Classical Liberalism

[Tiberius]

And you say my posts are "imaginary conversation". Honestly man, you screwed up when you started using numbers.

My numbers were hypothetical. I never claimed they were accurate of any real company; I was using them to make the point about how consumers ultimately set the price of products. Companies could easily set their prices at unaffordable levels, but in doing so completely reduce their consumer base.

When I was a restaurant manager, our greatest profit maker was soft drinks (which is why I used them as an example). The large drink generated the greatest profit, especially if it was iced tea. Large sodas sold for .99 plus tax, which equaled to about $1.05 at the time. Our over head on the soda was $0.05. 95% profit margin on the drink opposed to overhead. And if it was iced tea, the over head was 1/100 of a cent. The profit was 99.99%. You claim I am posting "imaginary conversations" (which is some ways I am) but I can easily toss out some REAL numbers that I have experienced. You make it seem like these Cola companies are just making an honest living. In reality they make MAD profits through overcharging (something that libertarians smile upon) and then they bankroll that cash.

Clarify something for me. You said that the overhead on soda was $0.05, and you made a 95% profit on it. In other words, you bought the cola syrup from the Coca Cola company for $0.05 a pop, and sold it for $0.99. So how exactly is Coca Cola the company doing the "overcharging" here? Surely it is your restaurant that is putting the price up to $0.99, and therefore making the larger profit? I don't see any problem in it either way; if people are perfectly willing to pay $0.99 for a large soda, there isn't any reason not to sell it to them for $0.99. It's not overcharging; it's good business.

Now this is where you say; "But people dont have to buy the product..they can set their own prices". Well, yeah, if that were the case. Coke PAC contributes hundreds of thousands of political donations to BOTH PARTIES in EQUAL AMOUNTS, or close to equal amounts.

This PDF shows all of the political contributions to ensure that no matter WHO wins the elections, that Coca Cola's corporate interests come first before the actual electorate. Libertarians say this is okay. It is their companies money, and they can spend it how they like. Well, thanks to libertarian minded people, we common folk no longer have a say so in our social or economic future. Why would a politician listen to us (who are forced to pay them regardless, but cant line their pockets with more money) when Coke tosses BOTH parties cash to run their parties? Coke is screwing the public on prices, then using that money to take our politicians away from us so that they only pay attention to Coke. THAT is what libertarians want, and that is what libertarians do..and just because you say "but they arent libertarians"...last I checked this is ALL alowed on the libertarian political platform. So therefore, libertarians allow it, and they stand behind it. Try to say I made a strawman again.

It is a complete strawman, and for the following reason:

Libertarians believe in a completely free market; i.e. one in which the government does not control the market through regulation, but rather through policing (as theVOID has explained multiple times).

In a Libertarian system, Coca Cola could donate to a particular party, but it would be unconstitutional for any government party to give benefits or other economic relief to them. You really need to actually stop and go and read about Libertarianism before you continue this conversation. No true Libertarian (by the definition of Libertarianism) would allow a company to influence government policy on the economy, just as no true Secularist would allow a religious group to influence government policy on anything.

Progressives are against this. Progressives are against corupt business interfering in our political system with corupt politicians. Money = power = social influence. Libertarians love that this happens.

No they don't. I don't know how I can make that any clearer. If Libertarians really are FOR businesses interfering in politics (beyond simply donating to political parties or supporting specific acts of government) then I'm not a Libertarian; I'm something else. However, I have never come across a single actual Libertarian (by the definition) who supports corruption, mainly because it would be like finding a vegetarian who eats beefburgers every night. Your assertion that all Libertarians support corruption is absurd.

Libertarians talk social and economic freedom, but in reality they smile upon companies like Coke controlling our political system. Because libertarians are about economic libertarianism as their main driving force, not social libertarianism. Profit is their main driving force.

From Wikipedia:

According to the [US Libertarian Party], libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.

(Bolding mine for emphasis at how absurd your statement was.)

You keep denying that you are using strawmen, and yet I can easily show this to be a blatant lie. I'm not sure what your game is here; whether you just want to get theVOID and I riled up, but it's not going to work. We know what our political positions are; we know what we support. You can't convince us that white = black.

Where ever our millitary goes. Coka Cola is there to be sold. So why would Coke want a stop to this war? So now we have one corporation, who's product is innocent enough, but whos intent is to make profit, control our government and ultimate sacrifice the lives of our military in order to get their product more easily distributed. We pay the price with our money and lives, and Coke gets all of the power and profit.

So either stop buying Coke (and get everyone else to as well), or vote in a party that doesn't support this behaviour; i.e., a party that advocates the government staying out of business and the economy. If you read the Libertarian manifesto, you will see that they do not support businesses buying politicians, but in fact support a free market in which the government cannot step, meaning that Coke can't petition the government for help, or tax breaks, or anything.

[HeyItsZeus]

VOID... libertarianism is fine in certain situations. Not now, though. I say this based on studies that clearly show that large corporations are fucking up the government. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND! Yes I used caps! The truth is obvious .

And now refute this please: Corporations are screwing up our democratic governments, not the other way around.

My last post just supported your argument. Economic libertarianism is destroying our country and our freedom and our lives.

The thing is VOID means no harm but he's supporting an ideology that is obviously screwing up our economy! We, as democratic people, must vote for people who do not lobby (or make lobbying easier than it already is)!

---

Adrian too as I can see.

---

Let me clarify this: I don't mean to say the libertarian ideology supports corporations corrupting our government. I'm saying that libertarianism makes it 100x easier to do because your giving people with a lot of cash a lot of wiggle room to do as they please. That doesn't sit right with me!

[reverendjeremiah]

My numbers were hypothetical. I never claimed they were accurate of any real company; I was using them to make the point about how consumers ultimately set the price of products. Companies could easily set their prices at unaffordable levels, but in doing so completely reduce their consumer base.

Relax man. I am not being mean about it. :-) smile for me. That is the problem with text conversations. It is so easy to mistake them for being rude, or talking negatively, when they are actually merely stating a fact. Your numbers were off big time, I wasnt sure if you were being hypothetical, and then you complained about my imaginative writings which inforced my unsurity (is that a word? "unsurity"?). I merely pointed out you screwed up on your numbers in light of this. It wasnt a stab in the back. It was a poke in the ribs.I make the same mistakes. Everyone does. This is a friendly chat, and if you feel that it is not friendly, then let me know, and I will back down from the discussion. This is YOUR forum, you are the Emperor. I bow to that and respect that. Just please dont ban me for us getting into a heated argument. Please let us agree to disagree and lets hash out the numbers.

Clarify something for me. You said that the overhead on soda was $0.05, and you made a 95% profit on it. In other words, you bought the cola syrup from the Coca Cola company for $0.05 a pop, and sold it for $0.99. So how exactly is Coca Cola the company doing the "overcharging" here? Surely it is your restaurant that is putting the price up to $0.99, and therefore making the larger profit? I don't see any problem in it either way; if people are perfectly willing to pay $0.99 for a large soda, there isn't any reason not to sell it to them for $0.99. It's not overcharging; it's good business.

Because their overhead is the same on everything EXCEPT syrup bags. The vast majority of the syrup is water and easily obtainable ingredients, so their profit/overhead margin is low, but not that low when it comes to the syrup bags. The sell by syrup bags by bulk, but the majority of their profits come from the canned drinks. That is why fountain drinks taste so much more watered down compared to canned drinks, because the restaurants water the soda down even more to get their profit from it. The more the soda tastes watered down, the more the restaurant is fucking you. Coke does not screw over restaurant chains as much as they do the individual consumer. They want rest (restaurants) to make a profit off of their product so it is guarenteed future predicted profits. They sell bulk to rest chains and give them a discount for product placement and logo placement. When you get screwed is when you buy cans or boss bottles or any other way than the special contracts they give to rest's. They are pulling the same profit vs. overhead as restaurants in this situation. I know the system, and I ran the numbers every night. One can easily look up the ingredients of Coke online and see that the majority of their product is water. One can taste their product and come to the same conclusion.

