Classical Liberalism

[theVOID]

Alright. I think I see the problem we are having with this discussion. You are talking libertarians "in general", where I am talking about libertarians "in America".

You aren't even that close, most of the American Libertarian party and other Libertarians in the country are fully appropriate in the use of the term, it's not under that context that the word "libertarian" means something else, it's amongst the masses who just think it means "tea party" or Neo-con or Fascist, the term has been polluted by people just like you and min who couldn't care less about what the people in the tea party define themselves as (the vast majority as "small government conservatives" and NOT "Libertarians") but instead just throw around terms in the name of your little whipping boy "tea party" straw man.

The vast majority of those who claimed they are libertarian that I have met have openly bragged about how they have voted for Palin (not McCain), and how they dont waste their vote on people in their own party.

Sure, that is for the same reason as the alliance of small government conservatives and Libertarians in the tea party, the economic issues take precedent. These people who want to sort of the debt and deficit would be wasting their votes on the Libertarian party, so, the small-government conservatives, for all their many many flaws, are a fucking mile better than the GOP and Dems on that issue and when you have people following Austrian Economics who simply do not buy the bullshit being funneled down their throats by Obama and Bernanke about the economy it's really no surprise that their best option is the tea party - The imminent economic threats are, rightly so, far more serious than civil liberties at this time.

I'm sure if they actually expected the Dems to give a shit about social liberties and do something other than their complete sham of "supporting gay rights" and "right to choose" that they campaigned on and have absolutely no intention of actually doing things might be somewhat different, but when you have people like Palin who is a bit of a fucking nutter and a social conservative but who will genuinely decrease the size of government and might just bring your country back from an economic disaster it's pretty easy to see why they think that is their most effective vote - And that "Palin support" is hardly the case anyway, of all of the tea party voters, both Libertarian and small government conservatives, about 1/3 were pro-pail, 1/3 didn't care and 1/3 were "Hostile" towards here - No prizes for guessing what portion of the tea party are anti-Palin.

Not only that, but they actually have a damn good chance to get some far more "libertarian" candidates in the mix, they got Rand Paul amongst others in the house and senate, a decent victory for libertarians.

Your GOP and Dems are NOT going to solve the economic issues or decrease government, and the civil rights issues are much less important right now to anybody who isn't swallowing the Keynesian jizz.

Like the editor of reason magazine said when investigating the tea party in an article called 'Who are the tea party?': "They just aren't talking about the social issues" Suppose this economic crisis gets resolved, do you think this "tea party" alliance of "libertarians" and "small government conservatives" will continue? Fuck no, at least nowhere near the same.

Many of them are very vocal about how, even though they like social libertarianism, they do not see it taking effect in America.. so they focus on the economic libertarianism. They vote their economic side every time.

Not "every time", just "right now" and because your country is on the brink of a fucking disaster! Yeah, economics is more important right now. Once there is a genuine resolution to the economic problems an not a pathetic $39 billion reduction in the rate of increase then things will change and the Libertarians will become more distinct, hell, if the Dems actually keep to their fucking word about social liberties you might even see some Libertarian support going in that direction, but saving the dollar from doom is more important.

You think you're helping the poor and needy? Wait until that happens and then come back and tell me all your keynesian bullshit was the right move.

So obviously you are posting from ideological purity, I am posting on what I have seen and heard from most American Libertarians.

No, I was arguing the specifics of the Ideology, the one you keep fucking straw manning and labeling "geedy" and "corporatists" as if you don't even give a shit about understanding it. You want to talk about pragmatism then I might have to throw it in with the camp who want to prevent your country from imploding, as much as I despise social conservatism I gota say fixing the fucking disastrous economy is more important than social issues - that is a sentiment shared by the Libertarians in the tea party.

Let me make it clear once again, the Libertarians are in the tea party because of an economic alliance, saving the fucking borrow and spend government that is going to bankrupt your country - To go from that to what you and Min have been wanking on about, "libertarian == tea party" however shows either 1. Complete cluelessness OR 2. Intellectual bankruptcy.

I have also posted several times that it is not the social libertarianism that I oppose, but it economic aspects, and that its economic aspects I was trying to focus on discussion.

