Libertarian ideas ever made you go..wtf?

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Monster_Munch

Senior member
Oct 19, 2010
873
1
0
No, I don't you moron, apparently you are either too ignorant, or too stupid, or maybe you just missed my rants against the paramilitarization of civilian law enforcement, and the useless War on Drugs™, and I am not a conspiracy nut, you can read pages of my destroying our local Truther Brigade if you like. You are an ignorant little fool that likes to label, and lump people that don't agree with your distorted view, so that your simple mind can process that people could somehow not agree with you.

You employ the ad hominem far to much. It makes it harder to take you seriously.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,952
8,004
136
JSt0rm: whoever it was that said they are a libertarian and lives off welfare because it is there is full of you-know-what. Any self respecting libertarian values personal responsibility and not being babied by the government.

For people that truly need welfare, many libertarians believe this could be done effectively through private charities. I'm not sure that would completely work, but I'd like for reality to be as close as possible to that ideal.

Hell I'd be happy enough to have all existing programs simply handed over to individual state authority. Only because the people of a state may more easily mend their government to better reflect their votes. Then not every state will make the same choices. Some will fail but others will succeed. In that diversity we will have winners and losers but the critical aspect is that the winners will be an example to follow.

There will not be a stagnant death spiral that locks 310 million people to the fate a few madmen created for them. Our liberties and freedoms will inherently be multitudes over what we have now. If your hate the majority of your state then vote with your feet and move. You'll have 50 chances to get it right instead of just ONE chance.

But no, our modern government proponents think freedom only comes by their dictation and EVERYONE must serve in their church of government.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Amazing comeback, you all have given some bumper sticker phrase about personal liberty from a bunch of childish minded folks or call someone dumb. Anyhow, I await any throwdowns from cappy heavy hitters. You guys are just not delivering today. Anyone want to try stepping out of glenn beck la la land?

Sure. Just as soon as...oh what's the point.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
But no, our modern government proponents think freedom only comes by their dictation and EVERYONE must serve in their church of government.

"The church of government" what kind of hyperbole crap is that? Give me a break. The founding fathers were religious nuts because they set up a representative democracy so you have choice and liberty? What the hell kind of government do you folks want then? Maid service and breakfast in bed? It's not the best constitution but its the one we got. Participate or get of the pot, it's pretty simple.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Hell I'd be happy enough to have all existing programs simply handed over to individual state authority. Only because the people of a state may more easily mend their government to better reflect their votes. Then not every state will make the same choices. Some will fail but others will succeed. In that diversity we will have winners and losers but the critical aspect is that the winners will be an example to follow.

There will not be a stagnant death spiral that locks 310 million people to the fate a few madmen created for them. Our liberties and freedoms will inherently be multitudes over what we have now. If your hate the majority of your state then vote with your feet and move. You'll have 50 chances to get it right instead of just ONE chance.

But no, our modern government proponents think freedom only comes by their dictation and EVERYONE must serve in their church of government.

:thumbsup:
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Hell I'd be happy enough to have all existing programs simply handed over to individual state authority. Only because the people of a state may more easily mend their government to better reflect their votes. Then not every state will make the same choices. Some will fail but others will succeed. In that diversity we will have winners and losers but the critical aspect is that the winners will be an example to follow.

There will not be a stagnant death spiral that locks 310 million people to the fate a few madmen created for them. Our liberties and freedoms will inherently be multitudes over what we have now. If your hate the majority of your state then vote with your feet and move. You'll have 50 chances to get it right instead of just ONE chance.

But no, our modern government proponents think freedom only comes by their dictation and EVERYONE must serve in their church of government.
I agree, any program not specifically permitted by the Constitution should devolve to the states. I do think though that human rights issues (like gun rights, abortion, marriage rights) should be set at the federal level, so that Americans would all have the same basic rights but each state could determine the economic structures best suited for its populace AND each state would be in competition with the other forty-nine (or fifty-eight if counted by Obamath) for the best economic structures. Unfortunately we're going in the opposite direction, with basic human rights increasingly being set at state levels and more and more of our economy driven by a top-down, one size fits all federal government.
 

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
Is it some sort of brain damage that makes people equate Libertarian's with Anarchists?

Based on the Libertarian platform it is fully possible to have even more regulatory process then we do today, the control over that power would simply be decentralized. Already we have certain states that have regulatory standards that are far beyond what the federal government requires, it isn't as if these things would go away if you lived in a blue state, they may escalate considerably further actually.

