I find it very hard to be charitable after reading this.

[waggy]

They do everything right, this brave people who defend their country, their people. Approximately in 1984, the U.S. and Europe have agreed that they will add to the meal special medicines that slow the development of the brain and body of people in third world countries. After that big corporations like Microsoft could use the people in these countries as slaves, who almost did not pay for the work. And the countries themselves were not dangerous for NATO, because they are in constant misery and do not develop technically.
Even appliances, such as tractors and cars, which they give to charity, is radioactive, that would cause mutations and deformities in humans.

oh my...

 

[MotF Bane]

They do everything right, this brave people who defend their country, their people. Approximately in 1984, the U.S. and Europe have agreed that they will add to the meal special medicines that slow the development of the brain and body of people in third world countries. After that big corporations like Microsoft could use the people in these countries as slaves, who almost did not pay for the work. And the countries themselves were not dangerous for NATO, because they are in constant misery and do not develop technically.
Even appliances, such as tractors and cars, which they give to charity, is radioactive, that would cause mutations and deformities in humans.

My new favorite troll.

 

[BoomerD]

My new favorite troll.

I keep wondering which previously banned poster he actually is...I don't buy the "I'm a Russian who uses google to translate everything I post" line of bullshit...BUT, it's usually entertaining...

 

[IGBT]

charity begins at home. Then your neighborhood and community. If you can't directly see how your charity money is spent, your throwing money to the wind.

 

[db]

You can put any kind of institutional/philosophical label on this behavior, but it is simply greed and a total disregard for others. Not limited by time, country, religion, politics.

 

[Atreus21]

Capitalism at it's finest. Why do you hate freedom?

Uh, theft is not part of free trade.

 

[Jhhnn]

Meh. One of the problems with distributing aid in a place like Somalia is that some of it will be diverted into the black market. Just the way it is. When that happens, the food can become dated while being hoarded, before being offered for sale.

And, of course, there's always somebody on every side of the situation willing to make more out of it than is really there- the militants in Somalia, and people in this country looking to discredit the whole idea of aid... find yet another way to justify selfishness and self righteousness...

 

[pcgeek11]

Somolia = not worth my time or money.

 

[piasabird]

Africa is too complicated to fix and its size is also a problem. No one approach is going to solve problems in Africa. A lot of the countries do not want the west to fix their problems also. They would rather have civil wars and just kill each other.

 

[her209]

Athiest : Diest

Anarchist : Libertarian

In other words, someone who believes government is just "there".

 

[BoberFett]

Basically the fundamental attribute of libertarian is anarchism as defined relative to current, modern, society. The prevalence of "free market' in life would result in anarchy. Sorry to say it but that's the reality of the situation.

You're wrong, but it's a free country and you have a right to be as wrong as you want.

 

[Kappo]

You're wrong, but it's a free country and you have a right to be as wrong as you want.

The concept of "personal responsibility" is so foreign to them that they won't ever really get the gist of libertarianism.

 

[LegendKiller]

The concept of "personal responsibility" is so foreign to them that they won't ever really get the gist of libertarianism.

No, I just realize that the world isn't full of people who will only do what is right for them inside the framework of an orderly society. Things such as an unfettered "free market" aren't good ideas for that very same reason. We had the back in the 1800s and that framework allowed massive exploitation of natural resources and people to a massive detriment of our society.

I was reading about the heiress to a huge copper fortune. Her father exploited Montana, destroying the natural resources, poisoning the rivers, and buying senate seats (when they were elected by the house) merely because he wanted to be rich. Lack of regulation and government intervention allowed that.

Now, you're telling me that your fairy tale utopia exists whereby all people will suddenly realize that their "personal responsibility" will raise above their greed?

This is why I call libertarians, libertopians.

 

[LegendKiller]

You're wrong, but it's a free country and you have a right to be as wrong as you want.

I would love for you to prove me wrong but, as with lazy asses such as bamacre, Anarchist420, and PCSurgeon, you won't merely because you really can't. The logic, historical context, and utter fact, is far beyond what you can deal with.

Libertopians want to live in a world that has not, will not, can not, and should not ever exist.

 

[hal2kilo]

No, I just realize that the world isn't full of people who will only do what is right for them inside the framework of an orderly society. Things such as an unfettered "free market" aren't good ideas for that very same reason. We had the back in the 1800s and that framework allowed massive exploitation of natural resources and people to a massive detriment of our society.

I was reading about the heiress to a huge copper fortune. Her father exploited Montana, destroying the natural resources, poisoning the rivers, and buying senate seats (when they were elected by the house) merely because he wanted to be rich. Lack of regulation and government intervention allowed that.

Now, you're telling me that your fairy tale utopia exists whereby all people will suddenly realize that their "personal responsibility" will raise above their greed?

This is why I call libertarians, libertopians.

The last two paras are sig worthy.

 

[BoberFett]

I would love for you to prove me wrong but, as with lazy asses such as bamacre, Anarchist420, and PCSurgeon, you won't merely because you really can't. The logic, historical context, and utter fact, is far beyond what you can deal with.

Libertopians want to live in a world that has not, will not, can not, and should not ever exist.

Only because there's no common ground from which to even begin a conversation. You and the rest of the big government fanatics who believe that that stealing and burning food is a function of the free market aren't even willing to consider any other option. Why waste my time on you?