So, in reflection, rest's make Coke a decent profit. If I were to guess, it might be somewhere comparable to your original soft drink numbers. They are probably hitting 55% +/- 15% profit vs. overhead.. you can get a LOT of large drinks out of one bag of syrup. Im talking upper 3 digits. Individual sales (cans) make Coke upper or mid 90's percentage range profit vs. overhead EASILY. If they arent getting it then they are fucking up BIGTIME seeing as they are the ones who teach the rest's how to make 90%+ profit on their syrup bags.*

*Note - My numbers are based on what I was taught during the early and mid 90's. The percentages might have changed, but I doubt that. Cokes biggest and cheapest asset for logo placement, in my opinion, is rest's.

It is a complete strawman, and for the following reason:

Libertarians believe in a completely free market; i.e. one in which the government does not control the market through regulation, but rather through policing (as theVOID has explained multiple times).

In a Libertarian system, Coca Cola could donate to a particular party, but it would be unconstitutional for any government party to give benefits or other economic relief to them. You really need to actually stop and go and read about Libertarianism before you continue this conversation. No true Libertarian (by the definition of Libertarianism) would allow a company to influence government policy on the economy, just as no true Secularist would allow a religious group to influence government policy on anything.

Okay. I have tried to make it a point that I am not arguing against SOCIAL LIBERTARIANISM per se, but that I am arguing against ECONOMIC LIBERTARIANISM specifically. Lets look at the libertarian platform:

2.0 Economic Liberty
Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic
success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each
person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of
government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a
legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute
wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

I dont see ANYWHERE in this statement that stops companies from using their money to control government to enhance profits. I personally think you should be complaining to the lib party about their platform instead of bolding "strawman!!11!!11eleventyone!!" to me. The libertarian platform supports companies having the right to pay off politicians. Honestly, they say more about what the government CANT do as opposed to what companies CANT do. This is a recurring theme in the lib platform. Now, you can claim that you dont see that, but I can claim I do not see anything OPPOSING that as well. Platforms are supposed to be all encompasing of the ideology with as few, direct, descriptive words as possible. If they were opposed to corporations using their profits to influence politics, they would have SPECIFICALLY stated it in some manner. Also "and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected." does not address the issue at hand. In fact a lawyer could easily argue that the voluntary trade clause PROTECTS the corporation's volutary trade with "the government" to ensure its future prosperity and interests, because there is no specific clause banning such voluntary trade between govt and corporation. They are not redistributing wealth, they are not controling or managing trade (they are securing contracts instead, which are protected by the govt), so therefore paying off politicians are "proper" in a free society. I dont know how much further I have to go to avoid being accused of a strawman?

No they don't. I don't know how I can make that any clearer. If Libertarians really are FOR businesses interfering in politics (beyond simply donating to political parties or supporting specific acts of government) then I'm not a Libertarian; I'm something else. However, I have never come across a single actual Libertarian (by the definition) who supports corruption, mainly because it would be like finding a vegetarian who eats beefburgers every night. Your assertion that all Libertarians support corruption is absurd.

You might not be a libertarian. You might be more modern liberal than classical liberal. Of course the libertarians in power are not going to call it corruption. They (libertarians in power) are going to say anything BUT corruption. As I have pointed out, there is nothing, NOTHING in the lib platform that SPECIFICALLY stops corporations, or monopolies.

2.6 Monopolies and Corporations
We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets.

So monopolies are a-okay. Yes, libertarians oppose "government subsidies". This is government doing things like paying corn growers not to grow corn, or subsidising (sp, fuck it) farms to keep them afloat. It says NOTHING about buying politicians to GUARENTEE CONTRACTS, and no bid contracts.

(Bolding mine for emphasis at how absurd your statement was.)

You keep denying that you are using strawmen, and yet I can easily show this to be a blatant lie. I'm not sure what your game is here; whether you just want to get theVOID and I riled up, but it's not going to work. We know what our political positions are; we know what we support. You can't convince us that white = black.

I should have been very specific about my statement being the RICH AND POWERFUL libertarian types. I have made statements that Libertarians can follow thier system until they get extremely rich and powerful. Then they are playing on the world market, outside of American jurisdiction, in which case they can easily dump their social views in favor of the economic libertarianism. In this view it is not a strawman. I am not trying to get you and void riled up. Last I checked we are having a discussion about modern "classical liberalism", and that Void started it, and you jumped in about 4 pages after me and Void have made SEVERAL posts discussing this topic. Dude, I respect YOU. Honestly, I am no troll, and I think my devotion to this forum has shown that I am not a troll, nor am I trying to say that you are accusing me of trolling. I love atheist forums. In fact I am willing to do work on its xhtml/css validation errors for free. (http://atheistforums.org/thread-6364-page-5.html)

So either stop buying Coke (and get everyone else to as well), or vote in a party that doesn't support this behaviour; i.e., a party that advocates the government staying out of business and the economy. If you read the Libertarian manifesto, you will see that they do not support businesses buying politicians, but in fact support a free market in which the government cannot step, meaning that Coke can't petition the government for help, or tax breaks, or anything.

I try not to spend any money on Coke, but I am also not an extremist. This means I will partake on occasions, with a conscious apprehension to spending on them. the problem is, MANY, if not ALL, American companies do what Coke does. So how do I really have a choice NOT to give them power? There is no such thing as a free market in light of this. Innocent products may more than likely have nefarious corporations tied to them.
Could you please show me where the Libertarian manifesto speaks out against business' buying politicians? Because I dont see that in their platform.
I will be honest that many of the global companies, such as coke, go against this:

3.3 International Affairs
American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should
emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding
foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention,
including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and
defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of
terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by
political or revolutionary groups.

But, as I have said before, economic policies eclipse social policies. When it comes to personal profit, I can see where the libertarian will quickly (like glenn beck) dump their social libertarian views once they get into the upper levels of economic class.

[Dotard]

American workers have a decent quality of life,

You only demonstrated you are not an American worker. I am and this 'quality' you speak of is lacking.

You're a naive non-american if you really think wages are determined by the workers. Wages are as the song goes; "I'm taking what they're givin' 'cause I'm working for a living." They are set and determined by some fat-man sitting behind a desk. I know your 'Adrianish' response, 'If you ain't happy with what is being paid, don't work there'. Yeah, it's that easy, you can starve and sleep in the gutters until you get one that will pay you a living wage.

The average american WORKER lives paycheck to paycheck and is only one missed payday from disaster. Miss a payday, lose your home and you're out on the street.

If it wasn't for the government stepping in and setting a minimum wage allowed by law then these fat-asses behind desks would still be paying $2 an hour and saying "Fuck you, you don't like it, leave."

[reverendjeremiah]

American workers have a decent quality of life,

You only demonstrated you are not an American worker. I am and this 'quality' you speak of is lacking.

You're a naive non-american if you really think wages are determined by the workers. Wages are as the song goes; "I'm taking what they're givin' 'cause I'm working for a living." They are set and determined by some fat-man sitting behind a desk. I know your 'Adrianish' response, 'If you ain't happy with what is being paid, don't work there'. Yeah, it's that easy, you can starve and sleep in the gutters until you get one that will pay you a living wage.

The average american WORKER lives paycheck to paycheck and is only one missed payday from disaster. Miss a payday, lose your home and you're out on the street.