You barely grasp the fundamentals of economics, some of those "basics" you don't even get right, so the chances of you understanding Free Markets is nil, which perfectly explains why your criticism have been straw-men, red hearings, "slavery" and blaming greed on Libertarianism.

They do not focus on the social aspects, and dont even try. I have seen American Libertarians fool people by talking about the pure ideology, lose the election, then switch their ticket to "conservative Republican" and win.

It's not just one fucking battle, some moves can secure more of the ideals than others, who cares if they have to go under the GOP banner to get more influence and ultimately further the cause? Ron Paul has created huge influence by joining the republicans, he's making real progress towards Libertarianism, that he had to join the GOP to do so is completely besides the point. He's not only making the republicans "better" from a social and Libertarian viewpoint, he's making Libertarian ideals more prominent.

Many local's do that in the southern states. some of the republicans and even some of the Democrats talk the "Libertarian crap" (as I have come to call it..and this is what Min is talking about as well..he has seen it just as much, I am sure). We dont find "true" libertarians around here in America. As I have said MANY times before, their economic beliefs eclipse their social beliefs. Even Reagan said we cant take in the entirety of the Libertarian party, as they are not socially moral. THAT rings very true within the American libertarian ranks.

Socially immoral according to who? You? The guy who thinks he can take whatever the fuck he likes in the name of enforcing his values? The guy who thinks he can tell other people what price they can sell their own stuff for if he doesn't like the price? You're the one who's immoral - Closet authoritarian. And now Reagan is the arbiter of morality? Give me a fucking break - Reagan was a Mercantilist, no wonder he didn't like Libertarians.

Economics only eclipses social issues in SOME circumstances, like the ones facing the world at present, at it's core the two are inseparable because they stem from the same core principle, Individualism. So what if you have to make some concessions along the way? Name me one fucking political ideology that has NOT made concessions on the path to establishing it's principles!

Now coming from your end, I can see where some, or most of what I have posted sounds absolutely wrong, or at least half assed wrong. Its missing something. Its missing the anti-authoritarianism. I know this. I am posting about AMERICAN LIBERTARIANS.

No, you are addressing your shitty straw man. It's not the Libertarians who have the wrong terms, it's YOU and your buddies who think ANYTHING small government is Libertarian. Don't blame them for being "American Libertarians" it's YOU who has it ass-backwards.

Go back and read my posts again, but this time instead of thinking "pure libertarian ideology" you should think in "turbulent and divided American Politics". If you use the second as opposed to the first, the posts I made will make MUCH MORE SENSE. In America, the Libertarians have added to the mess. In America, we have 3 types of political groups, and a minority fourth.

How about you just stop calling everything "Libertarian" even when you know it is not, it's not my fucking job to decipher when you are talking about "Libertarians" on one hand and when you are talking about "Libertarians" on the other.

[reverendjeremiah]

Wait. Where is it you live at again Void? Australia or someplace NOT American?

I have made my last post based on my *PERSONAL EXPERIENCES* with AMERICAN LIBERTARIANS, and what they have told me that they have done and plan to do, and you are saying that I am wrong on what I posted for my personal experiences?

Also, I dont have the time to nit pick every word, but I can EASILY point out where you have strawmanned my ass:

You aren't even that close, most of the American Libertarian party and other Libertarians in the country are fully appropriate in the use of the term

Strawman - if you bothered to read further ahead you would have seen that I said: "I am posting on what I have seen and heard from most American Libertarians."

You think you're helping the poor and needy? Wait until that happens and then come back and tell me all your keynesian bullshit was the right move.

Strawman built upon the idea keynesian systems will not work, because libertarians oppose any system that isnt libertarian.

To go from that to what you and Min have been wanking on about, "libertarian == tea party" however shows either 1. Complete cluelessness OR 2. Intellectual bankruptcy.

Personal attacks, especially since you yourself admitteded that american Libertarians are ranking with the teabaggers. I didnt need you to tell me that either. The libertarians I have spoken to IN MY OWN COUNTRY tell me they vote teaparty.

You barely grasp the fundamentals of economics, some of those "basics" you don't even get right, so the chances of you understanding Free Markets is nil, which perfectly explains why your criticism have been straw-men, red hearings, "slavery" and blaming greed on Libertarianism.