I am interested in hearing how a Lawyer driving his Lexus to work in Washington DC every day understands fully the job requirements of an Alaskan lumberjack. Right now they are the ones making the rules over what they are and aren't allowed to do. For that matter, and one with a much broader impact, why are a bunch of Lawyers deciding the fate of medical care for people in the entire nation? Operational effectiveness is something I have never, ever, seen from a life long lawyer, and I'm not expecting that to change anytime soon.

The advantages of running things in a more corporate like fashion are obvious- having absolute allowances for any budgetary considerations make people more thrifty, always. Lawyers in Washington have nothing resembling basic understanding of how to efficiently execute operational procedures and instead simply add on a few billion/trillion more in taxes or debt. That the Republicans and Democrats champion and force these things to continue at an obscene pace, the increase of the popularity at the polar opposite end of the spectrum is simply going to increase.

Hell I'd be happy enough to have all existing programs simply handed over to individual state authority.

That was actually a mandate in the Constitution, both the Dems(welfare state) and the Reps(ending slavery/creating income taxes) have shown that isn't a concern to them. Sometimes that is a good thing, but not often.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
I agree, any program not specifically permitted by the Constitution should devolve to the states. I do think though that human rights issues (like gun rights, abortion, marriage rights) should be set at the federal level, so that Americans would all have the same basic rights but each state could determine the economic structures best suited for its populace AND each state would be in competition with the other forty-nine (or fifty-eight if counted by Obamath) for the best economic structures. Unfortunately we're going in the opposite direction, with basic human rights increasingly being set at state levels and more and more of our economy driven by a top-down, one size fits all federal government.

The vesting of power from Fed to State is one of the most misinterpreted areas of the Constitution.

All libertopian ideas make me go WTF.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Hell I'd be happy enough to have all existing programs simply handed over to individual state authority. Only because the people of a state may more easily mend their government to better reflect their votes. Then not every state will make the same choices. Some will fail but others will succeed. In that diversity we will have winners and losers but the critical aspect is that the winners will be an example to follow.

There will not be a stagnant death spiral that locks 310 million people to the fate a few madmen created for them. Our liberties and freedoms will inherently be multitudes over what we have now. If your hate the majority of your state then vote with your feet and move. You'll have 50 chances to get it right instead of just ONE chance.

But no, our modern government proponents think freedom only comes by their dictation and EVERYONE must serve in their church of government.

Yeah, because you're so constrained in your daily life.

I mean, really, what exactly are you missing that is so essential that you are gaining no benefit at all from living in an organized society?

If you want all your freedoms, THEN DON'T FUCKING USE THE INTERNET, or roads, or call the cops, or firemen. Go in the woods and live like grizzly adams.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Is it some sort of brain damage that makes people equate Libertarian's with Anarchists?

Based on the Libertarian platform it is fully possible to have even more regulatory process then we do today, the control over that power would simply be decentralized. Already we have certain states that have regulatory standards that are far beyond what the federal government requires, it isn't as if these things would go away if you lived in a blue state, they may escalate considerably further actually.

I am interested in hearing how a Lawyer driving his Lexus to work in Washington DC every day understands fully the job requirements of an Alaskan lumberjack. Right now they are the ones making the rules over what they are and aren't allowed to do. For that matter, and one with a much broader impact, why are a bunch of Lawyers deciding the fate of medical care for people in the entire nation? Operational effectiveness is something I have never, ever, seen from a life long lawyer, and I'm not expecting that to change anytime soon.

The advantages of running things in a more corporate like fashion are obvious- having absolute allowances for any budgetary considerations make people more thrifty, always. Lawyers in Washington have nothing resembling basic understanding of how to efficiently execute operational procedures and instead simply add on a few billion/trillion more in taxes or debt. That the Republicans and Democrats champion and force these things to continue at an obscene pace, the increase of the popularity at the polar opposite end of the spectrum is simply going to increase.

That was actually a mandate in the Constitution, both the Dems(welfare state) and the Reps(ending slavery/creating income taxes) have shown that isn't a concern to them. Sometimes that is a good thing, but not often.
Judging by the responses under yours, yes, it is clearly brain damage. The concept that not having everything run by the federal government is somehow equivalent to living in the woods, or in Somalia, simply cannot be contained within healthy neurons. Neither can the concept that for a 150 years we simply didn't understand the Constitution, which actually gives the federal government as much power as it ever desires.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
The concept that not having everything run by the federal government is somehow equivalent to living in the woods

Coming up with insane generalizations and paranoid conspiracy like Americans are calling for "everything to run by the federal government" makes you sure sound like some fruitcake living in the woods. No one is accusing, it is you guys who think this nonsense and repeat it out loud.

Even the most hardcore Stalinist command economy sort would tell you that does not even make rational sense much less a bourgeois liberal who vote democratic. Get a grip people.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Yeah, because you're so constrained in your daily life.

I mean, really, what exactly are you missing that is so essential that you are gaining no benefit at all from living in an organized society?

If you want all your freedoms, THEN DON'T FUCKING USE THE INTERNET, or roads, or call the cops, or firemen. Go in the woods and live like grizzly adams.

Coming up with batshit insane generalizations like Americans are calling for "everything to run by the federal government" makes you sure sound like some fruitcake living in the woods.
Logic skills - get some and magically find the path from A to B. Libertarians are not calling for an end to the Internet, or roads, or cops, or firemen. It's your side that hysterically insists, each and every time someone proposes that the federal government not do something or even do a little less of it, that the only possible alternative is turning into Somalia or living in the woods. Most of us have no problem imagining that something could get done without necessarily being done by the federal government, or that limiting the federal government's role in, say, education might not necessarily lead to a return to the Stone Age. Most of us have no problem imagining that we might still pay taxes and have roads and cops if the federal government didn't fund Nevadan cowboy poetry festivals or performance art featuring urine sprinkling. Most of us have no problem imagining that science might one day allow a small reduction in the growth of the federal government without ushering in corporate slavery.

I have a lot of problems with the Libertarian Party's positions, but libertarians in general are the fucking Einstein clone army compared to progressives, with better morals and a sense of humor thrown in for free. The only thing progressives have to offer are big protests with easy women and free weed.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
If you want all your freedoms, THEN DON'T FUCKING USE THE INTERNET, or roads, or call the cops, or firemen. Go in the woods and live like grizzly adams.

You pretend to be some kind of intellectual then you spit out this sort of garbage.

Really? Roads, firemen and police only exist because we have a multi-trillion dollar federal government? None of those could possibly exist without funneling trillions of dollars through DC?

No, LK, you're a bigger joke than those you feebly mock.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Logic skills - get some and magically find the path from A to B. Libertarians are not calling for an end to the Internet, or roads, or cops, or firemen. It's your side that hysterically insists, each and every time someone proposes that the federal government not do something or even do a little less of it, that the only possible alternative is turning into Somalia or living in the woods. Most of us have no problem imagining that something could get done without necessarily being done by the federal government, or that limiting the federal government's role in, say, education might not necessarily lead to a return to the Stone Age. Most of us have no problem imagining that we might still pay taxes and have roads and cops if the federal government didn't fund Nevadan cowboy poetry festivals or performance art featuring urine sprinkling. Most of us have no problem imagining that science might one day allow a small reduction in the growth of the federal government without ushering in corporate slavery.

I have a lot of problems with the Libertarian Party's positions, but libertarians in general are the fucking Einstein clone army compared to progressives, with better morals and a sense of humor thrown in for free. The only thing progressives have to offer are big protests with easy women and free weed.

You pretend to be some kind of intellectual then you spit out this sort of garbage.

Really? Roads, firemen and police only exist because we have a multi-trillion dollar federal government? None of those could possibly exist without funneling trillions of dollars through DC?

No, LK, you're a bigger joke than those you feebly mock.

Both post are spot on. The disconnect between what the hyperbolic ranters spew in their desperate attempts to discredit something they clearly don't understand (or are just being completely dishonest), and reality is mind boggling.
 

billdotson

Junior Member
Mar 29, 2011
17
0
0
Here it is, I'm warning you: this post is LOOOONG. If you read it though, I would think you may find it at least somewhat useful, even if you may not agree with me.

People, now that you are arguing about this again, please read my two posts. I don't think I said anything that didn't make sense to a person capable of evaluating arguments. Libertarians as they are in the United States (not one of the broader Libertarian categories such as Libertarian socialism or anarchism) are very big on following the Constitution, personal responsibilities, and free markets. They believe the only place where the government should be allowed to regulate/interfere (or whatever you want to call it) is when life, liberty or property are threatened in some manner. In case you haven't noticed, human rights issues are very related to liberty and thus a Libertarian minded government wouldn't stand idly by while people polluted your property, stole your stuff, told you what to do with your property, etc. You definitely wouldn't see a (true) Libertarian government regulating every little aspect of your life.

Libertarians believe in a minimalist government. Economically speaking, that means the absolute lowest taxes possible should be collected, and those taxes should fund only the limited activities that the government actually does need to be in charge of (defense for example). If you read their statement of beliefs or whatever it is called, they don't just talk about limiting regulatory agencies, they are also for the military to be used in a Constitutional way.

By 'Constitutional' they mean that the military should only be used to defend the United States when it is in danger, not being a world policeman and having hundreds of military installations over the world. There are some limited instances in which I can see the US intervening militarily, such as humanitarian missions, but even those situations can become very sticky. In case you hadn't noticed, the United States spends almost 1 trillion dollars a year on the military. I am all for protecting America and combating terrorism, but that amount is more than the next 10 countries combined. Is the risk of a country attacking and causing grave harm to the United States greater than the total risk of the next ten nations combined? Can standard military forces effectively combat terrorism, or are domestic security options more effective and cost feasible?

Check out the federal budget here and tell me if you see some problems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_federal_budget
Interest on the US debt is about 6.5% of the federal budget of 3.83 TRILLION, not billion. Pensions are 20.5% of the federal budget. Healthcare is 23.4% of the federal budget. Education spending is a paltry 3.6%! Defense spending beats them all, even healthcare, with a whopping 24.2% of the federal budget. Here is the kicker: "$57.3 billion in protective services such as police, fire, law courts" a measly 1.5% of the federal budget. Research (which is useful)? Only 3.9%. Transportation? 2.7% General government expenses? 0.75% It is quite obvious that the government actually need very LITTLE revenue to provide the most basic of services. A government that spends 3.83 trillion a year (1.27 trillion it doesn't have, a budget deficit) is not needed.

But you say: "Bill, defense spending is at the target level of 4% of GDP, which is considered acceptable." There is no reason that I know of why defense spending is to be pegged to some seemingly arbitrary percentage of GDP. A country should only spend as much money on defense as it needs to. If it truly needs more than 4% of GDP, then go for it. For the United States I think my country could very well protect itself on 2.5% of GDP, or less. Think of what the United States economy would be like if the government was properly limited, with the States being given appropriate Constitutional power. Think what would happen if the US changed foreign policy to a mostly "no alliances" , non-intervention (NOT isolationism, which implies economic isolationism, not good) strategy and cut defense spending down to 4 or 500 billion a year.

Think about if the government reformed social security appropriately. (Side note: when Social Security started I think that only about 5% of the population lived 5 years beyond the withdrawal age. Now? The average life expectancy for a male is 75, and for a female, 80. People are living longer and getting payments longer.) Think of how much money we would save if social security were need based only and was only based on disability, income status, etc. instead of age, which is often arbitrary (some people are perfectly capable of working at age 65, while others are infirm). I think doing this could encourage people to invest in their own retirement more instead of banking on the idea that social security will be enough to retire on (news flash: it isn't). If you're banking on social security being a decent retirement option then you should really look at what kind of returns your would see on an IRA with the same amount of money put in a year (hint: its going to be a fair amount higher).

If you could wean people off of government reliance (allow them to be independent) and have the government provide only essential services I bet you could cut 50% of the budget in the long run. (Note: I do understand that there are those who simply cannot be independent, and need assistance. Libertarians believe it is primarily the duty of private charity to help these people. Personally, I don't think everything is do-able by private charity, but the ideal would be to have them take care of most things.) However, such progress would take many, many years and political gridlock and stubbornness (especially the refusal by any party, Republican or Democrat to seriously consider a change in foreign policy and trimming defense spending) are preventing any noticeable change from occurring. Any budget cuts currently going on are stupidly cutting areas that are actually mostly beneficial, notably education. Instead of trying to reform insolvent social programs and reforming US foreign policy and military spending, everybody seems to be going for education's throat, which if you remember is only 3.6% of the budget. My mother went back to school to teach, got a job, and a couple months before getting tenure status she was fired. Her class had some of the best test scores in the county I believe. Now? she gets paid half of what she used to, working in a completely different field. That is BS.

