if that is the brush which will paint your picture.

"I fully addressed your post, via your example."

Pompous and incorrect.

"Out here in West Texas, people are very friendly with each other. "

Anecdote

"Indian doctors (who feel that they are from a higher caste than us "undisciplined Americans")"

Anecdote

"the upper crust of my community doing what it takes to help their fellow man."

Anecdote

"What other town would you see 2 dozen millionaires serving Thanksgiving Dinner to the homeless and mentally ill?"

Anecdote

"you gave an anecdote as if that is the brush which will paint your picture"

Hypocrisy.

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

Originally posted by ziggystrange
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

You ignore the post and concentrate on an example.

I'm not going to rattle off what my businesses give as charity. I can state as a person that knows, and works with wealthy people, that the last thing most of the ones I know care about is the plight of the little people. Sure they will give to their favorite charity to send their tax dollar where they personally want it to go, and where they can personally benefit from it. I call that an investment, and P.R. So do their Accountants.

But hat was not the point of my post.

The point was that just because something sounds reasonable, it's not a a given that it is. Libertarian ideals are admirable on paper but flawed in practice. Monopolies give unlimited market power. We've been there.
Large government is a bad thing, nobody is questioning this.
Government is wasteful, it's corrupt, and unjust.

Adopting the Libertarian platform is not the answer. Deregulation only leads to abuse. The idea that self interest will keep businesses from decimating their sources of income "the consumer" is anathema to Corporate thinking.

I'm a businessman I have nothing against making a profit, but I'm not on a get all I can and to hell with everyone else trip. I believe people can advance their positions in life through hard work. I also understand that not all people can make it on their own for many reasons. I feel we need to help those people. Not as a choice given to the whim of the populace. But as a principle by which we live as a free ethical people.

We live in a country where getting sick can undo the work of a lifetime due to the cost of health care. We can lose all our savings due to an economic collapse caused by profiteering by banking institutions, and illegal stock trading practices. Not to mention wars with no purpose. We have issues in this country and we need to see what those issues really are, and address them. If we become a bunch of fear based factions we are not going to fare well.

Well George bush was a authoritarian. Guess I should be like that guy.

What dictators where libertarians? Name some.

Your response has not even the remotest relevance to my post.

reply to post by ziggystrange


So then...you do not dispute what i said?

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by ziggystrange

 

So then...you do not dispute what i said?

You're kidding right? Not dispute what you said?
I disassembled it, showing your responses to be the very same thing you accused me of doing. Except of course you do it serially.

Your choice of topic is a pundits dream. You talk about minorities that think they are higher caste than you...
You say you don't have money to give but you're otherwise Albert Schweitzer. Then you go on about "the upper crust" of your community, and how rare it is that millionaires are serving meals for poor/sick people. You actually believe it's philanthropy? You seem obstinate but not naive. Is it really a news flash to you that these little mutual admiration ceremonies are common practice? I don't buy it.

Then you mention Bedouin charity/culture. Pal it's only natural to be cooperative, and hospitable in a harsh environment. Same goes for American Boaters/Sailors, when I'm sailing, I will stop everything to help a boat in trouble, I expect others to do the same for me and they do. They do because it's in their best interest to have this relationship for self preservation. That is different from helping someone in need because it's the right thing to do. There lies one of the chasms with Libertarians for me. I understand where they are coming from, I just disagree.

There is good behavior most everywhere, it's the bad behavior that causes problems for everyone. Thus the need for regulation as I stated before.

Whatever your goal was with me, it failed to impress.

You pick my one example, deride it as anecdotal, and follow it up with a litany of self serving condescending anecdotes about your community. Your West Texas could well be the Utopia you paint to be, though I highly doubt it having traded words with you. I sincerely hope you are an exception, not the rule.

Don't expect a response.

Ziggy Strange

Originally posted by ziggystrange

You're kidding right? Not dispute what you said?
I disassembled it, showing your responses to be the very same thing you accused me of doing. Except of course you do it serially.

No, you didn't. You tried to relate the fact that you have "a friend" that said something once when you questioned him, then applied that to the entirety of humanity. I am telling you about the culture I am living in, and how it does not mesh with what you are saying, and insinuating that either you made up your story, or your friend is a poor representation of a humanity that is far more compassionate than he.

In response to this, the only thing you mustered up was to attack me, not what i am saying. Call me a hypocrite all you want...but have you reconciled the fact that you singular conversation does not mesh with the overwhelming evidence from elsewhere among humanity? If not, then you do not dispute what I am saying: that your friends statement is myopic in outlook.

Your choice of topic is a pundits dream. You talk about minorities that think they are higher caste than you...
You say you don't have money to give but you're otherwise Albert Schweitzer. Then you go on about "the upper crust" of your community, and how rare it is that millionaires are serving meals for poor/sick people. You actually believe it's philanthropy? You seem obstinate but not naive. Is it really a news flash to you that these little mutual admiration ceremonies are common practice? I don't buy it.

Your cynicism does not change the fact that what you proclaim (that the wealthy ignore the needy) is false. You are just trying to change the definition of philanthropism so that your fallacy can continue to appear viable.

Then you mention Bedouin charity/culture. Pal it's only natural to be cooperative, and hospitable in a harsh environment. Same goes for American Boaters/Sailors, when I'm sailing, I will stop everything to help a boat in trouble, I expect others to do the same for me and they do. They do because it's in their best interest to have this relationship for self preservation. That is different from helping someone in need because it's the right thing to do. There lies one of the chasms with Libertarians for me. I understand where they are coming from, I just disagree.