Strawman. You have set up a Reverend Jeremiah who doesnt understand economics, even the "basics". Why doesnt he understand economics? Because if he understood it he would realize a free market is the only way..therefore he must obviously make logical fallacies

It's not just one fucking battle, some moves can secure more of the ideals than others, who cares if they have to go under the GOP banner to get more influence and ultimately further the cause?

Hypocrisy. You tell me that Libs are not tea party, and accuse me of strawmanning because of it. Then you tell me libs are in the tea party ("Sure, that is for the same reason as the alliance of small government conservatives and Libertarians in the tea party, the economic issues take precedent") and accuse me of strawmanning because of it. Then you tell me Libs are allied with the GOP and then accuse me of strawmanning. You have set a system where only YOU decide when a group is "allied" and the same, "allied" yet seperate, or completely seperate. If I try to point out an alliance, you claim I am equivocating and/or strawmanning.

Let me make it clear once again, the Libertarians are in the tea party because of an economic alliance

Strawman. Your context makes it sound like I have NOT been saying the teaparty and Libertarians are in an alliance.

Socially immoral according to who? You? The guy who thinks he can take whatever the fuck he likes in the name of enforcing his values? The guy who thinks he can tell other people what price they can sell their own stuff for if he doesn't like the price? You're the one who's immoral - Closet authoritarian. And now Reagan is the arbiter of morality? Give me a fucking break - Reagan was a Mercantilist, no wonder he didn't like Libertarians.

Equivocation and strawman - I clearly stated that Ronald Reagan said that and by ringing true in context meant that it rang true with the LIBERTARIANS at the time. Meaning they AGREED with him and voted for him anyways, and still continue to vote for the GOP to this day. They were insulted by Reagan and STILL voted for him. Most libs vote their economics, and their economics only. Strawman on calling me a closet authoritarian, I have pulled no authority here, I only mentioned history. Why in the HELL would you think I would like and agree with Reagan, or use him as an argument from authority?

No, you are addressing your shitty straw man. It's not the Libertarians who have the wrong terms, it's YOU and your buddies who think ANYTHING small government is Libertarian. Don't blame them for being "American Libertarians" it's YOU who has it ass-backwards.

Strawman - You clearly admit that the GOP, TEAPARTY, and LIBERTARIANS are allied. I have pointed out that the tea party and GOP are socially authoritarian, and the libertarians are not SUPPOSED to be, yet you still claim I am strawmanning you. I have made it very simple. Most of the libertarians I HAVE MET AND TALKED TO only care about their economic position and openly brag about voting Republican instead of wasting their vote on their own party.



Look man, I dont hate you. I dont hate you one single bit. I disagree with the free market economy. You support it. Why should we go at each others throats over it? We arent even in the same country.

[theVOID]

Wait. Where is it you live at again Void? Australia or someplace NOT American?

New Zealand

I have made my last post based on my *PERSONAL EXPERIENCES* with AMERICAN LIBERTARIANS, and what they have told me that they have done and plan to do, and you are saying that I am wrong on what I posted for my personal experiences?

Great, anecdotes. Now do you want to deal with data or just stick with the "I know a guy who payed and then got a new car" type shit?

Also, I dont have the time to nit pick every word, but I can EASILY point out where you have strawmanned my ass:

Please do.

Strawman - if you bothered to read further ahead you would have seen that I said: "I am posting on what I have seen and heard from most American Libertarians."

So you know some libertarians who think some things, so what? I think I'll stick with the study Reason Magazine did, you know, more than anecdotes.

Strawman built upon the idea keynesian systems will not work, because libertarians oppose any system that isnt libertarian.

What???? You ARE a Keynesian Jerry, and the bulk of the Tea Party is a revolt against Keynesian "Tax/borrow and spend" economics, the one where the government is squarely in the drivers seat playing with the people's money to fulfill their agenda and get re-elected and the people are little more than pawns with their freedoms being stolen in the name of "saving or creating jobs".

Personal attacks, especially since you yourself admitteded that american Libertarians are ranking with the teabaggers. I didnt need you to tell me that either. The libertarians I have spoken to IN MY OWN COUNTRY tell me they vote teaparty.