If it wasn't for the government stepping in and setting a minimum wage allowed by law then these fat-asses behind desks would still be paying $2 an hour and saying "Fuck you, you don't like it, leave."

So I take it that you are somewhat on the left side of the political scale? Me? I am center left (progressive, moderate left leaning..so many tags...) but I dont agree with every single thing every progressives say. For example, I am against "progressives" who want to take our second amendment. Honestly though, I dont see hardly any American Progressives (What I would call Teddy Roosevelt, or Bull moose progressives, such as myself) wanting to fuck with the 2nd amendment as I see "leftists" (general word for socialists and communists) and modern liberals (basically "liberal" in general. They want all this freaking paper work tied to it, and registrations and shit)

I have seen communists going to American Progressive forums trying to say "Yeah, Im an american progressive". I ask them "So what do you think of Teddy Roosevelt?" One actually said "He was an imperialist scum, I hate him and his guns!"... well, its pretty obvious that SOMEONE is communist in the forum, posing as an AP.

[Dotard]

I do not label myself as anything political. There are things the repubs do/want that I can agree with. There are things the Dems do/want I agree with. I agree with the socialist on many things, I agree with the capitalist on many things.

I will not pick a side. Everything is issue by issue.

[Violet]

---

Me sleepy, and chelaxed and no want to argue... but i'll do it anyway.

Because it's not a zero sum game! This is the biggest false flag in any argument for collectivism, that all wealth comes from a fixed source of existent value and if anyone has more than someone else they must have done something untoward to get it - It's completely FALSE.

What in the name of Susan are you on about? 0.o If I give a money to a man poorer than I, then he has gained money and I lost money. If a man is poor and I am rich, that man is poor in part because I am rich (read: I have not given him money). I don't attempt to insinuate that wealth is coming from anywhere, i note simply that my riches are at the poor's expense. That is to say that part of the reason they are poor is infact me.

Please remember my stance on blame (that it is shared (not necessarily equally) between all of the causes).

Wealth can be created from both thin air and lesser wealth, I created wealth from thin air yesterday, I designed a new UI and jQuery Library, I can sell that and make money. Does that mean I have stolen money from poor people elsewhere? Fuck no it does not. I created wealth - I did not TAKE it from someone who has less than me.

I presume you made this <insert technical nonsense> without the use of an already designed system in which it might be made (read: out of thin air)? I'm going to go right ahead and say you're some sort of god, if indeed this is true ^_^

But more seriously... wealth is not created out of nothing (ever). Wealth is a judgement of value, such as how I should say the apple farmer grows himself a wealth of apples. If indeed you are *selling* whatever you just made, it follows that someone is *buying* it. Means that money is going from one person to another person. You are necessarily taking money from someone else if you are gaining money with this thing you created.

And is this stealing? It usually is. Depends on how you price it, what it is, and who you intend to sell it to. Priced at 500% what it cost to obtain, water, poor people? Stealing. 130%, niche item, rich people? Not stealing. Theft isn't simply the action of taking from someone, it is how it is done. The former example is coercion: they must drink to live, so you steal from those who value their life more than their hate for your prices. The latter is an agreement to the benefit of both parties, over an item that is far from needed, towards people who genuinely decide to buy it because they want to.

So yes, presuming that you follow the marketing practices you seem to follow (free market is no light term): you are almost certainly stealing from someone. Granted, your item is probably incredibly niche... but I highly doubt you would price it fairly, and more highly doubt you would specifically target rich people with what is probably a price well beyond its worth to most. If this item is particularly useful to a poor person, I should certainly think you are stealing from them should they buy it.

No, they sell their stuff to people at prices that they agree to pay. If you were worse off by buying my products then you wouldn't do it!

If they had these things in the first place, they wouldn't need to feed your greed.

Free? Fuck that. You don't get my stuff for free just because you want it! Suppose I make bread, do you get that for FREE? MY productivity and financial risks, management and marketing, MY wealth, you don't get a scrap of it unless I agree to trade it with you for a price you agree to pay for it.

Depends, am I starving? If so, i should think yes. I would never deprive a man of a loaf of bread when I can see the hunger in him. Hell... i'd give him five loaves at the very least. Give. It's worth more to me to see a man fed than it is to have

I read all of that as the seagulls in this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4BNbHBcn...re=related

Yes, void... free. Your priorities are as out of whack as every self-centered asshole that doesn't care about anyone else. I sometimes wonder if you are one of these people. I'll go a meal to give a hungrier person my food. I do it plenty often. I give my money to those who don't have the money to buy food. And I neither expect nor wish to be paid back. If this makes me a collectivist: i'll be a collectivist every day.

Having a job isn't beneficial. I'll dare to defend a rational position any day. Slavery is slavery whether it is hidden as 'wage' slavery or not.

Oh what nonsense. Why don't we just call hunger "Hunger slavery" because after all you are forced to do things to satisfy your hunger. What a slave you are! Why can't all our food just come without effort so we can stop being hunger slaves?

We are infact slaves to our hunger. By definition, it rules us. We can revolt for a while, but it always ends up the same: if we don't obey it eventually, it will kill us... and revolting against it is very likely to harm us.

And yes: I wish much of our food did come without effort, as nobody deserves to go hungry, especially for long periods of time. Much of my food comes without effort (a benefit of being 'rich')... many of the poor people I know have to make great effort to purchase food to not be hungry. I can buy myself out a full cart of food items without a care in the world, if I so wanted.

You need to eat, you want to buy nice things, you need to trade your productivity (time and skills) for those of someone else, what a slave! Yeah having a job, a means by which to sell your productivity, to trade it for the things that other people produce with their productivity, so you can eat and have things you desire, is such a slave fest!

Forced to eat so as not to die: hunger slave. This doesn't matter so much though, since we are all slaves to 'reality'... but not all of us are slaves to other people.

Nobody forces you to buy nice things, you are not a slave because you do not have nice things.

Those that must trade their time/skills so as not to die: wage slave.

It is infact a slave fest, and in many countries: poor people cannot afford random things that they want. The poor people I know maintain their houses off of one or two paychecks (if they are renting or on a mortgage), and those who have houses can't find a job that pays enough for them to get ahead. And if people rebel against this system, they 'get the lashes' as surely as any slave of the pre-civil war american south.

You think poor people choose to trade their services for these things? Haha... they are choosing to not starve, to not thirst, to not die. I suffer not the illusion that the poor sod that I just hired came to the job looking to work for me, nor work for him. I see it clearly in that he is here so he can eat, so he can drink, so he can live. No doubt you'll tell me again that slavery is not slavery. No doubt I'll again respond to it that yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. I hate 'debating' this sort of thing.

Allowed? Pffft, you 'agree' to work for a wage, you don't have to work for this person at this place, you don't have to work at all if you don't want to, but you're a hunger slave who needs to eat and a desire slave who needs to get her WoW fix, are you a Blizzard slave too?

Yes, allowed. You do have to work for this person at this place if you wish to eat a week from now. You do have to work if you intend to survive. You are a slave to hunger that must eat.

We are not desire slaves unless it rules over us. That is to say that I think few of us are infact desire slaves. Maybe you are, I certainly am not. I sure am lazy though If you must get a WoW fix to survive... yes, you absolutely are a Blizzard slave, and yes, I absolutely pity you.

No, they did not TAKE it, you agreed to trade for it. Nobody is forcing you to do so. Before industry you were forced to get up early and trudge around herding animals, miking cows, chopping wood, preparing food *Just so you could survive*. What a bunch of labor slaves our ancestors were!

