Are you a libertarian?

[drebo]

It's the fault of the system that allows $35,000 phone bills to exist in the first place. Especially given the insane markups that already exist with cell phones. It's a $35,000 PHONE BILL. It's insane and indefensible.

Why is it insane? Because you wouldn't want to pay for it?

If you don't want to pay for it, don't be irresponsible with your cell phone usage. I'm not, and so I don't have to deal with $35,000 cell phone bills.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

It's insane because of how cheap it is to send data all around the world. The fact that phone companies can still charge BS fees like that is as much the fault of companies colluding to make that the only option for their customers as much as it is with customers complying with it.

 

[Attic]

Two things: The first is you are confusing Socialist beliefs (that the State is ultimately responsible for the well being of individuals) with Libertarianism. The second is you have linked Economic issues with Social ones - these are decidedly not mutually exclusive.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/

Libertarians believe in the principals of Self Ownership and Self Responsibility. This means that along with the freedom to do as we please, we are also responsible for ourselves and for "our own".

Ok yes, thanks for taking the time to clear that up. I see the allure of that policy/thinking.

 

[Attic]

It's insane because of how cheap it is to send data all around the world. The fact that phone companies can still charge BS fees like that is as much the fault of companies colluding to make that the only option for their customers as much as it is with customers complying with it.

The main issue as I see it is the phone company not being more explicit about the charges this customer was racking up. I'd say it falls under common sense that the customer is not intending to rack up a 35,000 dollar phone bill via texting and if the customer was aware of the rates for txting out country that she would have severly limited her texting. I'd go so far as to say that the rates she was being charged for texting were not clearly put forward.

The 35k phone bill is clearly ridiculous for an individual, no reason the bill can't be capped or cuttoff after a certain period unless the customer is contacted for explicit consent to continue the behavior that has caused the out of normal phone expense.

 

[Steeplerot]

Left-libertarianism with actual real-world great generals such as Buenaventura Durruti, Nestor Makhno, and of course the big daddy philosopher and Karl Marx's (and all totalitarianism/capitalism's) arch rival Mikhail Bakunin.

 

[Moonbeam]

I am a nobody. I believe I don't know anything. But I suppose, thinking about that, I am a Libertarian because while they may not know they don't know anything, like me they actually don't know anything either.

 

[Steeplerot]

As far as lumping all Socialism into one it is ignorant.

You have 4 main forms of Socialism.

1. Marxism-Leninism-Maoists A totalitarian never ending revolutionist State Capitalist state run by one party as a dictatorship with little to no real Democracies. (Former USSR or modern Belarus)

2. Democratic Socialists - A blend of capitalist reforms defined by a petite bourgeoisie capitalist state with a few elements of Socialism dictated by Democracy -not revolutionary. (The USA or Europe)

3. Libertarian Socialists A wholly democratic Revolutionary state governed in a decentralized collectivist manner. Some call it a "Resource based economy" in the 21st century. I like to call it "post-capitalist" Example -Spain and Ukraine during their Civil wars

4. Trotskyists A blend of 1 and 2 defined by strong central government controls of some industry and limited state repression of democracy because of a unending "revolution". Venezuela or China for example

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

As far as lumping all Socialism into one it is ignorant.

You have 4 main forms of Socialism.

1. Marxism-Leninism-Maoists A totalitarian never ending revolutionist State Capitalist state run by one party as a dictatorship with little to no real Democracies. (Former USSR or modern Belarus)

2. Democratic Socialists - A blend of capitalist reforms defined by a petite bourgeoisie capitalist state with a few elements of Socialism dictated by Democracy -not revolutionary. (The USA or Europe)

3. Libertarian Socialists A wholly democratic Revolutionary state governed in a decentralized collectivist manner. Some call it a "Resource based economy" in the 21st century. I like to call it "post-capitalist" Example -Spain and Ukraine during their Civil wars

4. Trotskyists A blend of 1 and 2 defined by strong central government controls of some industry and limited state repression of democracy because of a unending "revolution". Venezuela or China for example

That would be true of any ideology as perceived by individuals. Libertarians don't automatically assume one stance on things. There are degrees.