Sure, SOME libertarians are in the tea party because of ECONOMIC concerns, namely the reckless and foolish economic policy that they believe will ruin your country - It's not even MOST libertarians, it's SOME and the Tea party are at best 10-20% Libertarians, according to statistics and not "I've talked to people".

My point is still valid, to say that the Average tea party voter represents Libertarians BECAUSE they agree on prioritizing a balanced budget is nonsense. To take that stand means you've barely scratched the surface. That's why your attacks on Libertarians because of Tea Party positions

Strawman. You have set up a Reverend Jeremiah who doesnt understand economics, even the "basics". Why doesnt he understand economics? Because if he understood it he would realize a free market is the only way..therefore he must obviously make logical fallacies

No, You don't understand because you've said stupid shit about corporations causing inflation and show no understanding of the supply/demand curve, not simply because you disagree with me. Free Markets vs Keynesianism is a complicated issue, mostly because Keynesianism is notoriously complicated - That's completely beside the point though, there are plenty of people who argue keynesian policies and understand that which you have failed to grasp, if one of them wants to step up you might see what a debate on economics looks like.

If you don't understand something as core to the issue and people's every day lives as inflation, it's cause and it's relationship to prices and the cost of living then you don't have a hope in hell of forming a coherent economic position.

Hypocrisy. You tell me that Libs are not tea party, and accuse me of strawmanning because of it. Then you tell me libs are in the tea party ("Sure, that is for the same reason as the alliance of small government conservatives and Libertarians in the tea party, the economic issues take precedent") and accuse me of strawmanning because of it. Then you tell me Libs are allied with the GOP and then accuse me of strawmanning. You have set a system where only YOU decide when a group is "allied" and the same, "allied" yet seperate, or completely seperate. If I try to point out an alliance, you claim I am equivocating and/or strawmanning.

I never said there weren't Libertarians in the tea party, I said that the Tea Party do not represent Libertarian policy, there is some overlap on fiscal policy, but aside from that there are significant differences. I have no problem acknowledging that SOME Libertarians have joined the tea party because of their economic fears, but to attack Libertarians with Small-government conservative policies because of that is complete BS - You might as well attack Socialists with Communist policies because they agree with some Communists on some issues.

Some Librarians are in the republican party, they call it the "Campaign for Liberty" and do so because they actually have a chance of swaying the voters there, the people in the republican party are much more open to Individualism than the Dems who just want to fire up the collective machine and legislate their values.

Strawman. Your context makes it sound like I have NOT been saying the teaparty and Libertarians are in an alliance.

No, you have been going FAR beyond that, to the point of attacking Libertarians with examples of the policies of small-government conservatives. You have been EQUATING the two, rather than just pointing out that they are allied on SOME issues, primarily their economic fears.

Who else have they got that shares their economic fears? Nobody. The GOP and the Dems are the complete fucking opposite, they won't to anything serious about it because they are convinced that their Keynesian tax and spend nonsense is going to work - sure some Libertarians want to sway the GOP voters, good luck to them, but when you have people who genuinely fear the economic situation, a country that avoids collapse only by borrowing trillions of dollars a year, what are you going to do, reject the only people who share your concerns because you don't like their attitudes towards individual liberties?

And on the Individual Liberties issues they have fuck all allies, neither the republicans or the dems who are only somewhat better, If you see a division like the Tea Party/GOP split amongst the dems because of individual liberties you will see Libertarians over there. None of them seriously expect the dems to do a fucking thing about Gay Marriage or legalizing drugs and they do the exact opposite fiscally, so it's absolutely no surprise that there are very few Libertarians who vote Dem.

You do know that many of the Libertarians in the Tea Party voted for Obama because of his promised on freedoms right? http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11697

Equivocation and strawman - I clearly stated that Ronald Reagan said that and by ringing true in context meant that it rang true with the LIBERTARIANS at the time. Meaning they AGREED with him and voted for him anyways, and still continue to vote for the GOP to this day. They were insulted by Reagan and STILL voted for him. Most libs vote their economics, and their economics only. Strawman on calling me a closet authoritarian, I have pulled no authority here, I only mentioned history. Why in the HELL would you think I would like and agree with Reagan, or use him as an argument from authority?

No, your Authoritarianism has naught to do with Reagan, it has to do with you wanting to legislate your values at the expense of individual freedoms. Authoritarian where convenient might be a good way to describe you.