Because agreeing under threat of death means they want this? Funny guy. Nobody is forcing you to do so? How about the people that sell the water, food, houses, etc? I suppose that you know some impressive way in which the poor might live without these things? It's colder than you can survive in out here... you'd have to be some sort of god.

Milking cows/herding is a form of industry, but that's a tangent away from the point. The difference here, is that these ancestors were slaves to the necessities of survival itself. The wage slaves in america are the slaves of other people. A very important difference, I should think.

I'm beginning to think Void is a god. It would certainly explain how little he understands poor people.

So they should have studied something else rather than what they wanted to do. Say you want to be a Musician but there is more supply than demand and your chances of finding work are slim? Tough shit.

Where you say tough shit, I say socialistic system that provides those neccessities so that you can better both your country and yourself and those greedy capitalistic. Unlike you, I have a heart

And before industry you would absolutely die if you didn't hunt or raise animals! You could starve for days on end because you couldn't find a kill - Fucking hunger slaves, right?

Poor sods, is what I say. Thank goodness we are so much richer technologically. What a pitiful life we would lead otherwise.

Soup Kitchens are an example of Civil Society, they are funded through private altruism. Most people have an altruistic side, rich or not, they give money to charity because they care about people. I have no problem promoting that attitude, I will campaign for altruism any day, I give some of the fuck all money I have to Oxfam, when I have more money I'll undoubtedly give more - What I will NOT do is force people to give money by threat of imprisonment. If someone doesn't care I have no right to take from them because I do - It's a complete imposition of values - completely contrary to Individualism.

What i would do is have the overseeing body manage the likes of soup kitchens. If some rich person gives half a damn about the poor, I can think of many more applicable ways than a simple soup kitchen. Not to suggest that a soup kitchen is a poor idea of course... but I am not ignorant of the reasons they are needed in the first place

It's not slavery, it's work. Oh, you don't want to have a job and you suffer for it? What the fuck did you expect? Nobody is forcing you to work, and using the word "slavery" does nothing but demean what real slaves went through, forced to work without consent or reward, being beaten when they were not, no choices, no freedoms - NONE of that applies to a job.

I work for plenty of people. The work I do isn't slavery. I am not forced to work, and yet I do. That's a personal choice, agreed upon trade and all that nonsense.

The poor are slaves. And it is work. And unlike me, they don't get to take breaks. They have a job, and suffer for having that job, and would suffer more without it. You're absolutely right: nobody is forcing me to work. But the poor is being forced ti work.

I absolutely mock your understanding of what slaves are. You think that the blacks of the american south had it the worst? What of the sorry sods of Stalin's regime? The chinese? A poor acquaintance of mine that has been a paycheck away from losing her house for the last year as she works two jobs? You tell me that I'm demeaning the work of slaves by noting more of them in a wider capacity? Haha. Know this: rights are an illusion, beating is a punishment (stalin: death, america: "jail", acquaintance: loss of shelter), forcing someone to work is done by holding a severe punishment over someone's head, pre-american-civil-war slaves were rewarded for free room and board so long as they kept working, choice is an illusion.

All of that applies to the poor in america. You suggest I demean slavery? I say you demean slaves.

Willing to trade? Hahaha!

How about instead 'desperately accept to keep their family off the streets' or 'immediately take up before it's gone'? They are slaves to a system, what can you expect them to do when someone "offers" a job? It's not unlike throwing a starving dog a chicken nugget. The lion's share is held by the master of his castle, and all of his dogs are kept alive only because the master wants a gourmet party daily amongst his peers.

Oh fuck off, your job gives you food and shelter and toys for the children and luxury items and a car etc, if they're really struggling then contact a charity for aid, there are plenty of people willing to voluntarily give some of their wealth to help those in need.

Oh, believe me... I would love to not see you respond to this. My job gives me those things, yes. Many people's jobs do not. I can only smile at your suggestion of charities as you might one day get it.

How is paying you enough to have a relatively decent life "throwing you a chicken nugget". Are you paid in soup and bread or do you get to buy shit you want? Don't get as much money as you like? Well sorry, but your skills just aren't in that much demand. Make yourself in more demand and people will pay you more.

A relatively decent life? Compared to soviet russia? And yes, the poor are paid in a chicken nugget while the rich are paid in dozens of chickens. Plenty of poor people might as well be paid in soup and bread for what they can afford to spend their money on.

I really just have to side at your arrogance. /sigh...

So what if the person who runs the company makes more? They generally work longer hours, have all the high demand skills, take all the risks, own the vast majority of the liabilities and own the property being traded - They should get paid more. The lions share though? You're deluded, the profit margin for a major supermarket is about 4%, that's not the lions share, you might make a good income relative to a single shelve stocker but so what? It's not unfair, it's not theft, it's not exploitation and it's not slavery - It's the reality of some people and skills being in more demand that others, I couldn't care less if you don't like that.

I am hardly deluded. 4 cheeseburgers at McDonalds are worth as much as one of those workers make in an hour, and the line is streaming through there all the hours that it is open. The wages of the workers and the wage of the manager absolutely do not compare (not even close).

A supermarket isn't set up the same way a lot of business are... but 4% of the revenue goes to a single person in it? 0.o That is HUGE considering what his workers are being paid (.0## if not .00###). Compared to the other workers, that is the lions share. I cannot defend that much of a return for a single person running a supermarket, cut them and raise the others. Sure, they get to deal with liabilities and nonsense, but that is far beyond what they need to be paid.

It absolutely is unfair, it can be theft, it is exploitation, it often is slavery. It is the reality that people are bags of flesh that can be replaced almost instantly, and don't need to be paid beyond keeping them alive... and these people would be paid far less were there no minimum wage.

The crime that is done by this 'rich people hiring poor people' scheme is that the rich are robbing the poor blind and keeping them a shadow of life that to retain they *must* turn to the rich thieves. This entire system is based on fucking greed, how the hell can it get *less* moral? The detriment to the poor is phenomenal, across the entire board. p

Robbing? Bullshit. Come to work and I'll give you $ = robbery? Not at all. Life is tough, some people are worth less than others. Get used to it. Yeah people NEED jobs, because we NEED to eat. If you want to call anything 'slavery' it is our being slaves to our needs and desires, but like I said, calling it slavery does nothing but belittle what actual slaves went through.

Robbing? Quite cleanly. Come to work and I'll give a way to not starve and if you leave me I'll just grab another poor sod and do the same with them. More simply, they are robbing a third of a person's life if the person works the job for 8 hours. That they are being stolen from in other ways isn't always true, however it is often so.

I agree that life is tough and some rare gems are worth more than most. I disagree that I should get used to it, especially when humanity is supposed to be going forward. People do not need jobs, people need food. Slavery is to anything that rules you, but the slavery I care about here is that another person rules someone.

'Actual slaves'? Oh such ignorance... are you sure you didn't write this nonsense while drunk?

Cogs in a machine is a collective analogy, what I am proposing is individualism, looking at individuals like they don't matter, like they're part of a collective with it's own goals, doesn't work.

Individualism is turning a populace into a collective body? Fascinating. Totally didn't see that one coming. Oh wait... i did.

What does replaceable have to do with it? Some skills are in more demand than others, people are willing to trade more for those skills, the better the price you offer for your skills the higher the chance of a successful trade.

Replaceable means you are quite similar in identity to the point that you are hardly missed. Meaning that it costs next to nothing to boot you the moment you don't perform as the employer wishes.

*STRAWMAN ALERT*

I already knew you were going to put forth a strawman... that was really unnecessary. I mean... why read the next bit if I already know it's going to be a strawman? Total downer. Maybe I shouldn't read it, but then you'd be all disapointed. Very well, let's read the strawman

No government is NOT what I advocate. I am for policing and much tougher sentences for people who use force fraud, coercion or negligence. What is to stop people from turning the masses into full time serfs? The fact that they aren't allowed to force anyone to do anything they don't want or neglect their responsibilities as agreed in the terms of the trade (employment contract) and if they try either the government and the police can fine or arrest them!

