This thread was a final response to another poster. Here I explain my view of teh different theories of gov't.


Did I get it right?


__________________

As a final thought (I don't wish to "bait" you after you said you were done) this statement shows the stark difference between libertarians / liberals and conservatives.

The best comment you made in this thread was the assessment of me seeing man as basically corrupt, to varying degrees.

You see, the liberal beelives man is basically good - its just his environment is bad, and so he does bad stuff. "Fix the environment, and you curb mans poor behaviour" the liberal says.

As your statement shows, libertarians aren't that much different in this root cause ideology. (LIbertarians are very different from Liberals as Liberals wish to control man thru gov't as an end unto itself.  Here however I'm addressing the simialrity in teh root cause of man's poor behaviour) You think gov't CAUSES " most of these problems you see with the "real world" " (I was referring to fraud, theft, and wanton violation of speed limits)

Once again the libertarian , like the liberal sees environemntal and external causes for mans poor behaviour. "Limit the gov't and you fix man's poor behaviour" says the libertarian.

In stark contrast to libertarians and liberals, true conservatives understand the root cause of mans problem is internal to himself. The conservative says "You fix man's poor behaviour by fixing the man." The conservative understands that it is internal corruption within man that CAUSES him even to abuse the rightful and necessary powers of gov't . Abusive gov't is caused not by gov't, but by corrupt man. The conservative understands that man, unless he is reigned in, will abuse and violate his fellow man. Wherever possible the true conservative chooses freedom. But sometimes theres no way license (the abuse of freedom and liberty) can be allowed. There MUST be law.

Different men require different levels of reigning in. Some men require near none. The pollyannish libertarian thinks you can base societies rules on THIS type of man. That's rank foolishness. The fact is, laws MUST be based roughly on the mean average of man's proclivity to abuse and violate his fellow man.

THIS is why Penn said "Men will either be (self) governed by God, or the WILL be ruled by tyrants." Self-government under the authority of God RAISES the mean average of the proclivity to abuse and violate fellow man, and the strictness of societal laws can be eased.

But these days, man is throwing off God's authority and the mean average is dropping. For a society to survive, tyrants MUST step in. Often these "tyrants" are unwilling tyrants, stepping in only with sorrow and reluctance. (These "tyrants" are known as "conservatives." ) They do so ONLY because they understand man REFUSES to control himself, and therefore gov't must, in order to save society from devouring itself.

This is the real world that mostly only conservatives live in. If you wish to join us, you know where we can be found.

OK, so far so good, but please. show me a TRUE conservative in today's government.  Still looking?  Until then, I am forced to believe that ultimately, Libertarianism, for the *most* part, is a way out of this MESS that we are in.  Pollyanna, maybe, maybe.  But Dems/Repubs are piss in one hand and shit in the other right now.  They both stink.

Interesting comments.  Isn't it ironic how Penn's comments are evident in the self-governing that Islam has foisted on the world.   The diety's will/authority does not always get expressed in peaceful terms.        

Quoted: Interesting comments.  Isn't it ironic how Penn's comments are evident in the self-governing that Islam has foisted on the world.   The diety's will/authority does not always get expressed in peaceful terms.

That's just too ill informed and ignorant a comment to dignify with a thought out response.

Quoted: OK, so far so good, but please. show me a TRUE conservative in today's government.  Still looking?  Until then, I am forced to believe that ultimately, Libertarianism, for the *most* part, is a way out of this MESS that we are in.  Pollyanna, maybe, maybe.  But Dems/Repubs are piss in one hand and shit in the other right now.  They both stink.

I'll agree there are darned few convservatives in  gov't.

But does that make a fundamentally flawed ideology (Libertarianism) a legitimate solution?

Quoted: I'll agree there are darned few convservatives in  gov't. But does that make a fundamentally flawed ideology (Libertarianism) a legitimate solution?

And conservatisvism isn't? oh that's right...we are all perfect.

lol....jsut busting your chops. Bottom line is there is no perfect solution, as all ideologies are flawed. Man is not perfect.

Quoted: Bottom line is there is no perfect solution, as all ideologies are flawed. Man is not perfect.

Very true.

But seems to me ONLY conservatism is based on and structured to respond to that reality.

Quoted: Very true. But seems to me ONLY conservatism is based on and structured to respond to that reality.

And that is why you are a conservative.

I'm sure liberals feel the same way about liberalism.

and libertarians abotu libertariansm.

Quoted: Quoted: Bottom line is there is no perfect solution, as all ideologies are flawed. Man is not perfect. Very true. But seems to me ONLY conservatism is based on and structured to respond to that reality.