Strawman - You clearly admit that the GOP, TEAPARTY, and LIBERTARIANS are allied. I have pointed out that the tea party and GOP are socially authoritarian, and the libertarians are not SUPPOSED to be, yet you still claim I am strawmanning you. I have made it very simple. Most of the libertarians I HAVE MET AND TALKED TO only care about their economic position and openly brag about voting Republican instead of wasting their vote on their own party.

SOME Libertarians are in the Tea Party, SOME are trying to sway the GOP, MANY voted Obama in 2008, SO FUCKING WHAT?

It is absolutely no excuse for attacking Libertarians with tea party policy. Oh, you have some anecdotes? BIG FUCKING DEAL. I can find you anecdotes for all sorts of shit. Why don't you go find some, ya know, DATA?

Look man, I dont hate you. I dont hate you one single bit. I disagree with the free market economy. You support it. Why should we go at each others throats over it? We arent even in the same country.

So argue against free markets and not the conservative majority of the tea party then? You have barely touched on free markets and I'm not sure you're even aware of that.

Your politics has more influence on my country than our politics economically. We, like every other fucker, are tied to your currency and if you guys crash then we burn with you. I'd rather peg our currency to the RNB, at least china have some fucking economic sense. In fact I'm for the RNB being the global reserve, that's going to fuck you guys over though, your main export is the dollar.

[HeyItsZeus]

Look man, I dont hate you. I dont hate you one single bit. I disagree with the free market economy. You support it. Why should we go at each others throats over it? We arent even in the same country.

Because this is politics.

[reverendjeremiah]

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.co...dea-first/
Libertarian Party: we had the Tea Party idea first
April 13th, 2009 · 49 Comments
LP Monday Message: Are you coming to the Tea Party, Paul?
Your Monday Message from the Libertarian Party:

Dear friend,

Will you be attending a Tea Party this Wednesday?

Many Libertarians will, and millions of Americans will be joining them.

I’m, of course, referring to the thousands of “Tax Day Tea Parties” that will be held across the nation on April 15, to coincide with the filing deadline for individual income tax returns.

The Libertarian Party of Illinois got the idea to hold an April 15, 2009 anti-tax “Boston Tea Party” in Chicago way back in December of 2008. On February 10, 2009 they started a Facebook page and began promoting the website throughout the Illinois media.

The idea caught on like wildfire 10 days later, when CNBC personality Rick Santelli, speaking from the floor of the Chicago stock exchange, blasted the Obama administration’s tax and economic policies and urged all Americans to hold their own “tea parties.”

Of course, for the Libertarian Party every day is a Tea Party. We’ve been the only consistently pro-taxpayer party since our founding over 30 years ago.

Compare that to the Republicans. After 10 years of Republican control of Congress, inflation-adjusted spending on the combined budgets of the 101 largest programs they vowed to eliminate in 1995 has grown by 27 percent, according to the libertarian Cato Institute. Eight years of a Republican president, six with a Republican-controlled Congress, resulted in bigger government, the biggest expansion of entitlements in 40 years and a $700 billion bailout of Wall Street that continues to grow.

Or the Democrats, who are just as awful. One simply needs to look at Obama’s explosive growth of government and economy-busting deficits to see they’re simply peddling a different brand of Big Government.

But Libertarians are different. Not only do we believe in reducing the size and cost of government – it’s basically a condition of membership.

It might explain why our monthly new membership numbers, that is, the number of people each month who become Libertarian Party members for the first time, has grown each of the last three months. The number of new volunteers to the Libertarian Party is also up 151 percent.

That’s amazing, but that’s not nearly enough to win. We must continue growing by reaching out to the tens of millions of libertarian-leaning voters. It starts by making sure our members are at their local “tea party,” and participating respectfully and listening their neighbors. This is our opportunity to reach out to millions of voters by respectfully listening to them, and letting them know the Libertarian Party fights for lower taxes and less spending, not as a matter of political expediency, but, as a matter of core principle.

Americans are fed up with taxes, fed up with spending, fed up with borrowing and fed up with the Republicans and Democrats. Despite the unpopularity of Obama’s policies, the Republican Party is mired in bottom-basement poll numbers. Tens of millions of libertarian-leaning Americans are “politically homeless.”