You don't advocate no government? Am I drunk? I don't drink, so I can't be drunk. But what if I am drunk? I might be drunk. I had too much to drink. Water isn't always a good thing.

So.... you aren't for a free market at all. Why do you incessantly insist that you are, then? What you are saying is that I am entirely correct, and you agree. So that's what strawman means. I did not know that. Maybe I'll read strawmen more often.

And yes, they are allowed to force people to do things. Just not 'visibly'. It can't be immediately seen for what it is if they wish to avoid fines/jail/armed rebellion/good stuff.

But yeah... it's good to see that you don't advocate no government. I really don't get your strawman assertion when you agree with what happens with no government. Try not to have the arrogance to think that everything I write is directly addressed at you, that paragraph was addressed at the irreverent position that seems to plague some real life 'libertarians' I know. And also fr0d0.

This is the straw man you inevitably resort to, completely ignoring the most crucial point that I have espoused time and time again - Individual freedoms - Someone killing you is violating your right to life, if someone is found guilty of it then lock hem up, someone violating a contract is violating the agreement that two people have willingly come to - Those things are ILLEGAL.

Individual freedoms? Someone being seen is violating my right to see the world without them in it. Oh, I'm sorry.... you meant individual restrictions. Of course, now I understand.

Why in the name of Susan (my left ankle) do you use the word 'freedoms' to express restrictions? What a strange person you can be

NOT SLAVES.

Slaves. You tell a lot. I wonder how many burgers you can fit into your mouth by now.

What stops the rich from creating or accumulating more wealth? As long as they don't use force, fraud, coercion or neglect their responsibilities then NOTHING, they can get as much money as they like. If they do any of those things then the government and police and get involved.

Funny then, seeing as force, fraud, coercion, and neglect for responsibilities so often describe the rich.

The puppet government and corrupt police?

Good, because taxing the rich double what they do now would get you barely a fraction of the way out of the years spending, taking EVERYTHING wouldn't do it.

Really? We are so far in debt that taking all that there is wouldn't pull us out of it? That's some serious debt right there.

Don't worry, I had a chat with boyfriend about just how impractical an idea it is to take all of the money from the rich, just earlier today. I no longer believe this is viable. If it were though, I would still advocate it.

What gives you the right to take a business and dissolve it? That's authoritarian BS. Should we promote the idea to be charitable and give people good wages? Yes. The tools of the intellectual is persuasion and argument, convince people to take up your position, NOT to use group thuggery to impose your values on others and threaten them with imprisonment if they don't.

What gives me the right? Absolutely nothing. The government with the largest army in the world? What doesn't give them the right?

Authoritarian BS? You surely mean authoritarian effectiveness.

I promote charity. I don't support wages while food, water, etc isn't free at a reasonable allotment.

A tool of an intellectual is persuasion and argument. Another tool is to shoot people. Don't presume the one who uses a tool is intelligent or not unless it takes a great deal of intelligence to wield a tool (effectively...).

You're a thief, in other words. I see the resource I try and persuade the owner to trade it for a good price or give some of their wealth to those who need it, I don't storm in with my death squad and take it by force.

Guilty as charged, I have stolen under a variety of rather effective methods. Electronic piracy for one. I am also an honest woman that wishes to see those she has stolen from in the past repaid.

I haven't stormed in with a death squad yet, but it's certainly an idea for the future. Love the way your evil little mind works, Void

Sure, nobody needs most of what they have. Good reason to steal it? No.

Great reason to steal it if I don't have what I need, actually.

Poor reason for me of course.

Most of whom are so rich because they are propped up by taxpayers!

So they steal even more from the poor? How very fascinating.

There is plenty of a motivation to increase the power of the greater machine and to be rewarded for it by a reputation and a greater allowance. Only greedy self-centered people build things for other people solely for themselves. I would rather not have any of those people in a community than embrace their greed.

Well tough, Nazi Sae, you don't get to order society to match your values and kick them out when they think differently or are greedy, even when they are doing nothing to thwart the freedoms of others. We don't have to "embrace" their greed either, We can praise people for selflessness, condemn them for being selfish, reward them when they do good and punish them when they violate our freedoms, but beyond that it's all authoritarianism, imposing your values on others, just another police state rounding up those who think differently.

Nazi Sae has a nice ring to it. Unfortunately, I am not christian, and I don't wear the hat.

The greedy are always doing things to thwart the "freedoms" of others. How could they get ahead while everyone else can as well? Silly greedy people.

We do embrace their greed as a society. Many respect Bill Gates a lot, for instance. I do not.

What we can do and what we do are usually both on the selfish side of the spectrum.

I believe our leaders should be authoritarian within reason. A people does not need to be involved in an easy attack on another civilization. Infact, it gets in the way. Damn hippies. That I also see our entire system in need of a reboot and suggest a working solution as we patch the problem doesn't make me the thought police

I'm for promoting good lives for all people, I've been an employer in the past and I've paid well above market value, I give to charity, I promote altruism, but I will NOT use force to get my way or impose my values! The tools of the intellectual is persuasion, not force. And I have no right to impose my values on anyone else - That is why I support free markets and civil society, Individualism is the single most important aspect of my worldview.

Then you are surely a socialist.

And you do not support free market. You do support civil society.

Individualism sounds nuts to me

Good, now go encourage people to do the same.

If my actions don't on their own, then I see not how my words would change that.

A reward at the expense of others though, not out of charity but taken by force.

American prison is indeed.

I doubt that, considering your government took your money and dumped it into your banks.

Then we no longer have rich people, as the banks failed. Oh wait...

---

[theVOID]

We are talking about classical liberalism in the MODERN world right? I mean, right here, right now. Right? If not then many of my posts are void (pardon the pun) and nill.

There is no difference, Classical Liberalism is an ideology with fairly robust definitions, just like Progressivism, it means the same thing now as it did to begin with - As you know however, there are many who use the label who simply don't fall within or even near what was meant by the creation of the term - I am defending the position that I defined in the first post, not what some people somewhere at some time have said and done wile calling themselves "libertarians" or "classical liberals".

I will do you the curtsey of addressing your own positions of Progressivism as conceived of and will not attack supposed "progressives" like Obama or other people who use the term but do not fall within the boundaries - I of course expect the same from you.

Okay, you are really focusing on strawmen here. Lets try to clarify so I dont make strawmen, okay? Regardless, you say the libertarians are NOT the teabaggers. I disagree. They ARE the teabaggers.

Let me be VERY clear: "Libertarianism" as understood in America, is vastly different to how the word is understood both elsewhere and historically.

Only some people who identify as "libertarians" support or are similar to the tea party (and it's largely an American phenomenon, the party I support here - Libertarianz, DO NOT like the tea party) and not all members of the tea party consider themselves "libertarian" I think far more of them consider themselves "small government conservatives" being socially AND fiscally conservative.

You would not consider Trey Parker and Matt Stone as "teabaggers" but they are certainly (self-defined) Libertarians, nor would you consider Noam Chomsky to be a Teabagger, and He defines himself as a Libertarian too. I assure you the ideology of Classical Liberalism is NOT that espoused by the Tea Party (with very few exceptions), call them some form of "libertarian" if you like, I fail to see how it is possible to be authoritarian AND Libertarian as the word is defined, they are mutually exclusive terms, absolute antithesis of each other, but there are those who insist upon it - That is why I use the Label "Classical Liberal" - I see no point in using the banner "libertarian" (in conversations with Americans mostly) when it's so thoroughly tainted by both abusers (a good portion of the tea party) and those who attack them and decide somehow that they represent the Libertarian ideology. The word plainly means but a fraction of what it once did.