I would love for you to prove me wrong as to the benefits of big government other than killing hundreds of thousands if not millions of people at the whims of the elite, but you won't because you can't. The historical context is that massive government results in massive evil, and you are unable to deal with that reality so you bury your head in the sand and pretend that if only there were just more laws, that wouldn't happen.

It is you who believes in fairy tales, not I.

 

[hal2kilo]

Only because there's no common ground from which to even begin a conversation. You and the rest of the big government fanatics who believe that that stealing and burning food is a function of the free market aren't even willing to consider any other option. Why waste my time on you?

I would love for you to prove me wrong as to the benefits of big government other than killing hundreds of thousands if not millions of people at the whims of the elite, but you won't because you can't. The historical context is that massive government results in massive evil, and you are unable to deal with that reality so you bury your head in the sand and pretend that if only there were just more laws, that wouldn't happen.

It is you who believes in fairy tales, not I.

Please provide an example of any civil society that has ever existed under the principles of libertarianism.

 

[her209]

The concept of "personal responsibility" is so foreign to them that they won't ever really get the gist of libertarianism.

We got the "gist" of libertarianism with the BP oil mess.

 

[LegendKiller]

Only because there's no common ground from which to even begin a conversation. You and the rest of the big government fanatics who believe that that stealing and burning food is a function of the free market aren't even willing to consider any other option. Why waste my time on you?

I would love for you to prove me wrong as to the benefits of big government other than killing hundreds of thousands if not millions of people at the whims of the elite, but you won't because you can't. The historical context is that massive government results in massive evil, and you are unable to deal with that reality so you bury your head in the sand and pretend that if only there were just more laws, that wouldn't happen.

It is you who believes in fairy tales, not I.

As opposed to the millions, if not billions, that would die if not for some type of government regulation? For example, slavery. That was a "free market" was it not? What happened to "personal responsibility" there.

Ohh, that's right, it got left at the door of greed and the thought of a higher purpose (greed).

Furthermore, I am not a socialist nor an unfettered "big government" guy. I just realize that there is a balance between and we are relatively close to it. We oscillate back and forth, depending on the whims of the electorate and their being manipulated.

Just as much as I realize "big government" is the answer, I also realize that libertopianism isn't the answer either.

 

[LegendKiller]

We got the "gist" of libertarianism with the BP oil mess.

I am sure he'll come up with some witty reply about how the existence of regulation caused the circumvention of regulation or some other tangential effect.

This is usually how libertopians debate. They have answers for all sorts of these debates that rely on the house of cards of tangential secondary effects. They have them for the tulip bulbs, the robber barons, and other silliness. Yet they ignore the simple underlying truth, humans, on their own, are massively flawed when it comes to greed.

This is why the "higher house" was supposed to be elected by the "lower house", because Jefferson and others thought that the smarter collective of the "cream of the crop" elected Representatives would be able to elect good senators.

A noble and logical idea, is it not?

But wait, the greed of the rich manipulated this naive perspective, allowing the rich to buy Representatives to get themselves elected as a Senator.

 

[BoberFett]

Please provide an example of any civil society that has ever existed under the principles of libertarianism.

What are you asking for? Do you actually think there's a fixed definition of what a libertarian government is? That government is like playing Civilization, and that you can choose Communism or Libertarianism as your government type, and the right flag pops up over your country? Every country starts in relative anarchy and slowly creates more and more laws (because that's what government does) until it becomes an overbearing mess that eventually leads to massive corruption, likely dictatorship, and finally revolution where it begins the process again.

Libertarianism isn't about a fixed set of laws, it's about about balancing laws in a way that promotes maximum freedom. Even a libertarian can be for laws and regulation, but likely in a different way than a statist.

This is the problem, you don't even have the foundation to understand what's being discussed. You think in black and white. Either we regulate everything or nothing. There's no middle ground. You're like an infant.

 

[BoberFett]

As opposed to the millions, if not billions, that would die if not for some type of government regulation? For example, slavery. That was a "free market" was it not? What happened to "personal responsibility" there.

Thanks for proving my point. You believe that holding another human being against their will is the free market as supported by libertarianism.

You spread FUD and then expect a rational discussion? Well hey, let me play too. A libertarian government wouldn't have invaded Iraq to begin with, so that means you must support http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Dale_Green. LegendKiller supports rape and murder, and so does his style of government.

 

[BoberFett]

We got the "gist" of libertarianism with the BP oil mess.

So which part of libertarianism was it that caps liability at $75M? Oh wait, that wasn't libertarianism, that was regulation.

I guess we're getting the "gist" of regulation too, eh?

 

[Jhhnn]

So which part of libertarianism was it that caps liability at $75M? Oh wait, that wasn't libertarianism, that was regulation.

I guess we're getting the "gist" of regulation too, eh?

Gawd but that's lame. In the fools' paradise of Libertopia, there wouldn't be any liability...

 

[her209]

So which part of libertarianism was it that caps liability at $75M? Oh wait, that wasn't libertarianism, that was regulation.

I guess we're getting the "gist" of regulation too, eh?

Oh silly you. That was the oil industry getting their way with the lawmakers for putting the taxpayers on the hook for any losses whilst they enjoy all profits.