On an often used political alignment test I score as being liberal libertarian. I think government has a legitimate role, however it needs to be watched like a viper loose in a room. Anyone who thinks that absolute power does not corrupt needs to look at the record of those in Congress. Caveat emptor.

 

[soccerballtux]

The problem with being a fiscally conservative and socially liberal libertarian is you're just trading government overlords for corporate ones. Laws are shaping our society less and less while corporate marketing is shaping it more and more. If corporations weren't rivaling, and sometimes exceeding, governments in power and influence I'd be all for a small & limited government too. Politicians and corporations both behave like sociopaths, but at least we get a vote on the former.

Edit: Here's your Libertarian phone bill:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upsho...phone-bill-horror-stories-motivate-regulators

yeah that's a good point.
I used to be libertarian, I've moved on now. Still fiscally conservative though.

 

[Elias824]

The problem with being a fiscally conservative and socially liberal libertarian is you're just trading government overlords for corporate ones. Laws are shaping our society less and less while corporate marketing is shaping it more and more. If corporations weren't rivaling, and sometimes exceeding, governments in power and influence I'd be all for a small & limited government too. Politicians and corporations both behave like sociopaths, but at least we get a vote on the former.

Edit: Here's your Libertarian phone bill:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upsho...phone-bill-horror-stories-motivate-regulators

Heh that's an amusing link and while to an extent I agree with your former statement I have to ridicule the person in the article. T-mobile charges .35 a per message when roaming in hatti. That means to get a $35,000 phone bill she had to sent over 100,000 text messages. Maybe this happened over a few months or the charges where higher at the time but how in god do you send that many messages.

 

[MotF Bane]

Well there's this one party that's socially liberal, and fiscally conservative

And what party might that be? It certainly isn't the Democrats, or the Republicans, or the so-called "progressives".

 

[MotF Bane]

The ideo of libertarians claiming they are fiscal conservatives and social liberals is an ego trip IMO. You can't have both.

Better a fiscal conservative and social realist.

The feel good bullshit policy of being a social liberal results in wasteful spending. How can you be a fiscal conservative when being a social liberal is incredibly expensive? The whole idea of being a fiscal conservative revolves around a conservative idea of government's involvement in society. A social liberal needs intense government involvement.

Problem we have now is that the United States has become to complicated to govern efficiently and justly by those we have in office. Party affilations or feeling good about a personal policy isn't going to do jack shit to fix it. The system has vomited out it's own path to slip and fall down on and it's just going to continue to vomit unless it's completely removed from the road.

You have confused the idea of what is liberalism; I will not say that is your fault, but rather a hijacking of the concept by the modern American left. Start by looking up classical liberalism, and continue from there. Those that call themselves "liberals" in America now are very rarely such.

 

[MotF Bane]

While I do like some of the Libertarian belief system, it simply is not realistic to think that everyone in society will act responsibly...

My views tend to align more with the Whigs:
http://www.modernwhig.org/issues.html

Most of that looks pretty good. I think their issues need some expanding, and I don't agree on all of it, but it's still a lot better than the R/D mess.

 

[MotF Bane]

That would be true of any ideology as perceived by individuals. Libertarians don't automatically assume one stance on things. There are degrees.

On an often used political alignment test I score as being liberal libertarian. I think government has a legitimate role, however it needs to be watched like a viper loose in a room. Anyone who thinks that absolute power does not corrupt needs to look at the record of those in Congress. Caveat emptor.

Add in the special interests, the largest corporations, other nations... and you end up a juggler tossing around scores of vipers.

 

[lothar]

I am not libertarian, Paleoconservatism best matches my political ideology. No party currently reflects my political views, so I just fancy myself a Conservative Democrat, but I have not officially joined any political party.

I admit that conservative libertarianism is a relatively better ideology than what currently dominates both parties.

Nixonian? Rockefeller Republican? Reagan Democrat?

 

[hellotyler]

Nope. I am a conservative democrat if that makes any sense...

 

[BoberFett]

Libertarian no, libertarian yes.

 

[BoberFett]

The ideo of libertarians claiming they are fiscal conservatives and social liberals is an ego trip IMO. You can't have both.

Better a fiscal conservative and social realist.