This is one excellent post that sums up the concerns:

http://quakerfox.blogspot.com/2008/01/cl...anism.html

Another thing to Illustrate my point, the "Tea Baggers" are around the same political geography as Sarah Palin, whom is a MILE away:

I agree that they arent following the social aspects of it, but that does not rule out that the ranks of the teabaggers are libertarians. You can toss that strawman claim up all you want, but show me one libertarian politican that ISNT rooting for the teabaggers.

The social aspect of it is quite seriously the single most important aspect of it, if you are non-interventionist in the markets and not socially you simply are not a libertarian as the word was conceived to mean and has been historically and internationally used.

Libertarians who aren't for the Tea Party? I already named 3. Here's the President of the Libertarian Party:

"Our fear is that Tea Partiers might say 'This time it will be different.' No it won't. If you vote for Republicans this time, it will just reinforce the message that they can lie to you and grow government with impunity."

"Anger toward the Tea Party is directed at Christian conservatives like Sarah Palin: unlike libertarians, who support gay marriage, abortion, and legalizing drugs and prostitution, Palin does not. Many libertarians say because Palin is not liberal on social issues they are fed up with the Tea Party, calling it a right-wing NeoCon Republican propaganda machine that lost its libertarian values."

""Libertarians have much in common with Tea Party goals of reducing government spending and taxes. While many Tea Party supporters will admit that George W. Bush's administration grew government, Libertarians want to remind Tea Partiers about previous Republican administrations that loved big government." (They already have)

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/li...a-partiers
http://firedoglake.com/2010/02/08/palin-...tea-party/

I can find you TONS more arguments between Libertarians and the tea party ideas or their rape of the word Libertarian.

Allow me to show you my proof:

*Video*

So he's for:

1. Removing central controls on education and putting power back to more local levels, using vouchers to subsidise education for the poor - I can generally agree with that, As I don't consider children to be fully responsible I do believe that local or national governments should provide education for at least those children from poor families who cannot afford it, I could go as far as full public education for reasons based on children not being responsible for themselves and not being able to fully trust the parents to take responsible care of their children's education, but I'm fine with this point.

2. Repeal Healthcare and stop government forcing people to manage their health in the way they think is best - I absolutely agree with this, again with the exception of Children, who should their parents be unable to pay, should get full coverage for free. I am also for some care for those who truly cannot afford it, though I would much rather use persuasion and the moral tools I have available to convince people to be more generous with public charity so the infringements on private property as the state takes it for welfare is reduced.

3. ??? I have no idea what the issue is or what the law is - No comment.

4. No welfare for illegal immigrants, punish corporations that intentionally hire illegal labor - Absolutely support that, I don't think that it is particularly moral for anyone to take the resources of another for their own ends, let alone the government taking it to give to people who aren't citizens.

5. Stop government manipulation of the free market, especially for their agenda sold as the "common good". Again, agree completely, government should stay the fuck out of the economy, supply and demand, interest rates etc and ONLY police it.

6. stop trying to create jobs through tax manipulation and subsidies You already know my position on this one.

Now, say what you want about the politician,

I like what I've seen so far.

but listen to the teapartiers response to his proposals. They love him. The tea party applauds everything he says. If the teaparty is NOT libertarian backed, as you try to say, then WHY are they applauding all of the libertarian things he is saying? I guess this is where you say he isnt a libertarian. I expect you to brush over this.

You mean they support the small government economic portion of libertarianism? No shit That's a well established commonality, the tea party voters seem sincerely for small government and truly free markets, unlike some of their politicians *cough* Bachman *cough*

Now, if he'd said "No religion in government" or "women can chose to get an abortion" do you think they would have been applauding? What about "Smoke yourself silly, it's not my right to tell you otherwise"? or "have as much gay sex and marriage as you like"? That is where he would have lost a great deal of their support, and those things are all CORE to the Classical Liberal ideology.

So yeah, Tea Party and Libertarian ideologies overlap often on economic issues, does that make them Libertarians? Fuck no it doesn't, they overlap with the GOP on social issues, does that make the tea party big government republicans? Fuck no, they're some breed of socially and fiscally conservative authoritarians, at least the people in the tea party movement, their handlers seem to me more like fat cat corporatists.

Then we have the libertarians setting up corporations, where profit is "the common good".

You do know what the "common good" is, right? Profits are good only for those who profit. The common good is more like "we can take half your profits to buy everyone cars because we believe it is in the common good". Profits are fine so long as they are not obtained by force or fraud. Nothing what-so-ever to do with the "common good". Profits that do not impose on the individual freedoms of others are absolutely fine, the common good is an idea that necessarily carries such an imposition.

No person is morally obligated to care about others, let alone obligated to part with their private property because some collective thug machinery tells them that they'll go to prison if they don't. We should use our moral tools of praise, condemnation and reward to promote the ideals that we espouse, such as providing food and shelter for poor people, but to do it via force is not something we have the right to do.

Go ahead, and say it isnt. Say that corporations dont have a collective where profit is the common good. What happens if you are a chemical corporation who makes huge profits from a chemical that breaks down tree pulp for paper and someone says "Hey, marijuanna is cheaper, stronger, and doesnt need as many expensive chemicals to make into paper!"? Well, these libertarians deicde to get congress to make marijuanna illegal.

Is "libertarian" just your pet word for "bad men" like Min uses "rich cocksuckers" for all of his short comings? It certainly seems like it, though that isn't nearly as dumbfounding as how starkly your use of the word is in contrast to what it means.

Statists/Corporatists were the ones who got Marijuana outlawed, for the "common good", to extenuate their/their buddies profits and to impose their social values on everyone else, this is one of the examples of the absolutely horrific damage that is done to 1. Consumers, 2. Individuals and 3. Societies by "Private-public partnerships" - This sort of action is entirely contradictory to the values in Classical Liberalism.

Go ahead, say that they are no longer libertarians.

No longer? When were they ever?

Its okay, I agree. They have now become corporatists. They argued libertarianism to get them where they are at, and now that they have the power they no longer are libertarian. Its all about being selfish. Once a libertarian has the power he wants he ceases being a libertarian and then becomes an authoritarian, just like the libertarian Glenn Beck. Now that he has mad money he becomes "conservative" all of a sudden.

Are you finished with your generalizations and assertions? You want to look at the corporatist of the last century? How many of them ever identified as "libertarians" or Classical Liberals? I think you'll find that in your country they were mostly all associated with the GOP and Dems, Here they were all associated with the formerly socialist Labor party and the big business arm of the National Party.

Classical liberals want to put in place measures to prevent the government from interfering with the economy or imposing their values on others by completely revoking their powers to do so - If you doubt that a greedy government will have to go through far more hurdles and efforts, in front of the opposition, the media and the public to get their rich buddies tax deals and subsidies under this system you are plainly deluded. A government with no power over the market or the freedoms of individuals has to pass entire political axioms through government to do so, in your system it's just another piece of legislation snuck into the existing framework of expected and even supported government control and BAM big corporations have cushy subsidies and government guaranteed loans.

It is MUCH easier for legislation favoring corporations to take place in your system and in the one that exists now.

Yup, that is exactly what they say until they get corporate power, then they keep saying it, but dont act it.

And to change it they have to pass axiomatic legislation! To impose on others in your system and the one that exists at present it's but one folder in the pile!

Churches can be incorporated. They act to preserve their profit flow. Are you trying to tell me that a libertarian would allow his profit margin to sink in the name of OTHER individuals rights? Honestly?

