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.
No it isn't. You just aren't willing to admit the truth. Given your expressed preferences that is not surprising.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoulesMSU
How is NSA libertarian?
The old False Dilemma fallacy, a typical evasion. The fact that not every aspect of life has become 100% a reflection of your perverse dream doesn't mean that things haven't become more offensively libertarian. I mentioned the most important indicator in the message you replied to. No big surprise that you would try to ignore that fundamental matter since it exposes your nonsense.
Indeed a lot of recent changes are reactions to how offensive your politics have driven things. And it'll happen more as more people are adversely affected by how libertarianism has warped things.
Please stop with the inane denials and claims that libertarianism wouldn't simply benefit those who are already okay by making things worse for those those most vulnerable.
So because you found one extremist, you believe that he's the authority on Libertarians? As if Libertarians have a collective mind as if they were assimilated like the Borg? If that is so, then I think you should reevaluate who's really the crazy one.
Well, let's see. I also listen to Tim Sandefur of the Pacific Legal Foundation at every opportunity. His vision of libertarianism is one containing many points with which I agree (I disagree with his conclusion that government is entirely responsible for the real estate bubble of a few years ago and that it would not have happened if government had not interfered with the market)
Then there is Ben the Libertarian, a regular caller and e-mail writer to the Armstrong and Getty radio program, who for the most part was an interesting listen (but whom A&G eventually banned from their twitter and call in participation because he started acting crazy)
Tom Sullivan used to have a regular caller who always talked about the expansion of personal liberty. Havent herd him in a while and I wish he would start calling again.
Besides, it is Zadek who has proclaimed himself THE Bay Area Libertarian. And it's not like I havent heard other so called libertarians espouse one or more of Zadek's philosophies.
Most of the non-libertarian minded folks in this thread have either a Democrat/Republican spoon fed idea of what libertarianism is, or decided it was nutty and then found a nut to tie that belief to. Go read the works of actual libertarian/classic liberal thinkers. The link I gave let's you go back 300 years if you like. Get some deeper understanding of the philosophy prior to dismissing it and declaring it invalid.
Well, let's see. I also listen to Tim Sandefur of the Pacific Legal Foundation at every opportunity. His vision of libertarianism is one containing many points with which I agree (I disagree with his conclusion that government is entirely responsible for the real estate bubble of a few years ago and that it would not have happened if government had not interfered with the market)
It wouldn't have happened without the governments interference. No one is going to loan poor risks money on their own. The reason it happened was because the government guaranteed the loans. Without that it never happens. Now, the banks could have said "no" but they wanted the restrictions on their trading relaxed so they went along with it making it their fault also.
It wouldn't have happened without the governments interference. No one is going to loan poor risks money on their own. The reason it happened was because the government guaranteed the loans. Without that it never happens. Now, the banks could have said "no" but they wanted the restrictions on their trading relaxed so they went along with it making it their fault also.
That loophole wasn't in place until the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act.
That loophole wasn't in place until the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act.
Nothing was a loophole. It was a quid pro quo. The government told the banks that they would relax the regulations if they would write the shady loans.
That loophole wasn't in place until the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act.
Every administration, Senate and House since the passage of the Community Reinvestment Act in 1977 has their hand in the 2008 subprime-led meltdown. All of them. It wasn't one specific thing or another, and it wasn't one party or the other. The only person in either party who said anything publicly (only to be bullied right off the stage by his own party right after he said it) about the growing danger and risks was Dubyah in 2005, and that was more rhetorical than substantive because he too spent 7.5 of his 8 years trying to outdo his predecessor on increasing the percentage of home ownership.
That's the government's third of the blame.
The banks get their third based on conjuring new and more flimsy ways to stay profitable by cooking books and using Fannie & Freddy to gamble with the taxpayer's money.
And finally, the consumer gets the remaining third of the blame. Not one person who took a subprime loan was forced to. Easy money, lazy critical thinking and the entitlement mentality all led people to live on the margin, same as during the Roaring 20s right before the 1929 crash, only up to 2008, instead of playing the stock market on the market, the consumer was playing with home value and equity on the margin.
Everyone wanted in, nobody wanted to lose out on easy money, and everyone drove it off the cliff. No one person, agency or entity is more or less to blame than any other. And it all started with a bad law passed in a hurry to address something that was both lie and non-problem. The carter administration gave us a bunch of that, like the Department of Education.
I've spoken with a few libertarians. Not the crusty old ones repeating mantras they have been spoon fed, but truly intelligent people who have invested time and thought into their beliefs.
They dont want anarchy, they want the minimum government possible. Sometimes to a degree that to me is startling.
They are HUGE believers that "government can never ever do it better" And you see this posted here a lot. They ignore all the things that worldwide have been demonstrated that governments do better.