When you get right down to it, with our bedrock principles of fiscal responsibility and social tolerance, the Libertarian Party is America’s only mainstream political party.

This Wednesday, we have an opportunity to find those voters a home. If you haven’t already, make sure to attend a local “tea party.” You can even do it on your lunch hour. You can find a list of them promoted by state LP affiliates at http://www.lp.org

.

But it doesn’t end on Thursday. You can bet the Libertarian Party will continue to reach out to tens of millions of Americans fed up with rising taxes and government sprawl.

I’m counting on you to do your part by supporting your local Libertarian Party, attending your local Tea Party and welcoming home the vast, untapped libertarian electorate.

With optimism,

Donny Ferguson
Director of Communications
Libertarian National Committee
[email protected]

[HeyItsZeus]

1. The common good is good for the common. Sacrifice 1 to save 1,000,000. Not the other way around. It's reality that someone needs to suffer, might as well be a small amount of people that suffer so everyone else can feel better.

Hey Spat, I'm going to take your computer and your TV and any other recreational devices you have and sell them, and the same for everyone else in your neighborhood, then give the money to the poor, I don't care that it's your stuff, I don't care if you worked hard for it so shut up slave and hand me your property, it's in the common good. Aww you're going to suffer for it? Sorry, but you might as well suffer so these poor people can feel better.

I see... you got me. No denying it. You're right on this one. Seriously.

2. People do not always know what they need VOID. You think this of me, don't you? That's why we need to use mathematical calculations and rationality. For example: Socializing healthcare in the U.S. screws over a lot of insurance companies but a lot of poor people can get cared for and this would be less expensive than what our government is paying for citizen health needs already, actually.

People know what they "need" better than the government does. Socializing healthcare in the U.S. was the biggest fucking boon to the insurance industry in decades, they got tons of new customers! You realize your government is forcing people to buy insurance from corporations right? Shut up slaves and give your money to these corporations, it's in the common good!

I actually hate Obama's health care but I'm talking about real social health care. And your right about the insurance companies.

You know what Spat, I'm all for helping poor people get healthcare domestically and I'll gladly add it to the list of the causes I support (I already give for basic supplies in impoverished nations via Oxfam and Doctors Without Borders), but they don't have a right to it, you don't have any legitimate authority to steal from other people to give it to them, and if you and your collective thug machine want to force me to buy my own healthcare from a corporation AND pick up the bill for other people then fuck you, I don't care if you think it's in the "common good", If I am going to give my own property to other people then I will do it because I want to and not because some authoritarian jerkoff tells me to.

Who said you had to be part of a government program if it exists? You can opt out if you want to and leave it at that, of course this would be the type of social health care I support.

The only morally legitimate way to support those in need is to persuade those with resources to give to those in need, if people weren't losing 30-50% of their incomes in TAXES then they'd have a lot more to give and you can bet your ass they will.

Welfare kills charity and Charity is a fucking hell of a lot more resource efficient than some bureaucratic/corporate partnership.

You like to think everyone is a nice guy, don't you?

This already exists here in the States. The only problem is these judges are bought out. In a representative democracy... the collective government is elected to represent their people. If they abuse their power they will be replaced easily. Besides, what makes you think that the government will always abuse those that they govern simply because it's a government?

Established principles are supposed to protect against government and against collective thuggery, a party elected to power can't simply decide to seize property from say 49% of the population to give to the 51% if they are representing the majority of the people, that's why there are moves in your courts to repeal healthcare, because government does not have the authority to steal from others to give to the poor.

This I agree with because Obama's health care is not the ideal social health care.

The "common good" is a scam, the only legitimate good is voluntary charity.

Both can exist simultaneously.

When the rules are unfair the government should create fair rules. In a democracy we elect people to do this. If rules are fine then the government has no right to change it.

Your government changes the rules all the fucking time, not in the name of fairness, but in the name of "growing the economy", "creating or saving jobs" and "helping producers" - That is not FAIR, it is the complete opposite, when one industry is subsidized and given tax breaks and others are not there is nothing FAIR about it.

Yes, I know my government is fucked up. What does this have to do with the argument? I'm not defending it.