Yeah, because to impose on the rights of others gets you arrested, do you think some "Libertarian" is going to want to lose his company because he couldn't respect individual rights? Honestly?

You think greedy people are all Libertarians? No fucking way, not even the majority, the greedy people don't want barriers to power erected and that is exactly what Libertarianism espouses, remove all power for the government to legislate commerce, that's precisely what they don't want - As I recall you agree to where convenient.

If a libertarian is making money off of religion, then he is going to try and get as much power to him as possible.

You single out Libertarians? Is this some pathetic debate tactic? What about the Neo cons making money on religion, which I can assure you is a FAR bigger slice of the pie, there are more Democrats making money on religion than Classical Liberals. Classical Liberalism has a strong tradition of being non-religious, many many deists, atheists and non-religious theists - The vast majority of Libertarianz is atheistic. You can thank the Classical Liberals for church-state separation.

Money = social power.

Sure, how is that DIFFERENT in any other system? In Capitalism greedy people seek wealth, in communism they seek high profile government positions. We can't get rid of greed through legislation, if you think that's the case you're bonkers, there won't be less greed under a progressive system, there will however be far more power at state. All acts in capitalism are voluntary, so at best a greedy person has to persuade other people to buy products to remain within the law, in a bigger government system they just go for politics/politicians, you think a greedy person with money is bad? Well a greedy person with POWER over your rights and finances is a fucking million times worse!

Because when they mean "the individual", they mean "me", not "you". The libertarian will be libertarian for himself, but not for others.

Bull.fucking.shit.

Classical Liberals are just as quick to espouse treating people fairly, altruism, justice, equality and freedom as ANYBODY else, more so for the latter than anybody else, they just DO NOT advocate using force and threat of imprisonment to take resources from people in enforcing their ideals. The tool of the intellectual is persuasion, we advocate using our moral tools to convince others to give and be generous, to promote private altruism.

Am I for good lives for the poor, education and healthcare for needy children, rehabilitation for drug users, contraception etc? Absolutely. Am I for using a police force, collective thuggery, to achieve these ends? NO FUCKING WAY. I have absolutely no right to take from others to promote those things that I value. The collective has absolutely no right to take from individuals to promote what they value.

A libertarians social beliefs are eclipse by his economic beliefs.

No, just the "scary bad man" that you persist on falsely calling a "libertarian" as if it's your pet whipping boy, to those of us who are Classical Liberals there is no boundary between the two, Rights come first and economic and social activity operates strictly without breaching them - Almost all Classical Liberals (and I say almost to avoid the crass and intellectually bankrupt generalizations that you insist on using) advocate much tougher sentences for imposing on others.

I have to hand it to you, either you absolutely lack understanding of what Classical Liberalism is about or you use these pathetic "arguments" to score points, either way you do it to an epic extent.

If that isnt true, then ask a Libertarian if monopolies are supported by libertarians. They will say "yes". Look at how you brush a monopoly off Void. That speaks VOLUMES about your lack of economic morals. A person who takes a monopoly lightly should not be trusted on what they say about society, for it is all subject to change via the economic circumstances. If slavery becomes greatly profitable, the libertarian will consider it. Ask our libertarian (Classic liberal) founding fathers in America.

I don't "support" monopolies, I simply believe I have absolutely no rights to tell someone else what they must charge for their own products! Just because we do not like the price of a product produced by a monopoly is NO REASON to threaten them with spending years locked in a 6x8 cell unless they do what we want. You want to talk about economic morals? how about you look at your own brand of Authoritarianism-where-convenient.

It's plainly hypocritical, you speak out against authoritarianism where it suits your biases but are all for it when it is in your own interests and enforces your own values. I may not benefit from all of my Classical Liberal ideologies, not is that the purpose of holding them, and I do not uphold them because they are necessarily good for me, I uphold them because they are just, fair and strict on rights, they place all individuals as sole owners of their own properties and hold steadfast against ANY violation of such rights, whether or not they are in my own interests.

Monopolies are NOT a major concern, even from a price perspective.

1. Monopolies must not use force or fraud to maintain their monopolistic status, they are shut down/imprisoned for doing such.

2. By keeping prices too high they create enormous opportunities for competition.

And as for this "slave" issue, I have rarely seen such despicable tactics in any discussion anywhere, even including the extremist and fundamentalist Christians and their "Stalin" card, I have made it as clear as I possibly can that individual freedoms are THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE and ANYTHING that violates that I am completely opposed to. I might as well find some case of a progressive somewhere raping a child and saying that "Well that's what you get when you can violate individual freedoms for your own ends" though I shudder at the thought of sinking to your level right now.

How did evolution get tossed into an ideology that started before the birth of Darwin?

It was an example used to highlight a similar principle, that of self-organization from the players involved and NOT central planning.

By the time Darwins theory started to get well spread the shift between classic and modern liberals was forming.

Big fucking deal. I applaud you on the red hearing though.

And who do you think you are fooling with this bottom up organization? So the libertarian companies ask their people "what price would you like for this Pepsi?" They say "free" The top of the organization says "no way". Well, I guess that settles it, the top of the organization had their say. It is now $1.00 a bottle, unless you are in a theme park, in which it becomes $5.00 a bottle. And the libs keep saying that "No need for government to control business..you little people are in control..no...really! Scouts honor!"

Are you shitting me? *Holds up Straw man filter*

Self organization means that it is organized by the factors in the market, the consensual trades between the players, the companies set their prices to the highest price they can get while keeping the most customers, the customers chose what to spend their money on, resources are allocated where there is the most demand etc.

People don't decide what they want to pay individually, or what they'd prefer to pay, prices are set at the rate that most people are willing to pay, as in "How much can we charge for this relative to the number of customers we can retain?". The only one of us who wants a system where consumers get everything they want at the price they want is YOU, and you aren't at all shy about using threats of imprisonment to do it, it's nothing more than collective thuggery.

Yeah prices are higher in theme parks, there is less supply and more demand. You want to force people who run theme parks to sell their products at the cost you want too, right? How about fuck you, it's not yours, you have NO RIGHT to tell the owners of the products what price they can charge for them.

So the Libertarian company creates its own environmental laws (none),

1. Can you drop the "Libertarian company" shit? It's a nonsense combination of words, Just say "company", it means the exact same thing. Using "Libertarian company" off the bat just shows how utterly biased you are.

2. Companies don't set ANY laws in a Libertarian political system.

3. Environment laws are perfectly consistent, when you pollute the environment you are imposing a cost on other people, the cost to health, property etc of other people. Because it is impractical for people to negotiate their own compensation for environmental damages it is absolutely within the limits of the government to take care of it. If people are polluting the atmosphere the government should fine polluters for their imposition and use the money to remedy the situation or compensate the victims. If people damage the environment in extremely serious ways the government should have the power to shut them down, they cannot continue to impose on other people, doing it through the environment is no different.

its own watch dogs (none)

Private consumer advocacy groups already exists, if there is a demand for them amongst consumers they WILL emerge. Any watch dog work pertaining to the harm of others is done by the police.

its own insider trade bans (none)

Define "insider trading" because it has many meaning and there are many free market and policing solutions depending on what "insider trading" it is.

its own sheild against artificial inflation (none)

What?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? You really need some economics 101 if you are even suggesting something so daft as "corporations cause inflation". Do you even know what inflation is? It is the expansion of the money supply, something that is maintained exclusively by the state - Inflation causes prices to rise because when there is more money in the system there is 1. More money relative to each product meaning each product is worth more dollars, 2. more money to bid up prices on commodities auctions which has a knock on effect for prices.