When I get into discussions the most surprising thing is....how well they think other people weigh decisions. They have a framework that always comes down to "yes in a perfect world". In a perfect world businesses would not pollute rivers when given a choice, because the bad press would destroy their ability to sell their product. But its NOT a perfect world, people dont make 100% informed decisions.
They have this utopian idea that people wont screw each other because everyone would have perfect knowledge of it and it would be counterproductive.
So...in a way I like them, they really do think people make good choices, and learn everything they can before making choices. Its kinda cute, like the innocence of a puppy.
Real life will run that puppy over, set it on fire, and watch the kids that own it cry, all for a extra buck.
They also tend to simplify monetary discussions, without a deep understanding of economics. They truly do not understand how a national currency is not like a family check book, and they want to go back to the gold standard so that it WILL be more like a family checkbook.
Its a different way of looking at things, and while I think a lot of it is nonsense, some of its worth considering. Shrug.
Every administration, Senate and House since the passage of the Community Reinvestment Act in 1977 has their hand in the 2008 subprime-led meltdown. All of them. It wasn't one specific thing or another, and it wasn't one party or the other. The only person in either party who said anything publicly (only to be bullied right off the stage by his own party right after he said it) about the growing danger and risks was Dubyah in 2005, and that was more rhetorical than substantive because he too spent 7.5 of his 8 years trying to outdo his predecessor on increasing the percentage of home ownership.
That's the government's third of the blame.
The banks get their third based on conjuring new and more flimsy ways to stay profitable by cooking books and using Fannie & Freddy to gamble with the taxpayer's money.
And finally, the consumer gets the remaining third of the blame. Not one person who took a subprime loan was forced to. Easy money, lazy critical thinking and the entitlement mentality all led people to live on the margin, same as during the Roaring 20s right before the 1929 crash, only up to 2008, instead of playing the stock market on the market, the consumer was playing with home value and equity on the margin.
Everyone wanted in, nobody wanted to lose out on easy money, and everyone drove it off the cliff. No one person, agency or entity is more or less to blame than any other. And it all started with a bad law passed in a hurry to address something that was both lie and non-problem. The carter administration gave us a bunch of that, like the Department of Education.
It is a shame that after the Great Depression, they didn't put in place regulations that had no chance of being changed and deregulated by Congress. The further we get from the Great Depression the more we forget the damages deregulations does for this country.
They are HUGE believers that "government can never ever do it better" And you see this posted here a lot. They ignore all the things that worldwide have been demonstrated that governments do better.
In every case that you are suggesting that the government "did it better" I guarantee that the private entity wasn't allowed to even try, or the government used its power over life & death and law to force "citizens" to labor on the state's behalf cheaper than if they were hired as employees. Pharoah didn't deal with unions, EPA regs, etc. Pharaoh cracked whips and killed slaves. That's how pyramids get built.
In the real world where all the facts are available, the private sector does almost everything better than government. Absolutely. There is only a small planet sized pile of evidence to support that claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
When I get into discussions the most surprising thing is....how well they think other people weigh decisions. They have a framework that always comes down to "yes in a perfect world". In a perfect world businesses would not pollute rivers when given a choice, because the bad press would destroy their ability to sell their product. But its NOT a perfect world, people dont make 100% informed decisions.
They have this utopian idea that people wont screw each other because everyone would have perfect knowledge of it and it would be counterproductive.
If you subscribe to the belief that the average person does not weigh decisions and everyone will make decisions to screw everyone else over....why would you prefer those same people be able to embody their cruel and uninformed decision making process in a representative with virtually unlimited power over everyone, instead of letting their decision making affect only those around them at the individual level?
I see this anti-libertarian thing all the time and it never makes any sense. We cannot let citizens be free to pursue their own self interests with a very small and limited government because they suck at making informed decisions, but we can let these same morons be free to make crappy uninformed votes in order to empower someone with life & death powers of law over everyone. My fellow man is a moron and I cannot trust him to act responsibly with very little power, but if I distance him all the way in some state capitol or DC, imbue him with the powers of a god, and let other morons vote to entrench his powers, then I can trust him to act responsibly with vast, nearly unlimited power. How does this make any sense at all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
So...in a way I like them, they really do think people make good choices, and learn everything they can before making choices. Its kinda cute, like the innocence of a puppy.
Well, at least puppies are real. The believer in a benevolent big government thinks unicorns drive elves around on gold chariots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
They also tend to simplify monetary discussions, without a deep understanding of economics. They truly do not understand how a national currency is not like a family check book, and they want to go back to the gold standard so that it WILL be more like a family checkbook.
I disagree with the gold bug wing of libertarians and maybe because I understand economics better than the average person. But the currency sovereign thing is always fertile breeding ground for mischief and bad government, and it always has been. I think the gold standard is misguided attempt at reining in that mischief. I think more direct, drastic punishing of mischief on the part of the government would do a far better job of cleaning up monetary hijinks than the gold standard would.
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.
