Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The whole point of libertarianism is YOU can be whatever you want to be, just dont force anyone else to live under those conditions.
If you want to get together with a bunch of like minded individuals, you can set up a communist community within a libertarian state. So long as people choose to live in it VOLUNTARILY.
It really depends on how you define leftist, rather than libertarian.
Enlighten me please. Do leftists like the 'everyone is equal' utopia like Cuba?
Maybe some do, but not all. Where I differ from some Right Libertarians is on economics. Just as government has to be held in check, so do the banks and Wall St. The problem is I don't know how to hold the banks in check. I certainly would never trust government to do it. After all, government and banks are bedfellows.
The whole point of libertarianism is YOU can be whatever you want to be, just dont force anyone else to live under those conditions.
If you want to get together with a bunch of like minded individuals, you can set up a communist community within a libertarian state. So long as people choose to live in it VOLUNTARILY.
It really depends on how you define leftist, rather than libertarian.
Excellent point! It's about the people choosing their way of life instead of government sanctioned Communism.
Maybe some do, but not all. Where I differ from some Right Libertarians is on economics. Just as government has to be held in check, so do the banks and Wall St. The problem is I don't know how to hold the banks in check. I certainly would never trust government to do it. After all, government and banks are bedfellows.
You think?
Who created the banking issues in your opinion? I will give you the answer to avoid the back and forth.
Remember who bailed out the loans and savings in the 80s, how about ltcm, the tech bubble, the housing bubble, the banks, unions, schools, the military complex, etc?
Your government created the issue. Guess what happens when you reward failure and irresponsible behavior. The market would have resolved the issued by sending them to their rightfull place, bankrupcy.
The best scenario is where the government does nothing... nada...jack.. that way they dont screw things up those idiots.
Free markets work, big controlling governments dont. And who holds the gov in check?
Who created the banking issues in your opinion? I will give you the answer to avoid the back and forth.
Remember who bailed out the loans and savings in the 80s, how about ltcm, the tech bubble, the housing bubble, the banks, unions, schools, the military complex, etc?
Your government created the issue. Guess what happens when you reward failure and irresponsible behavior. The market would have resolved the issued by sending them to their rightfull place, bankrupcy.
The best scenario is where the government does nothing... nada...jack.. that way they dont screw things up those idiots.
Free markets work, big controlling governments dont. And who holds the gov in check?
I never mentioned that government regulation of banks or even corporations will work. I view government as authoritarian, but I also have the same view of banks. Banks, even without regulation, are extremely dangerous to the people.
While government had a big hand in this whole mess, banks went around the world and set off bombs that blew economies around the globe. Like I said in my previous post, I don't have an answer to this problem, and I certainly won't pretend that I have one.
As for who holds the government in check, the people are supposed to do that. But we've failed miserably. This is what happens when you have nearly half of our country on some type of welfare. Government gives hand outs and the people won't stand up for themselves. They'll happily take the big red, white and blue up their asses.
Of course -- "Left" and "right" are such subjective terms. In terms of my politics, I tend to think of Libertarians on the "right" of the spectrum. To an Evangelical Christian, a libertarian might be on the "left" of the spectrum.
I never mentioned that government regulation of banks or even corporations will work. I view government as authoritarian, but I also have the same view of banks. Banks, even without regulation, are extremely dangerous to the people.
While government had a big hand in this whole mess, banks went around the world and set off bombs that blew economies around the globe. Like I said in my previous post, I don't have an answer to this problem, and I certainly won't pretend that I have one.
As for who holds the government in check, the people are supposed to do that. But we've failed miserably. This is what happens when you have nearly half of our country on some type of welfare. Government gives hand outs and the people won't stand up for themselves. They'll happily take the big red, white and blue up their asses.
Fair enough, the banking system is dangerous to people. I agree and disagree.
I agree that a bank can go under taking people's savings with it. But who cares, don't the banks tell you this when you open an account. Too bad for the banks and too bad for those losing their money. They too the risk and pay for taking the risk. Tax payers never had a say in the contract, never got benefits from the profits, and should not be stuck with the bill.
What you need to understand is that the banking sector/the fed was created by congress and has been bailed out time and time again, on the back of tax payers.
The only danger with lack of regulation is that the banks will go under, as well as they should. Not my problem, not the tax payers problem.
Please, we already use the term libertarian because leftists stole the term liberal.
That's not accurate. Free-market Capitalism was once a liberal ideal because it was not practiced anywhere. Once it was widely practiced, it ceased being a liberal ideal and socialism became the liberal ideal. If socialism is practiced worldwide something else would replace it as the liberal ideal. That's why the question "Were the founding fathers liberal or conservative?" is an irrelevant question. Of course they were liberal for the 18th century -- but what was liberal then is not liberal now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