Disagreement is ok...but you DO realize that you just mention another facet of the charitable nature of man The reason that we help others is irrelevant. It is the fact that people are willing to help that matters. On sea, on land, and in the air...humans will be humans.

There is good behavior most everywhere, it's the bad behavior that causes problems for everyone. Thus the need for regulation as I stated before.

Regulation presumes malice. I prefer recourse. Let someone make the mistake, then seek recourse in the courts. Some regulation, yes. Things that provide for that framework that the libertarian platform speaks of. They are not talking about anarchy...they are just talking about increasing freedom.

Laws meant to prevent something are the worst form of tyranny. It is the same as "pre-emptive strike".

Whatever your goal was with me, it failed to impress.

Because you ignored the essence of what is being said. I hope it is more clear now.

You pick my one example, deride it as anecdotal, and follow it up with a litany of self serving condescending anecdotes about your community. Your West Texas could well be the Utopia you paint to be, though I highly doubt it having traded words with you. I sincerely hope you are an exception, not the rule.

personal attacks? I am sorry that debate and discussion causes so much angst within you. Maybe internet forums are not a place for you? You don't seem to want to discuss anything. You just want to beat me over the head.

reply to post by lastrebel


Let's break this down so it's more easily understood by people.

Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic
success.

Libertarians want all corporations in a society to have abundant opportunities to crush competition and establish monopolies.

A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner.

Stripping every single natural resource from this planet is good for business.

Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market.

No matter what the product is made out of, or how dangerous, or even if the product works or not, Libertarians believe that shysters have the right to gouge and rip off the public.

The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected.

Libertarians believe that the only roll of government is to protect the corporate oligarchy.

All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

Regulations? We don't need no stinking regulations!

reply to post by lastrebel

Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights.

Because corporations are people too!

The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others.

Whether it be strip mining, clear cutting, or dumping toxic pollutants into the water, it's all good!

We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates.

Why should't we be able to force people to work for .13c an hour? Fair market value? What's that all about? If a hurricane hits the gulf we should be able to jack up the cost of everything 300%!

We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services.

Listen if we want to market and sell asbestos as a dietary fiber bar, we should be able to, why should we have to disclose anything on our packaging?

We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade.

We want a corporate oligarchy? What part of this don't you understand?

The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever.

If an insurance company wants to drop a customer for being too expensive, or deny coverage because of a pre existing condition we say that's just fine!

Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.

Sounds like reparations to me.

reply to post by lastrebel

We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources.

Our PR firms will spin strip mining, clear cutting, dumping toxic waste, and other practices into something the public will find palatable and we will say that we support a clean environment and blow other rainbows up your butts.

Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources.

We want to make sure that we deplete this planets resources in the most efficient way possible for the greatest profit.

Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem.

We know this, and yet, we don't really care, but here's more smoke and rainbows for your butt.

Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection.

We mean we have a worse track record, but let's deflect and blame the government. Sure, you can sue us when your child is born with horrible birth defects, and we will drag litigation out for YEARS before you see a dime, and when you do eventually get a weak settlement from us, we will just jack up our prices accordingly and call it cost of doing business.

Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife.

All of which we will exploit to the most profitable degree and we want to restate that the corporate oligarchy's rights are always protected.

Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems.

We want to create the newest ways to rape this planet and spin it to make you believe that we care.

We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.

To which we mean our PR firms will produce advertisements making you believe we care about the environment and climate while we deplete this planet of every single natural resource.

There you go, Libertarians = Corporate Oligarchy.

Originally posted by whatukno...

You are makiing all this crap up. Be honest. Quit making it up.

If you want to protest, then i challenge you to prove it. Prove the corporate slant you profess.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


The corporate slant is all over the libertarian ideology.

It's right there for everyone to see, wanting complete de-regulation for businesses and corporations. Giving corporations more power than the States or Federal Government. It's plain to see.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

The corporate slant is all over the libertarian ideology.

It's right there for everyone to see, wanting complete de-regulation for businesses and corporations. Giving corporations more power than the States or Federal Government. It's plain to see.

Except you ignore their caveat of "within a framework".

and if you are wronged by a corporation, you seek recourse via litigation. Just like right now.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Except you ignore their caveat of "within a framework".

and if you are wronged by a corporation, you seek recourse via litigation. Just like right now.

I didn't ignore it, simply put, you go through litigation for years and the corporation just hikes up the price and calls it cost of doing business.

reply to post by whatukno


What you are describing is what we have now not what we would have under the Libertarians and you seem fine with the rich staying out of prison and not having to answer to their crimes now. We have big compinies.....Oil...Walmart....Tysons....JB Hunt....etc using the government to stiffle small business which I asume you are ok with since you dont mind them doing a year or so for murder

I have been a small businessman most my life and the NUMBER ONE stumbling block to us is not corporations but government interference in our businesses.

Why are you so terrorified of giving everyone the same set of rules?

reply to post by lastrebel


Where he/she is from. Economically depressed societies tend to enjoy the concepts of liberalism.

Our Energy Policy.......

2.3 Energy and Resources

While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.

Our Government spending policy.............NOTE............this DOES NOT PREVENT STATES OR CITIES FROM HAVING WELFARE, ETC............it just takes the Fed Gov out of it.


2.4 Government Finance and Spending

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.

This is basically a return to the gold standard............


2.5 Money and Financial Markets

We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository
institutions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money
any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies and
unconstitutional legal tender laws.

No more Government Bailouts of multi billion $$$ businesses

2.6 Monopolies and Corporations

We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets.