Libertarian Heros

P

PadawanBater

Guest
medicineman said:
Libertarians blame governmaet for all the ills of society. The truth being, that it is really just the assholes that inhabit government and corporate America that work in concert to fuck over the working people. Government, per se, is not an evil entity. It is the evil greedy motherfuckers that have conspired to make a ruling class, using government as their tool to control the masses. This concept was built into the constitution by the founding fathers, themselves greedy white slaveowners for the most part. They did not form the government to be a beneficial entity for all the citizens of the colonies, but to fill the gap left after ousting the British, and to have a legal way of implementing forms of taxation. The Ideals set down in the constitution and Bill of rights are great reading, but quickly evolved into the partnership of the wealthy and the leaders of government, something that still stands today. You libertarians should be the first to know that without government, the masses would come for your riches pretty soon. Government if run right, would benefit all the people, not just the rich, sort of like how it was envisioned in the constitution, in words only.
Click to expand...

I'm about as far from rich as you can be Med.

I don't see how being rich or being poor has anything to do with any of these ideologies.

Do you agree with RobRoy's post, that everyone should just simply be free to do what they wish with limited government involvement as long as they don't harm or infringe on anyone elses rights?
 
TheBrutalTruth

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
medicineman said:
Libertarians blame governmaet for all the ills of society. The truth being, that it is really just the assholes that inhabit government and corporate America that work in concert to fuck over the working people. Government, per se, is not an evil entity. It is the evil greedy motherfuckers that have conspired to make a ruling class, using government as their tool to control the masses. This concept was built into the constitution by the founding fathers, themselves greedy white slaveowners for the most part. They did not form the government to be a beneficial entity for all the citizens of the colonies, but to fill the gap left after ousting the British, and to have a legal way of implementing forms of taxation. The Ideals set down in the constitution and Bill of rights are great reading, but quickly evolved into the partnership of the wealthy and the leaders of government, something that still stands today. You libertarians should be the first to know that without government, the masses would come for your riches pretty soon. Government if run right, would benefit all the people, not just the rich, sort of like how it was envisioned in the constitution, in words only.
Click to expand...
All the ills of society are the fault of government's. In a libertarian society if some one attempted to rob you there would be no chance of them attempting to sue you when you shoot them.

In a Libertarian Society their wouldn't be any attempts to restrict the rights of the citizenry to keep and bear arms, because the government would have nothing to fear from the citizenry having arms, including military grade arms.

In a Libertarian/Minarchist Society it is likely that unemployment would be consistently much lower than it is now, because more people would be able to work a day job to acquire the capital to go off on their own, thus ensuring a continual demand for additional labor, and a more competitive market place. Thus leading to lower prices, and more purchasing power.

In a Libertarian/Minarchist Society it is unlikely that the nation would be in Iraq or Afghanistan, because the nation would not authorize the taxes for it, but instead would have granted a Writ of Marque and Reprisal against Osama Bin Laden thus creating an incentive for some third party to resolve the issue of Osama.

Further more in a Libertarian or Minarchist Society the United States would not be the sprawling corporate empire that it is now, because every company would be forced to show how it benefits the individual communities it is in, instead of attempting to get the sanction of a State or the Federal Government, thus stripping the localities of their ability to be self-governing.

The focus of governance in a Minarchist Society would be at the individual and local level, with the national perhaps only serving to create a zone of unified trade laws to ease the burden of trade. More than likely though the individual cities and localities would be able to manage their own trade through the use of duties.

More importantly is the fact that under a Minarchist Society is is very unlikely that the Rust Belt would have fallen as far as it has, because their would have been no collection of bandits, brigands and thieves known as the Federal Government coercing the Big Three to give up massive amounts of their revenue for the privilege of operating a business.

In short, it is quite possible that with out regulation, purely through market forces, that Detroit and the Rust Belt would still be an economic power house providing decent paying jobs to the area's denizens, and thus providing the nation at large with a massive amount of wealth.

It is possible that with out the intervention of Bumbling Socialists like FDR who were liars, demagogues and imbeciles that the United States would still be the largest creditor nation in the world instead of the largest debtor nation in the world.

The blood and treasure that the American People give to the bankers in interest payments is insane, and the Country would have never reached such a state had it not been for whiny socialists who want others to wipe their asses for them, just like kings and nobles before them. Socialism is not the ideology of the working class, because no one in the working class can afford the luxury of thinking about how to force others to work for them. No, Socialism is the ideology of the extremely impoverished and the insanely wealth, the two classes that have an abundance of free time or so much money that having to work for it means nothing to them anymore.
 
I

ilkhan

Well-Known Member
"Libertarians blame governmaet for all the ills of society. The truth being, that it is really just the assholes that inhabit government and corporate America that work in concert to fuck over the working people. Government, per se, is not an evil entity. It is the evil greedy motherfuckers that have conspired to make a ruling class, using government as their tool to control the masses."

Well Med that about sums up Government
Just add in this little tid-bit:
Shit always rises to the top.
Show me one time in human history where this
has not happened with government?

For 1000 years pre 17th century Ireland had
No massive over aching government enforcing taxation.
No police, bailif or state admistered justice.
No conscription, no large scale warfare.

They got on rather well.
Until they encountered the statist nation of England, that had all these things.
Was England a better country then Ireland? I would say no.

Government has power
people will always seek to have that power for themselves.
Just look at Congress critters.
You get one term in and you get the retirement money.
So why do they stay in office?
The short answer is Power.

Name for me one country that has had a powerful over-arching government,
That has not in the end abused its power for one reason or another.

The Evil bastards you talk about in corprate America
only get away with the shit they do because they are protected by government.

The government can not by its very definition be a "beneficial entity for all the citizens."

Government has nothing to give so it must deprive one group to benifit another.

Keep on praying at the feet of Government Med,
Ultimately your only helping us win.

As far as the Constitution Goes your arguments
are old, dated, and frankly weak at best.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
The masses will come for my riches? That's really funny. I live in the middle of nowhere, I think the masses will be too tired to fuck with me after they've hiked in. If they make it this far and are friendly they can share in my supper, if not they might BE supper for my libertarian dogs.
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
TheBrutalTruth said:
All the ills of society are the fault of government's. In a libertarian society if some one attempted to rob you there would be no chance of them attempting to sue you when you shoot them.
So in a libertarian society there are no lawyers?

In a Libertarian Society their wouldn't be any attempts to restrict the rights of the citizenry to keep and bear arms, because the government would have nothing to fear from the citizenry having arms, including military grade arms.
I'm of the opinion the "government"has not much to fear from us having arms. It is their minions that would be on the front lines that would be fearful

In a Libertarian/Minarchist Society it is likely that unemployment would be consistently much lower than it is now, because more people would be able to work a day job to acquire the capital to go off on their own, thus ensuring a continual demand for additional labor, and a more competitive market place. Thus leading to lower prices, and more purchasing power.
So, the only jobs available would be day jobs for those lucky enough to find one, that sucks?

In a Libertarian/Minarchist Society it is unlikely that the nation would be in Iraq or Afghanistan, because the nation would not authorize the taxes for it, but instead would have granted a Writ of Marque and Reprisal against Osama Bin Laden thus creating an incentive for some third party to resolve the issue of Osama.
Well I agree with libertarian foriegn policy allright, but your Marque and reprisal writ for 50 Million bucks hasn't turned one clue as to his whereabouts.
Further more in a Libertarian or Minarchist Society the United States would not be the sprawling corporate empire that it is now, because every company would be forced to show how it benefits the individual communities it is in, instead of attempting to get the sanction of a State or the Federal Government, thus stripping the localities of their ability to be self-governing.
Just who would be enforcing this? You can't be serious in believing any corporation would do this voluntarily

The focus of governance in a Minarchist Society would be at the individual and local level, with the national perhaps only serving to create a zone of unified trade laws to ease the burden of trade. More than likely though the individual cities and localities would be able to manage their own trade through the use of duties.
Oh Oh, government involved in free trade, what gives here?

More importantly is the fact that under a Minarchist Society is is very unlikely that the Rust Belt would have fallen as far as it has, because their would have been no collection of bandits, brigands and thieves known as the Federal Government coercing the Big Three to give up massive amounts of their revenue for the privilege of operating a business.
What happened to contributing to the good of the society, voluntarily of course. You must know that corporations really pay no taxes. Any tax money collected is considered an operating cost and is passed on to the consumer. Most have figured out loopholes to avoid them altogether

In short, it is quite possible that with out regulation, purely through market forces, that Detroit and the Rust Belt would still be an economic power house providing decent paying jobs to the area's denizens, and thus providing the nation at large with a massive amount of wealth.
I'm pretty sure it wasn't taxes that did in detroit. It was more like poor management and lack of regulations and trade restrictions. If the US would have made pacts with foriegn countries that autos would be allowed in on a one to one ratio, in otherwords, we buy one of theirs and they buy one of ours. That would have certainly stopped the invasion of foriegn cars. Korea, for example, has a very strict auto import tarrif or restriction on US automobiles, yet we let them freely use our marketplace.

It is possible that with out the intervention of Bumbling Socialists like FDR who were liars, demagogues and imbeciles that the United States would still be the largest creditor nation in the world instead of the largest debtor nation in the world.
I'm pretty sure it is lack of trade barriers and the free market de-regulation, of Banksters, wall street hucksters, and bought and paid for politicians that have caused this demise of our country. Capitalism in its very nature leads to exploitation of the underclass.

The blood and treasure that the American People give to the bankers in interest payments is insane, and the Country would have never reached such a state had it not been for whiny socialists who want others to wipe their asses for them, just like kings and nobles before them. Socialism is not the ideology of the working class, because no one in the working class can afford the luxury of thinking about how to force others to work for them. No, Socialism is the ideology of the extremely impoverished and the insanely wealth, the two classes that have an abundance of free time or so much money that having to work for it means nothing to them anymore.
In this I believe you are about 180 off. The poor really don't understand socialism as it requires everyone to contribute. The rich of course don't want to give up their booty that they have stashed from the backs of the working class. Let me give you an example of how idiotic the majority of people against single payer are. 1.Single payer would make sure everyone had medical care. 2. It would free the corporations from the bondage of responsibility of providing health care from the criminal insurance companies. 3.The cost of single payer would be much less than the current system. By eliminating profit from the equation, medical procedures could be much more affordable. A large portion of doctors and nurses want single payer. what does that say about the current system. Now all the idiots are wailing that we would be a communist nation if we adopt single payer. Question: are all the other 25-30 nations that provide government subsidized health care communists? I think not
Click to expand...
 
TheBrutalTruth

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
medicineman said:
TheBrutalTruth said:
All the ills of society are the fault of government's. In a libertarian society if some one attempted to rob you there would be no chance of them attempting to sue you when you shoot them.
So in a libertarian society there are no lawyers?

In a Libertarian Society their wouldn't be any attempts to restrict the rights of the citizenry to keep and bear arms, because the government would have nothing to fear from the citizenry having arms, including military grade arms.
I'm of the opinion the "government"has not much to fear from us having arms. It is their minions that would be on the front lines that would be fearful

In a Libertarian/Minarchist Society it is likely that unemployment would be consistently much lower than it is now, because more people would be able to work a day job to acquire the capital to go off on their own, thus ensuring a continual demand for additional labor, and a more competitive market place. Thus leading to lower prices, and more purchasing power.
So, the only jobs available would be day jobs for those lucky enough to find one, that sucks?

In a Libertarian/Minarchist Society it is unlikely that the nation would be in Iraq or Afghanistan, because the nation would not authorize the taxes for it, but instead would have granted a Writ of Marque and Reprisal against Osama Bin Laden thus creating an incentive for some third party to resolve the issue of Osama.
Well I agree with libertarian foriegn policy allright, but your Marque and reprisal writ for 50 Million bucks hasn't turned one clue as to his whereabouts.
Further more in a Libertarian or Minarchist Society the United States would not be the sprawling corporate empire that it is now, because every company would be forced to show how it benefits the individual communities it is in, instead of attempting to get the sanction of a State or the Federal Government, thus stripping the localities of their ability to be self-governing.
Just who would be enforcing this? You can't be serious in believing any corporation would do this voluntarily

The focus of governance in a Minarchist Society would be at the individual and local level, with the national perhaps only serving to create a zone of unified trade laws to ease the burden of trade. More than likely though the individual cities and localities would be able to manage their own trade through the use of duties.
Oh Oh, government involved in free trade, what gives here?

More importantly is the fact that under a Minarchist Society is is very unlikely that the Rust Belt would have fallen as far as it has, because their would have been no collection of bandits, brigands and thieves known as the Federal Government coercing the Big Three to give up massive amounts of their revenue for the privilege of operating a business.
What happened to contributing to the good of the society, voluntarily of course. You must know that corporations really pay no taxes. Any tax money collected is considered an operating cost and is passed on to the consumer. Most have figured out loopholes to avoid them altogether

In short, it is quite possible that with out regulation, purely through market forces, that Detroit and the Rust Belt would still be an economic power house providing decent paying jobs to the area's denizens, and thus providing the nation at large with a massive amount of wealth.
I'm pretty sure it wasn't taxes that did in detroit. It was more like poor management and lack of regulations and trade restrictions. If the US would have made pacts with foriegn countries that autos would be allowed in on a one to one ratio, in otherwords, we buy one of theirs and they buy one of ours. That would have certainly stopped the invasion of foriegn cars. Korea, for example, has a very strict auto import tarrif or restriction on US automobiles, yet we let them freely use our marketplace.

It is possible that with out the intervention of Bumbling Socialists like FDR who were liars, demagogues and imbeciles that the United States would still be the largest creditor nation in the world instead of the largest debtor nation in the world.
I'm pretty sure it is lack of trade barriers and the free market de-regulation, of Banksters, wall street hucksters, and bought and paid for politicians that have caused this demise of our country. Capitalism in its very nature leads to exploitation of the underclass.

The blood and treasure that the American People give to the bankers in interest payments is insane, and the Country would have never reached such a state had it not been for whiny socialists who want others to wipe their asses for them, just like kings and nobles before them. Socialism is not the ideology of the working class, because no one in the working class can afford the luxury of thinking about how to force others to work for them. No, Socialism is the ideology of the extremely impoverished and the insanely wealth, the two classes that have an abundance of free time or so much money that having to work for it means nothing to them anymore.
In this I believe you are about 180 off. The poor really don't understand socialism as it requires everyone to contribute. The rich of course don't want to give up their booty that they have stashed from the backs of the working class. Let me give you an example of how idiotic the majority of people against single payer are. 1.Single payer would make sure everyone had medical care. 2. It would free the corporations from the bondage of responsibility of providing health care from the criminal insurance companies. 3.The cost of single payer would be much less than the current system. By eliminating profit from the equation, medical procedures could be much more affordable. A large portion of doctors and nurses want single payer. what does that say about the current system. Now all the idiots are wailing that we would be a communist nation if we adopt single payer. Question: are all the other 25-30 nations that provide government subsidized health care communists? I think not
Click to expand...
Yes, the 25 - 30 nations that have government subsidized health-care including the United States are Socialists.