As governments can only be comprised of man they will inevitably corrupt themselves over time.   The true libertarian ideology is one of extremely limited (yet still existent) government in which the rights of the individual to lead their lives as they see fit is the predominant reason for the government to exist.   The government should perform basic functions of defense, as well as interractions with external entitites.   Their regulatory process and rules should only be created to ensure the further protection of the individual's rights and freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness.    It is not anarchy in that there is regulation and room for it, however, it is greatly limited and controlled via extensive checks and balances as well as states rights.

Ironically, that is what this government and country WAS and no longer IS.   Current modern conservatism in no way reflects the interests of individual freedom and rights any longer but has become an abberation of its original self and now serves as oppressor rather than the liberator it originated as.    

I don't need the government to tell me what drug I can or can't eat, or what sort of rifle I should own, or to pull me over at random checkpoints on the highway to see if I perhaps might have been drinking (even though I never do).     I don't need government to steal my personally earned money and items and redistribute them to others whom 'need it'.   If I feel like being charitable, it should be my own perogative.     What I do need government to do is secure our borders, provide for international trade and interstate trade.    Instead we have essentially unprotected borders, war with countries whom we need not war with, socialist programs which corrupt and destroy liberty, restrictions on our undeniable right to self defense, and a myraid of a million rules governing everything from what I eat to what I take for a headache.

Spare me the rhetoric, but modern conservatism does not appear to be liberating nor freedom generating from my perspective.  It appears to be the flip side of the same coin of liberalism, in that the greater good of a few (the few being different for each 'group') superceeds the basic inheirant loyalty to freedom and liberty that is what this country requires to be as great as it was in it's past.

It seems like libertarians are utopians - somehow everything will be OK with 90% of government gone or reduced to police and army. Liberals on the other hand think everything will be OK if government controls 90% of our lives with the sole exception of sex (but even there, they want the government to pay 100% of the medical bills related to abuse or use of sex).

Bread and circuses... give us our pleasures and we'll surrender all our political freedoms.

Conservatives of various stripes realize that America as a nation is not co-terminous with "the United States Government", and therefore there is a vital need for subsidiarity, various levels of social involvement: local neighborhood organizations, churches, clubs, associations, town councils, county government, school boards, charters, scouts, etc. then state government and finally, sure, some place for the Federal government.

But the .gov people ought to always be outnumbered and outgunned as it were by "the People" who, unlike the libertarians, AREN'T isolated individuals, but organized into families and associations of friends.

Let's do a thought experiment shall we? Take FEMA for example. Perfect Liberal idea: let the Fed. handle all emergencies, from the top down. Bureaucrats control infrastructure and preps, and assume immediate control of local assets in emergencies.

In their universe this agency is a benign dictatorship in "emergencies". Benign because THEY in control. And while FEMA is never big enough to take care of everyone, it does take care of many, and does mitigate some harm, so their "good intentions" result in some benefit, at the price of lots of local control and local freedom.

Libertarians would disband FEMA entirely and let everyone shift for themselves. Obviously, with no national agency to back them up it is assumed by them that a good % of people will prepare themselves for disasters. But not all, and hence in the event of a disaster the unprepared would suffer...

Conservatives (like me) would take the subsidiarity approach. IF individual families and groups of friends (like arfcommers etc) were prepared FEMA wouldn't be needed in our neighborhoods. If we were involved politically we could add a budget item to the local county or town for disaster related supplies as well as impress on the local churches, food banks, associations, scouts, etc. to all have a disaster supply kit or pantry, thus making the whole town less needy of FEMA.

IOW, the solution is to network with free people to educate and motivate them to take RESPONSIBILITY for "the community" of their familiesand friends rather than abdicate it to national bureaucrats or spin off into utopian dreams of everyman for himself.

America wasn't founded on rugged individualism - not on the frontier, not in the colonies, not in the towns or counties. The building bloc of society ISN'T the lone ranger. It's the family: marriage with kids. Then associations of families who are friends...

Both liberals and libertarians not only seem to think there is no such thing as original sin, they also seem in action to despise the sanctity of marriage and essential need for families - to the point of legislating against ANY threat to marriage and family.

Destroy marriage and the family and what do you have if not isolated individuals who are now at the mercy of ANY group - be they government or private (gang or company). I'd rather be a part of a whole whose relationship with me is one of love and common conviction than an individual "at the mercy" of others who have a basically utilitarian approach to life: people given value for what they can do, rather than for who they are.

