[TruckingBum]

Hello i am self declared leader of all free thinkers party please state some of your popular libertarian views.

[sbskeeper]

Fiscal Responsibility, Deregulation (which would allow tax cuts), Free Trade, Repeal of Social Security (but people who have relied on social security for retirement are entitled to receive promised funds. I think there should be a cut off date for people eligible to receive social security), no welfare (government should not force individuals to provide charity), environmental changes should not be mandated by government (private individuals should be able to make changes on their own), no price ceilings or floors for agricultural goods (only cause surpluses and shortages in a market therfore causing people to lower or higher prices of goods to sell a product or ), support of property rights (repeal of Kelo vs. City of New London which created a "public use" precedent against individual land ownership).

[crazy canuk]

Libertarian political views are just the most retarded things I have come across in many a year. Their stated views would mean a return to the jungle. A society based on the survival of the fittest. If I have the power intellengence and drive to monopolize my area why not? I'll destroy all those weaker than myself. If I have enough money I'll buy an entire state and if I feel like it I will destroy all the rivers and forests . I'll turn the mountains into big quarries and fill the holes with garbage when I'm done. Who dares tell me I can't. It's mine, my family stole it hundreds of years ago and we have raped and killed and destroyed anyone who dares challenge our power.
All right you libertarians I want you to read some history books about America at around 1900 when these principles were in force. It is a pretty grim picture where human rights were almost nonexistent a time where wage slaves could be killed by their masters just for the nerve of asking for a living wage. The problem is that you don't see the government as being the people looking out for their interests. If the government does not look out for the peoples interests who will? No one will thats who and with no one looking out for the people society will desend into anarchy and revolution as it almost did before the government became at least somewhat responsible for the peoples wealfare. Libertarianism is just another name for stupid.

[sbskeeper]

Libertarian political views are just the most retarded things I have come across in many a year. Their stated views would mean a return to the jungle. A society based on the survival of the fittest. If I have the power intellengence and drive to monopolize my area why not? I'll destroy all those weaker than myself. If I have enough money I'll buy an entire state and if I feel like it I will destroy all the rivers and forests . I'll turn the mountains into big quarries and fill the holes with garbage when I'm done. Who dares tell me I can't. It's mine, my family stole it hundreds of years ago and we have raped and killed and destroyed anyone who dares challenge our power. .

If someone has the amount of money to buy an entire state, they would have the sense to not destroy all the rivers and forests which are capital resources they could use to produce a great deal of goods. People working for companies now drill quarries and fill holes with garbags (landfills). I don't understand what that has to do with libertarian ideology. Government legislation holds back producers with extensive regualtion, it only drives up the cost of the product for consumers. Nobody wins.

All right you libertarians I want you to read some history books about America at around 1900 when these principles were in force. It is a pretty grim picture where human rights were almost nonexistent a time where wage slaves could be killed by their masters just for the nerve of asking for a living wage. The problem is that you don't see the government as being the people looking out for their interests. If the government does not look out for the peoples interests who will? No one will thats who and with no one looking out for the people society will desend into anarchy and revolution as it almost did before the government became at least somewhat responsible for the peoples wealfare. Libertarianism is just another name for stupid

What parts of history are you talking about? Are you refering to the lack of a minimum wage? The minimum wage just adds pernamently inflated prices to the economy for an extra dollar or two into someones paycheck. It doesn't really help at all. There are nominal and real prices. As the minimum wage increases, nominal prices increase, and there really isn't a difference in real prices. The minimum wage just injects inflation into the economy with no real relief for workers. Increases in the minimum wage also increases the unemployment rate.

The government shouldn't have to look out for people's interests. People tend to look after their own interests. Or people hire lawyers to help look after their own interests. When people had unfit working conditions they joined unions to correct the unacceptable working conditions of the past. If government would step way from the economy, the market would correct itself. If I remember correctly, government initially was anti-union and created much legislation (like the Taft-Hartley Act) to discourage people from taking part in unions, but people (looking after their own interests) saw fit to join unions and make changes needed in factories.

The government only complicates problems. A perfect example: People can't pay for health care? Medicare/Medcaide only confuses people who need money to help cover costs of expensive prescription drugs. There are so many complicated confusing guidelines for government sponsored healthcare in this country that its a wonder anyone gets help paying for their prescription drugs at all! If instead we had government officials revoke medical drug patents, it would greatly increase the amount of generic drugs in the market and greatly lower the costs of prescription drugs and make healthcare much more affordable for consumers.

Libertarians are not anarchists. Libertarians just advocate limited government. The only thing the government should do for its citizens is protect us from criminals or from attack from other countries.