Especially as it is very likely that they do not have an opt out clause for people that wish to opt out.

Not only is it socialist, but it's a system of slavery or involuntary servitude.
Click to expand...
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
MedicineMan I believe you are motivated to do good and that is why you endorse health care etc. Perhaps where we disagree is in how things might be implemented. You state socialism "requires" everyone to contribute. That brings some questions up, which might fit in the context of health care and also in a broader sense.

How does anyone get the moral authority to "require" anyone else to do anything?

Are you advocating forced participation in a single payer health care system? What will happen to me if I do not comply?

Do I have a natural and inalienable right to be left alone if I grant the same to others or are my rights subject to revocation if somebody decides they know what I should do with my life better than I?
 
M

max420thc

Well-Known Member
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
Rob Roy said:
MedicineMan I believe you are motivated to do good and that is why you endorse health care etc. Perhaps where we disagree is in how things might be implemented. You state socialism "requires" everyone to contribute. That brings some questions up, which might fit in the context of health care and also in a broader sense.

How does anyone get the moral authority to "require" anyone else to do anything?

Are you advocating forced participation in a single payer health care system? What will happen to me if I do not comply?

Do I have a natural and inalienable right to be left alone if I grant the same to others or are my rights subject to revocation if somebody decides they know what I should do with my life better than I?
Click to expand...
Whether you want to believe it or not, you live in a society, one with rules and regulations. Just like the rule of law as it applies to criminal behavior, there is a rule of law as applies to citizenship behavior, IE: The governance of the society must be paid for with public funds, you are a part of the public, so you must pay into the fund like every other citizen. You will always have the freedom to choose your own Doctor and medical care, but since the single payer medical would be a public service, you would be expected to pay into it just like everyone else, even if you chose not to use it. Just as you pay for the library, even if you don't use it. You pay for food stamps, welfare, medicare etc. It would be the same. Of course you could always use it if you came down with a catastophic and expensive disease, which I assume you being the staunch individualist would curtly refuse.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
So Medman we agree that according to the rules of society, if I harm nobody, "society" / government may still initiate harm against me if I do not wish to participate in certain programs? We agree that government uses force and extortion to MAKE people comply? You okay with that?

Again I ask - If individals do not have the right to initiate force/harm/aggression where does government get the MORAL right to do this?
How is it under the rule of law we consider it "criminal behavior" to initiate force when citizens do it and grant an exception when the government does it? Why isn't it criminal then? Isn't that the same kind of government force used when we pre-emptively bomb other countries? How is it any different?

My individualism - I agree not to harm anyone. I believe in leaving others alone. Isn't that demonstrating good citizenship or is that not good enough?

You will always have the freedom to choose your own doctor - Presently I have the right to have insurance or not, correct? What will ensure me that if I have that right stolen / taken away I will still have the right to choose my own doctor? Can you say "slippery slope"? What other rights might I lose to ensure I am a compliant "good citizen"?

Our differences appear to be, I advocate for freedom of the individual as long as you harm nobody. You advocate that the all knowing government may harm ANYONE they choose and call it enforcing good citizenship. Is that a correct analysis?
 
TheBrutalTruth

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
Interesting website

http://www.governmentisevil.com/

key points
1. Governments have killed a lot of people through war, or worst, their own people through famine.

2. Governments engage in theft

3. Governments may not have evil individuals in them, but over all commit a lot of evil, and permit a lot of it.


Though I didn't see any mention of the fact that

1. There has yet to be any one that can justify a School District Administrator earning $300,000/year (that's not a career path, that's put in your three - five years and retire...)

2. There has yet to be any one that can reasonably explain how the government has the authority to regulate Alcohol, Drugs, Tobacco or Fire Arms unless they are used in a crime.

3. How it is justifiable for the government to perpetuate the massive fraud that is Social Security, which resembles nothing more than a giant PONZI Scheme where the newest investors get fleeced to pay the oldest investors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top