The government setting prices and forcing people to supply at a fixed price to appease the masses is not FAIR either. Fair =/= Benefit the self-interests of the masses, Fair is letting people do whatever they like so long as they do not impose on others.

I agree somewhat. Receiving government aid should be a choice, not a forced decision.

I largely agree with you here but I subscribe to a different form of capitalism. Everything should exist in the free market (with regulation that benefits the common good) except human rights that people can not obtain on their own, such as poor people getting health care, food, H2O, police, firefighters, etc...

[/quote]If you're tampering with the economy you do not have a free market, setting the prices, taxing and subsidizing specific industry, trying to push the market in a given direction, corporate welfare, bailouts etc is NOT Free market.[/quote]
My idea consists of the market and government as separate entities. The market does what it will and the government does the people's will(if the people's will means imposing on the market then so be it). We can have Poland Spring and local water at the same time.

Food, Healthcare, water and firefighters are not "rights" they are GOODS. Rights are only those things that emanate from our being, our bodies, our minds, our thoughts and the property we acquire with those things, that is what a Right is.

My definition of a right is people receiving what people need. If they need medicine then they shall receive it!

You think someone starving in a hunter-gatherer society had their "rights" to food violated? What about someone dying before healthcare was invented? Did their "right" to healthcare get violated? Rights DO NOT change as new things are invented!

Uhhmmm yes they do because rights are up to interpretation. And this is 2011.

I agree. My land is not your land, bitch!

Unless you want to come and take it for the "common good" right? Then who gives a shit who owns it? We're going to use our collective thug machine and fucking take it! We need to build a road through your property in the name of the "common good" so move all your shit or you'll get fucking bulldozed along with your house!

Sure. Anything to help out. If the reason is not legitimate then fuck off. If I'm going to help orphans get to water, or something, then go for it.

No. What the collective group (majority of citizens) sees as immoral, such as murder, should receive punishment.

That is not a case of trying to force people to do something simply because we disagree, that is punishing people who violate the rights of others!

Okay...that's what I've been trying to convey, but whatever.

Hey, the majority of your country sees abortion and immoral, punish them! What about Gays in Africa? The majority think they're evil so they're justified in burning them!

You got me again. You're right, I'm wrong in this case.

Hey, the majority see drugs as immoral too, I guess your collective thug machine has the right to stomp all over my freedoms because they don't like it!

Not unless you're hurting someone other than yourself.

Pork is totally immoral in Israel, so if you get caught eating it we're going to lock you up slave!

Funny haha.

[reverendjeremiah]

Man..It got REALLY quiet in here REALLY quick.

Was it something I posted?

[Violet]

Man..It got REALLY quiet in here REALLY quick.

Was it something I posted?

It's because there aren't enough of my antics (recently) in this thread

[theVOID]

Man..It got REALLY quiet in here REALLY quick.

Was it something I posted?

Is that your smug self-righteousness shining through? I'd expected to see it before now, ah well, I'll get around to pointing out how fail your reading comprehension is when I have time, things like sleep tend to be more important than pointing out the obvious to you.

[reverendjeremiah]

Man..It got REALLY quiet in here REALLY quick.

Was it something I posted?

Is that your smug self-righteousness shining through? I'd expected to see it before now, ah well, I'll get around to pointing out how fail your reading comprehension is when I have time, things like sleep tend to be more important than pointing out the obvious to you.

Why yes Void, actually it is my smuginess comming through. I realize you expected to see it earlier, but I restrained myself to have a serious conversation with you.

You can point out what you think is fail from me all you want. Im just here having a conversation with you, and NOT here to give lessons or recieve lessons. The funny thing is that you are still arguing with me on things that I have long ago already agreed with you.

Perhaps your next post, if you could, emphasise what point you are trying to make instead of saying"FAIL!....FAIL!...FAIL!.."

Here..allow me to suggest a point on topic by asking a question, then you can give me YOUR idea for it. This isnt a lesson, it is merely a chat:

Exactly how would you switch from a mixed economy to a Laisez fare (sp - freemarket) libertarian type economic system?

Examples: Would you change it on the spot? Would you change it slowly over a time span? What would you change first, second, third, etc...and how would you institute the social aspects of it inthe same way.

There..lets have a CIVIL conversation of how YOU would approach changing things to a libertarian system in America.