[crazy canuk]

You make the assumption that people have the means to protect their own interests against intrenched powerful interests. This is very nieve and is also totally false as a practical historical fact. Without the government backing them we would still have seggragation today. Without the federal government large combines would have taken over 100% of all large companies long ago. The government does not give anybody goodies at someone elses expence but gives citizens a share of the national wealth that is theirs by virtue of being a citizen of the state. For instance the oil under the province of Alberta is owned by the people of Canada. We get a share of every barrel that comes out of there. The government then decides how to divvy up this share of the COMMONWEALTH. I suppose that you would think that the oil company should get all the money from the resources that they are able to develop. Your vision of society is a very mean one that benifits the top 2% of the population and robs the other 98% of what is rightfully theirs.

[sbskeeper]

You make the assumption that people have the means to protect their own interests against intrenched powerful interests. This is very nieve and is also totally false as a practical historical fact.

I don't see how people looking after their own interests by hiring an attorney is a naive concept, especially since there are so many attorneys that offer affordable payment plans in this day and age. What do you mean "false as a practical historical fact". What issue are you talking about? People looking after their own interests? That without government people can't protect themselves? Please, pick an issue and I will argue over whether or not government has "helped".

Without the government backing them we would still have seggragation today. Without the federal government large combines would have taken over 100% of all large companies long ago.

Not true. Basic economic reasoning leads people to trade with one another, regardless of prejudical opinions. In order to make more money different races would have to communicate with other races to buy or sell different products. Communication with other races shows people of different races that maybe they aren't so different after all, and spurs a catalyst for change.


Government intervention of Brown vs. Board of Education was completely unnecessary. To really make changes in society you have to change the hearts and minds of other people. Nothing did more to change the hearts and minds of people than the music and television industry. Black musicians featured on shows during segregation like American Bandstand or their song played on the radio did more to change the segregation in hearts than any forced National Guard presidential order to walk Black children into school ever did. All that order did was incite more racial violence and encourage fears and spread more hatred toward Blacks. Changing the hearts and minds of people DOES take longer, but Government just complicates things. The fact that US government finally stepped up to change segregation in society indicates that there were people who wanted to end segregation with or without government approval. If left alone, without government intervention, the music and television industries would have and actually did contribute to the desegregation of society. It just needed more time.

What do you mean by "large combines"? Did you have a spelling error or something?

The government does not give anybody goodies at someone elses expence but gives citizens a share of the national wealth that is theirs by virtue of being a citizen of the state.

I'm not buying into that socialist rhetoric. When I am taxed as a citizen of the United States, my tax dollars pay for a lot of useless government programs that benefit others at the expense of myself. I don't think my tax dollars should be used to support people who live off of unemployment checks. I don't think the government should be regulating this "charity" work. Instead I think the government should give some sort of tax break to people who donate to places that provide unemployment checks as a substitute for forced charity work of productive taxpayers. Same goes for the welfare system. I don't think money should be taken from my paycheck and put into the hands of a welfare recipient. If I choose to give my own money to a charity that supports someone who would fit the criteria of a welfare recipient, that is my own business. I don't think the government should force charity on me at the point of a gun. That turn of phrase was a quote from someone, I just can't remember who.

For instance the oil under the province of Alberta is owned by the people of Canada. We get a share of every barrel that comes out of there. The government then decides how to divvy up this share of the COMMONWEALTH. I suppose that you would think that the oil company should get all the money from the resources that they are able to develop. Your vision of society is a very mean one that benefits the top 2% of the population and robs the other 98% of what is rightfully theirs.

Interesting how you seem to oppose corporations, but at the same token, the system you just described sounds much like the dividends received from shareholders of a corporation. In my opinion, if society does not bankroll the expenses of the oil company, they should not be able to receive the profits from the oil company. If it works for Canada, thats wonderful, but that system doesn't work for me, and I would oppose any system similar to that in the United States.

My vision of society benefits only the top 2% of society? You have to be kidding! The United States is a land of opportunity, especially for people who wish to work hard. My neighbor for instance was once a legal immigrant from Jordan (he eventually filled out the necessary paperwork to become a US citizen). He came to the US with 40 USD worth of currency from Jordan and worked incredibly hard over the span of 5 years to bring his wife and children to the US. He learned basic English before living in the US and didn't learn to speak English fluently until his kids went to school here and taught him. He was able to put all three of his children through college and moved to a nice home in Atlanta and was able to afford several cars and pursue a lifestyle he never could have imagined in Jordan.

About 10 years ago he finished the process to become an American citizen and would never even imagine going to live back in Jordan. My vision of society rewards hard work and provides more economic opportunities for producers which brings down overall costs for consumers and provides more jobs for more people. If foreign immigrants can understand that the US provides more than enough opportunity for economic growth for themselves, why can't US citizens understand that? How is my vision of society mean?

Libertarianism is just another name for stupid.