Addressing the talk about libertarianism amounting to a Somalia-like state: for those saying things like this, you're probably thinking about anarcho-capitalists or libertarian anarchists. These beliefs aren't really the same as the official Libertarian party platform. They are the ones that are saying the private industry could maintain the roads, run the national defense, provide policeman, fireman, all education, etc. I do not agree with them on those things. Education, while not dominated by the government, needs some general standards. Governments need to manage public utilities. Governments need to provide the civil servants. Governments need to take care of roads. Governments need to enforce a competitive market environment in the certain cases where free markets fail (they are very good at allocating capital, etc. but there are still some quirks).
 
Last edited:

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Addressing the talk about libertarianism amounting to a Somalia-like state: for those saying things like this, you're probably thinking about anarcho-capitalists or libertarian anarchists. These beliefs aren't really the same as the official Libertarian party platform. They are the ones that are saying the private industry could maintain the roads, run the national defense, provide policeman, fireman, all education, etc. I do not agree with them on those things. Education, while not dominated by the government, needs some general standards. Governments need to manage public utilities. Governments need to provide the civil servants. Governments need to take care of roads. Governments need to enforce a competitive market environment in the certain cases where free markets fail (they are very good at allocating capital, etc. but there are still some quirks).

If the detractors admitted that reality they would have to deal with the idea of personal responsibility, and that completely undermines their authoritarian foundations. They need to maintain their reasons for the people to be dependent on the state.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
If the detractors admitted that reality they would have to deal with the idea of personal responsibility

You guys cannot even explain away the glaring inconsistencies in Libertarianism, why should anyone take your advice about personal responsibility when you cannot even come up with a coherent plan but say useless catch phrases like Libertarians being the only ones who believe in austerity.

Whoopee, Libertarians believe in austerity. Hate to let you in on the little secret but so do Conservatives and liberals or anyone with common sense, wait you are not a market anarchist kind? Then you are just another Republican. Quit acting like you are special. You are not. Your guy lost. Suck it up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
You guys cannot even explain away the glaring inconsistencies in Libertarianism, why should anyone take your advice about personal responsibility when you cannot even come up with a coherent plan but say useless catch phrases like Libertarians being the only ones who believe in austerity.

Whoopee, Libertarians believe in austerity. Hate to let you in on the little secret but so do Conservatives and liberals or anyone with common sense, wait you are not a market anarchist kind? Then you are just another Republican. Quit acting like you are special. You are not. Your guy lost. Suck it up.

Your asinine banter and pretending that all "Libertarians" are the same as if democrats and republicans don't have differences between themselves, and that all the beliefs equate to turning the US into Somalia are just boring, get some new material.

bustout.gif
You really are a caricature, and fountain predictable idiocy.
 
Last edited:

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
If the detractors admitted that reality they would have to deal with the idea of personal responsibility, and that completely undermines their authoritarian foundations. They need to maintain their reasons for the people to be dependent on the state.

I like bill dotson's posts. You are just an idiot though.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
I like bill dotson's posts. You are just an idiot though.

You get what you give. Why would anyone feel compelled to write a book to get a point across to people that have clearly demonstrated they have no desire to change their point of view, or even consider a side outside of their own preconceived notions no matter how ridiculous they are.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
You get what you give. Why would anyone feel compelled to write a book to get a point across to people that have clearly demonstrated they have no desire to change their point of view, or even consider a side outside of their own preconceived notions no matter how ridiculous they are.

I highly doubt you are capable of writing a book. Dont you think thats a little far fetched? I would be happy if you didnt use strawman arguments and make sweeping generalizations.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Check out the federal budget here and tell me if you see some problems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_federal_budget
Interest on the US debt is about 6.5% of the federal budget of 3.83 TRILLION, not billion. Pensions are 20.5% of the federal budget. Healthcare is 23.4% of the federal budget. Education spending is a paltry 3.6%! Defense spending beats them all, even healthcare, with a whopping 24.2% of the federal budget. Here is the kicker: "$57.3 billion in protective services such as police, fire, law courts" a measly 1.5% of the federal budget. Research (which is useful)? Only 3.9%. Transportation? 2.7% General government expenses? 0.75% It is quite obvious that the government actually need very LITTLE revenue to provide the most basic of services. A government that spends 3.83 trillion a year (1.27 trillion it doesn't have, a budget deficit) is not needed.

Wikipedia making shit up as they go along?

Medicare/Medicaid: $806 Billion
Social Security: $707 Billion
Defence/Wars $694 Billion
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
I highly doubt you are capable of writing a book. Dont you think thats a little far fetched? I would be happy if you didnt use strawman arguments and make sweeping generalizations.

No new material, just more asinine banter? Expected about as much.