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.
Not too sure, but it would probably be too long, involve characters with all the depth of a cardboard cutout, some semi-forced sex and culminate in a 50-page soliloquy.
Because it's a wacky, convoluted philosophy that only appeals to intellectuals and people who fashion themselves as intellectuals.
I actually think most Americans are smart enough to understand it, so the fact that it sometimes leaves the listeners confused is just because they don´t take the time to apply their talents to understand. Empowerment to take responsibility is very powerful
¨At base stands a profound respect for the integrity of history and the convoluted relationship between the present and the past¨ -Ira Berlin, NYT Book review, 9/9/01
In other words, don´t feel bad if you cannot understand it right now.
Of course it might not appeal to the SOBE 23 something club crowds, so we can just hammer the point about Marijuana legalization in that case.
I was ambivalent about it until there came a point in my life where it resonated, you cannot force people to accept it, people have to make the journey on their own. We can, however, facilitate through making the information available for those who want to learn. For me it was an epiphany moment.
And I am no intellectual whatsoever, I am actually a pretty dumb guy living a dumb life down in Miami.
Re: Wacky - Ron Paul represents pure common sense. Common sense is neither eccentric nor irrational, in fact it is the opposite. Learn some English before posting, will ya? I use M-W for guidance.
Another problem is that they often don't have the clout to deregulate enough. They tend to roll back protection for the individual, but keep the protection for large institutions.
For example, the layers of regulation surrounding our financial system are like an onion. Say for example that we have a system where the core layer of regulation is designed to transfer tax dollars straight to banks. The secondary layers of regulation are systems where we back the banks up in case they fail. The tertiary layers are systems where we restrict what the banks can do, cutting down their risk profiles (and thus profits), since we're already subsidizing them in our "core regulation" to begin with.
Your casual libertarian often only wants to deregulate those outer layers of the onion that constitute taxpayer and customer protections. They often lack understanding of the "inner layers", thinking they are free market mechanisms -- or they have competing ideology that says "banks are job creators, we should give them money," or perhaps they just lack the clout and the sense to construct, propose, and pass an alternative solution to the core regulations.
Hilgi, you say libertarianism has never been tried before, but it's basically the government Somalia has right now. If the government said, ok, no restrictions on guns. Anyone who wants one, gets one. Get as many as you'd like. Stockpile to your hearts content .. freedom! It wouldn't take long at all for a handful of warlords to outstrip everyone else in creating aresenals. They would their superior firepower to confiscate the guns of those they don't like. (No one likes checks on their power.)
Now you say the government could stop them. Sure, but a government that could stop them would have to have massive, massive powers. You need an extremely large army with many legal and tactical tools at its disposal to keep large private armies in check. This would be a mess in no time.
That's why governments have restrictions on guns. That's just one example. We could talk about drugs, prostitution, business, etc. Libertarianism leads to nightmarish conditions.
Somalia is a nation built on a strong constitution with a Bill of Rights that protect the individual from government and force of others? I never knew that, interesting.
We have over 200 million privately owned guns in the US, you don't think that the infrastructure it would take to crate a nation where every gun was confiscated by the government wouldn't cause nightmarish conditions?
I Re: Wacky - Ron Paul represents pure common sense.
Ron Paul's vision works because it's not really libertarian. He believes in applying libertarian principles to the federal government. That's fine since state governments would fill the void.
Yes, I replied, it is wrong. Rule of law (constitution and rights) are not anarchy. Sorry.
Rule of law is not anarchy, either. Constitution and rights hardly sounds like a Mad Maxx Beyond Thunderdome society, either. It doesn't matter how many times you rejigger the terminology. The concepts remain as they are.
There is nothing on which to demonstrate the failure of libertarian principles because they've never been put into practice in this country. So I'd like to know why critics of libertarianism are so dang critical of something that hasn't demonstrated failure, since it hasn't even been practiced.
Libertarianism and Communism are similar in that they are extreme ideologies that only make sense as critiques of each other. Both exist in purely hypothetical worlds and are useful as thought experiments, but fall down when confronted with real people.
They each start with the same flawed premise: that people are rational and logical. You don’t have to be a professional psychologist to see that humans are inherently emotional and irrational creatures.
Communism failed because it was unable to account for individual incentive. Libertarianism fails because it is unable to account for irrationality.
Somalia is a nation built on a strong constitution with a Bill of Rights that protect the individual from government and force of others? I never knew that, interesting.
We have over 200 million privately owned guns in the US, you don't think that the infrastructure it would take to crate a nation where every gun was confiscated by the government wouldn't cause nightmarish conditions?
The choice is not either/or, higli. They key is balance. I like a government with enough restrictions to protect citizens, but not so many restrictions that it strangles them.
Libertarianism is as disastrous as communism and leads to similar results -- rule of law by the biggest thug.
The choice is not either/or, higli. They key is balance. I like a government with enough restrictions to protect citizens, but not so many restrictions that it strangles them.
Libertarianism is as disastrous as communism and leads to similar results -- rule of law by the biggest thug.
For a serious de-evolution to the individual States, we ought to continue to have the right to bear arms, as there might be some ¨obstacles¨ that get in the way of an efficient transfer. I know it is not pretty to think about, but it is hard work to be free. Give me liberty or give me death!
There is nothing on which to demonstrate the failure of libertarian principles because they've never been put into practice in this country. So I'd like to know why critics of libertarianism are so dang critical of something that hasn't demonstrated failure, since it hasn't even been practiced.
Fear. Big government people would lose their big government. War mongers would lose their wars. Nanny state dependents would lose their nanny state.
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.