I still don't understand why libertarianism is "stupid". It simply combines the idea of a free market and liberal social policies (excluding the liberal social policies that would interfere with the implementation of a free market like government sponsored health care or welfare).

[jamwadmag]

Originally Posted by crazy canuk

Libertarian political views are just the most retarded things I have come across in many a year. Their stated views would mean a return to the jungle. A society based on the survival of the fittest. If I have the power intellengence and drive to monopolize my area why not? I'll destroy all those weaker than myself. If I have enough money I'll buy an entire state and if I feel like it I will destroy all the rivers and forests . I'll turn the mountains into big quarries and fill the holes with garbage when I'm done. Who dares tell me I can't. It's mine, my family stole it hundreds of years ago and we have raped and killed and destroyed anyone who dares challenge our power.
All right you libertarians I want you to read some history books about America at around 1900 when these principles were in force. It is a pretty grim picture where human rights were almost nonexistent a time where wage slaves could be killed by their masters just for the nerve of asking for a living wage. The problem is that you don't see the government as being the people looking out for their interests. If the government does not look out for the peoples interests who will? No one will thats who and with no one looking out for the people society will desend into anarchy and revolution as it almost did before the government became at least somewhat responsible for the peoples welfare. Libertarianism is just another name for stupid.

I agree 100%.......some of the 'idealism' sounds good, but as an alternative to Conservatism, it is no contest...

[crazy canuk]

Read "The Grapes of Wrath" my friend and you will see what happened to good hard working Americans when those with all the power were not restrained by the government. Read a book by Upton Sinclair called The jungle, this book lead to the first consumer protection law written in the world. It must be nice to live in a world like you envision where people just do their own thing work hard , love their neighbours etc. The reality is that they will sellyou poison to eat if it pays. They will pay their employees a starvation wage if they can get away with it. They would despoil the entire country, cut down every tree, pollute every lake and stream if they could get away with it and it payed well. Take a good look at what things were like for the average man when business held power and not the government. And it was a very mean time indeed. What you advocate is an insult to the memories of the millions who have been maimed or killed in the mines and factories of America just trying to make a living for their families. Unregulated big business has only one face, unrestrained greed.

[sbskeeper]

It must be nice to live in a world like you envision where people just do their own thing work hard , love their neighbours etc. The reality is that they will sellyou poison to eat if it pays. They will pay their employees a starvation wage if they can get away with it. They would despoil the entire country, cut down every tree, pollute every lake and stream if they could get away with it and it payed well. Take a good look at what things were like for the average man when business held power and not the government. And it was a very mean time indeed. What you advocate is an insult to the memories of the millions who have been maimed or killed in the mines and factories of America just trying to make a living for their families. Unregulated big business has only one face, unrestrained greed.

Your view of the market is flawed because you think only producers have power in a market economy. When suppliers have problems, consumers will stop buying their products and as a result, producers will have to respond to consumer changes.

A perfect example: Remember when pets started dying from contaminated food in the US and Canada? Consumers stopped buying their food and the suppler; Menu Foods ordered a recall and fixed the mistake with their products. Consumers then started making their own dog food some just for a brief period of time until they found a substitute dog food, but other people still continue today to make their own dog food. An explosion of different recipes for dog food appeared in magazines for dog lovers and on the internet. Never underestimate consumer power in a market.

Menu foods is still hurting today from their mistake. Quote from the financial report from December of 2007, the last financial report available on their website:

Furthermore, the loss of customers required Menu to restructure its operations to reflect the lower levels
of capacity required to fulfill its customers’ demands. This restructuring was announced in October 2007
and was largely executed by December 31, 2007. As part of this process, Menu sold its production
facility in North Sioux City, South Dakota and certain other assets to Mars Incorporated. In addition to the
14% reduction in its workforce that arose as a consequence of that sale, Menu announced an additional
reduction of 10% to 15% of its full-time workforce. On December 31, 2007 Menu had 673 full-time

employees, down 27% from the 924 at the end of 2006.

[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Political Forum Link.

[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Political Forum Link.

[crazy canuk]

You are right. Consumers do have some power in the market. I dont know who said this but it is so true."No one ever went broke overestimating the intellenge of the average consumer". The crap that people buy never ceases to amaze me. Look at the whole flap about these toxic Chinese toys. What in the world makes people think that their kids need hundreds of cheap plastic garbage toys in order to amuse themselves. Consumers buy stuff just to buy without any real need for what they are getting. When I was a kid in the 50's there was no such thing as yard sales. People had stuff that they needed and when it wore out they threw it away and bought new stuff. That is not how things are done today. People buy and then store vast quantities of goods that then sit in some cupboard or closet unused for years until they clean it out and have a yard sale. They need the room to store the new useless crap that they then go about getting. Consummerism it's nuts.