The feel good bullshit policy of being a social liberal results in wasteful spending. How can you be a fiscal conservative when being a social liberal is incredibly expensive? The whole idea of being a fiscal conservative revolves around a conservative idea of government's involvement in society. A social liberal needs intense government involvement.

Problem we have now is that the United States has become to complicated to govern efficiently and justly by those we have in office. Party affilations or feeling good about a personal policy isn't going to do jack shit to fix it. The system has vomited out it's own path to slip and fall down on and it's just going to continue to vomit unless it's completely removed from the road.

Do you have any idea what the word liberal means? Liberal is about individual freedom, not about the nanny state and giving out money just for shits and giggles.

Conservatives didn't make liberal a dirty word, liberals did that on their own, thanks to clueless people like you.


Edit: I see MOTF beat me to it.

You have confused the idea of what is liberalism; I will not say that is your fault, but rather a hijacking of the concept by the modern American left. Start by looking up classical liberalism, and continue from there. Those that call themselves "liberals" in America now are very rarely such.

This is a fact. Modern US "liberals" are anything but liberal. They're about big government, high taxes, conformity, and ultimately complete dependence on the state. In other words, they're a joke.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Heh that's an amusing link and while to an extent I agree with your former statement I have to ridicule the person in the article. T-mobile charges .35 a per message when roaming in hatti. That means to get a $35,000 phone bill she had to sent over 100,000 text messages. Maybe this happened over a few months or the charges where higher at the time but how in god do you send that many messages.

That's exactly what I was thinking. 100K messages per month is huge.

Lets say it takes 0.5 minute to write and send or open and read a text message it would take 50,000 minutes devoted to sending/receiving text messages.

Simple math 50,000 minutes = approx 35 days.

So she would have to have been glued to her phone for 35 days, 24 hours a day to rack up that many charges.

Something does not add up. Maybe we don't know the whole story.


..

 

[GroundedSailor]

The ideo of libertarians claiming they are fiscal conservatives and social liberals is an ego trip IMO. You can't have both.

Better a fiscal conservative and social realist.

The feel good bullshit policy of being a social liberal results in wasteful spending. How can you be a fiscal conservative when being a social liberal is incredibly expensive? The whole idea of being a fiscal conservative revolves around a conservative idea of government's involvement in society. A social liberal needs intense government involvement.

Problem we have now is that the United States has become to complicated to govern efficiently and justly by those we have in office. Party affilations or feeling good about a personal policy isn't going to do jack shit to fix it. The system has vomited out it's own path to slip and fall down on and it's just going to continue to vomit unless it's completely removed from the road.

Do you have any idea what the word liberal means? Liberal is about individual freedom, not about the nanny state and giving out money just for shits and giggles.

Conservatives didn't make liberal a dirty word, liberals did that on their own, thanks to clueless people like you.


Edit: I see MOTF beat me to it.

You have confused the idea of what is liberalism; I will not say that is your fault, but rather a hijacking of the concept by the modern American left. Start by looking up classical liberalism, and continue from there. Those that call themselves "liberals" in America now are very rarely such.

This is a fact. Modern US "liberals" are anything but liberal. They're about big government, high taxes, conformity, and ultimately complete dependence on the state. In other words, they're a joke.

Would 'progressives' work better instead of liberals?

..

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Libertarianism, code for "I don't want to make any hard choices."

Or if you prefer, times change, but a democracy never should.

 

[MotF Bane]

Would 'progressives' work better instead of liberals?

..

It would be more accurate, though perhaps not perfectly accurate.

 

[lothar]

Nope. I am a conservative democrat if that makes any sense...

Are you a Reagan Democrat?

 

[daishi5]

The glaring flaw of pure libertarianism is the insistence that society be structured on the assumption that entities will truly be "responsible" for the consequences of their actions, when it's absolutely clear that entities - driven by greed and/or ignorance - are capable of inflicting far more damage on others than the entity can possible correct.

Do you realize your critique started with a lie, and then based your conclusions on that lie?

 

[BoberFett]

Libertarianism, code for "I don't want to make any hard choices."

Or if you prefer, times change, but a democracy never should.

/facepalm

Libertarians are all about hard decisions. Hard decisions made by individuals.

It's "liberals" who hate hard decisions, they want the nanny state to make all their decisions for them.