That you think we need to "shield" against companies causing inflation shows how fucking clueless you are about economics.

etc, etc.. You mean to tell me you HONESTLY expect me to believe this? You honestly believe a libertarian will police itself at the expense of a quick profit?

No, I don't expect you to believe any of the absolute bullshit you think I espouse because it is often either completely clueless or completely contrary to what I espouse.

And we have yet another example of your outrageous and unwavering biases, saying "You honestly believe a libertarian will police it's self" Rather than "you honestly believe a greedy person will police themselves" is a fucking huge bias.

No, I DO NOT expect greedy people to police themselves, I expect the POLICE to police them. Do you expect greedy people will police themselves in a progressive system? What about a communist one? Do you get how fucking blatant your biases are here?

Yeah, that sounds great..until the greed sets in. And who else to be the victims of greed than the libertarians? Oh no. Libertarians never only think of themselves. they think of the community, and how great it will be to dedicate their spare time to help people in need.

Most people aren't inherently greedy, we have an evolved sense of altruism and community, we give without threats of force, that's what charity is, if people had more money they would need less and give more, if the world became libertarian tomorrow there would be more people with more of their own money, you really think they wouldn't give more to charity? I'm willing to bet they would.

Sure, we won't be taking by force from greedy people, some people with resources won't want to give to charity, does that mean we have a right to chuck them in a 6x8 if they won't give up their property for causes we value? How the fuck is that moral?

We should use our moral tools of praise and condemnation to convince people to be charitable, give their time and resources to those in need, push for a change in consciousness, ask people to voluntarily give their resources to those in need, we SHOULD NOT use force to take from them in the name of the causes we value, we DO NOT have the right to tell others what to do with their own property whether or not we would use it to benefit others, it is nothing more than the collective thug machine firing up again.

Damned be to profit. Libertarians are always social minded creatures. [/sarcasm] There is a reason why they say "individual" so much. It means "me", not "you".

"Individual" means INDIVIDUAL, YOU are an individual I am an individual, We are the only people with a RIGHT to our own property and anyone else for whatever reason telling us what to do with our own property, out possessions, our bodies, our thoughts, our productivity etc is violating our rights. I don't care if you don't like that, I don't care if you would rather take their property to give to the needy, you DO NOT have the right to do so. By all means try and persuade people to be generous, but don't use force.

Really? So if I buy a car then I OWN that car? I can backward engineer it and start my own car company using that model?

No, they own the right to their intellectual property. You own the car and can do whatever the fuck you like with it, you can make duplicates but you can not sell them.

What? Copyrights? But the libertarians said I owned this software!

Software is sold in licenses, you do not own the code, you own a right to use it.

How come I cant make derivitives of it?

IP

It cuts into company profit margins? But I own this program! I bought it!

You bought a license If you actually bought the IP you can do whatever the fuck you like with it.

So I take it that you are against copywrights then?

NO.

Something that is quickly forgotten when a libertarian becomes a wealthy corporate exec. Greed is intolerant.

You are PATHETIC. Greed isn't a "libertarian" issue, it's a HUMAN issue, but you ALREADY know that, so why the intellectually bankrupt attempts at cheap shots?

Lets say some greedy person does become a corporate exec, how does that change anything? The law doesn't change to fit them, rights are still rights, they still can't impose their views on others.

So basically a libertarian is libertarian when he isnt rich.

YOU are the only one asserting that. ASSERTING being the key word. How does someone being rich make any fucking difference? Are you really that ignorant of what classical liberalism is? Someone is a classical Liberal if they believe, amongst other things, that the rights of the Individual to their own life, liberty and property are paramount. There is absolutely nothing to stop a rich person holding those views.

Libertarians are upper middle class and downward. Once they get into power they become like Glenn Beck, and are no longer Libertarian...they are "conservative" libertarians ( I call them corporatist scum bags)...but they still push the libertarian stuff. Thats why they usually vote Republican. Because their economic views eclipse their social views.

Now tell me I am wrong.

You're completely fucking wrong and completely fucking biased.

I don't know Glenn Beck's political history, but I doubt he was ever a fucking classical liberal. Call the tea party whatever the fuck you like, it IS NOT the same position, as I have already pointed out, with reason and evidence, time and time again. If you continue to completely ignore the position that I have been describing for your cheap shot equivocations and little teabagger whipping boys then there is no fucking point in talking to you.

And why is it you can make the distinction between Libertarians and Corporatist when it's convenient and then go ass fucking backwards and equate the two in order to make a cheap point. You never seem to Equate "democrat" or "liberal" with corporatist even though almost every motherfucker in the democratic party is EXACTLY that, and MANY of them claim to be progressives or liberals and "still push the social stuff".

[reverendjeremiah]

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". 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. 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.

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

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. 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.


#1 - We have the massive American moderates group. They are moderate on the authoritarian right, that is. These people are socially and fiscally moderate inside of the authoritarian right (upper right block). I would say they are somewhere between Obama and Palin on that grid you posted, probably even dead center of that upper right hand block. The mass majority of Americans want to be an authority on everything. This group swings back and forth between Republican and Democrat, and sometimes on a drop of the hat. This is the group that decides elections both small and large.
#2 - We have the American right wing (better known as "neo-con", they want big government only socially, not economically). In the name of "small government" they want every aspect of social life monitored, enforced, and punished by the government, and they feel that should be the ONLY roll that government fulfills. Government should stay COMPLETELY out of economics and business. (you can see the libertarian economic appeal here)
#3 - We have the American left. (They want big government socially and economically). They want social aspects of life protected by the government, to ensure the government punishes those who tread on peoples social freedoms. They want the government to control the economy as well. Libertarians in America hate Democrats. I have yet to see a Libertarian say anything nice about the Democratic party.
#4 - A substantial Libertarian minority. They dont have enough votes to get their politicians into power, but they do have enough of a voting block to enfluence an election. The party that can influence the Libertarians, does not have to worry as much about the picky moderates. Republican party decides to rename itself "teaparty", appeals to the libertarians, and takes power in the last election. They then switch back to neo-con politics as soon as they step into office. Libertarians dont complain much, because at least they have people who are economically libertarian in office. American Libertarians dont focus on the social aspects of the ideology much here in America because they know that the majority of Americans will walk away when they bring it up.

So..who do the Libertarians vote for? They vote #2 and #4...most of them dont waste their vote on their own party and just vote #2.

Does that make more sense to you now? Do my last posts make more sense to you now in light of this post? OF COURSE THEY ARENT PURE LIBERTARIANS that I talk about in my last posts, and I say this quite a bit. They are ECONOMIC LIBERTARIANS.

After readin this post, go back and read my posts again, and every where I say "Libertarian" , replace it with "American Libertarian". American Libertarians dont even try to mess with their socila aspects because they know most Americans want to tell people how to live and what to believe. They know they will automatically lose. So they ONLY focus on the ECONOMIC aspects, which tend to be much more popular in America.

I dont know how it is in your country, but this is how it is in mine.

You never seem to Equate "democrat" or "liberal" with corporatist even though almost every motherfucker in the democratic party is EXACTLY that, and MANY of them claim to be progressives or liberals and "still push the social stuff".

Oh yeah, Democrats and liberals are corporatists as well. Hillary Clinton claims to be a progressive, and so does Obama..neither are. The problem is, they ARENT pushing the social stuff, because, like I have said before, if you are not socially conservative in America, you are not going to go anywhere politically.

...but I thought we were talking about classical liberals..not modern liberals.

So, yeah, in the end you are absolutely correct. The American teaparty is NOT libertarian like PURE libertarianism.

American Libertarians vote for teaparty politicians on a majority here in America, and I just explained WHY.

[theVOID]

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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...

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.

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.

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!

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!

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!

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!

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!

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