I'm posting this under a friend of mines old acct untill the one I signed up for can be approved.
------------

You got a bunch of things wrong, first off your post should have been titled “Libertarians, Democrats and Republicans”, Libertarians are a political group that is represented by the LP (even though some Libertarians choose not to support it), Libertarians all follow similar political philosophy just as Republicans and Democrats do. Now with that said, the terms conservative and liberal can be broken up into two groups social and economic; basically every INDVIDUAL ISSUE can be plotted on either the economic or soical  liberal/conservative bar line depending on your stance on that issue.

“Conservatives” that you described, which I guess you are referring to republicans (keep in mind none of these economically conservative republicans exist in federal and for the most part, state legislature) want conservative economics, but also want to control peoples lives, they want drugs banned, prostitution banned, anything that they find moral wrong or socially unacceptable should be banned (for the children or whatever the reason). Democrats or “liberals” as you put it want to throw their money around and give it away to the poor and what not, now democrats also want to control people’s lives in the same way as republicans, you know for the children or what have you. Some of the aspects of your lives that the republicans and democrats want to control differ from one another (example: gun control), however most part they are pretty much the same.

Now Libertarians can’t be called either conservative or liberal, just as republicans and democrats shouldn’t, you can say “democrats are more liberal than republicans” and vise versa, however the term republican isn’t interchangeable with conservative just as democrat isn’t interchangeable with liberal.  Libertarians fall much further on the conservative side the economic bar line than republicans do, so much more so that it would make many republicans cry if the country ever became so economically conservative. Socially, Libertarians basically believe that as long as you don’t hurt anyone else than you are free to do whatever you like as sovereign individual and that any problems that might arise will be worked out by the free market, lack of government involvement, and voluntary private charity.

Libertarians believe in freedom, liberty, and lack of force on the part of the government. An example of the government using force is forcibly taking my money and giving it to some welfare project, which is essentially theft. Putting guns in my face and telling me that XX% of my money is going to stupid crap that government has no business doing is theft, which is why it’s always important for the people have more guns than the government.


I know I forgot a bunch of stuff, but that for the most part somes it up.

My problem with your assessment is the premise
that a libertarian (small 'L') makes any determiniation
regarding the behavior of the governed.

Once again the libertarian , like the liberal sees environemntal and external causes for mans poor behaviour. "Limit the gov't and you fix man's poor behaviour" says the libertarian.

I don't think that is the correct way to think about
a libertarian ideology. Libertarians want to limit
the government because, at it's core, government
acts to limit freedoms. Libertarians do not make
statements like "We need to stop citizen X from
doing Y" so there is no need for a libertarian to
make value judgements about from where "poor
behavior" stems.

Quoted: My problem with your assessment is the premise that a libertarian (small 'L') makes any determiniation regarding the behavior of the governed. I don't think that is the correct way to think about a libertarian ideology. Libertarians want to limit the government because, at it's core, government acts to limit freedoms. Libertarians do not make statements like "We need to stop citizen X from doing Y" so there is no need for a libertarian to make value judgements about from where "poor behavior" stems.

I think you have a legit point here. (tho its difficult to make universal statements about what "libertarians" beleive)

In one sense,  libertarianism seems to avoid the whole discussion of man's behaviour. They just choose not to have an opinion / mechanism for handling man's poor behaviour.

Which is why I call it pollyannish.

And in a great sense, libertarianism breeds anarchy. When there is no law to control ill behaviour, everyone does whatever they want.

Any such society will be dead in a hundred years.

Quoted: My problem with your assessment is the premise that a libertarian (small 'L') makes any determiniation regarding the behavior of the governed. Once again the libertarian , like the liberal sees environemntal and external causes for mans poor behaviour. "Limit the gov't and you fix man's poor behaviour" says the libertarian. I don't think that is the correct way to think about a libertarian ideology. Libertarians want to limit the government because, at it's core, government acts to limit freedoms. Libertarians do not make statements like "We need to stop citizen X from doing Y" so there is no need for a libertarian to make value judgements about from where "poor behavior" stems.

....+1

Quoted: I think you have a legit point here. (tho its difficult to make universal statements about what "libertarians" beleive)

Agreed. Everyone from disgruntled Republicans
to Greens to Anarchists like to call themselves
"Libertarians."

I subscribe to the Objectivist, rugged indivialist,
limited-authority "wing" of the libertarian ideology.

Quoted: Which is why I call it pollyannish.

I also agree with this. I like to use libertarian
ideals as a guide when I make value judgements.
The  fallacy of the Libertarian party is the attempt
to use libertarian ideals as an absolute when
formulating public policy.

I'm the person who just posted under NewAR15Guy....


Libertarians would disband FEMA entirely and let everyone shift for themselves. Obviously, with no national agency to back them up it is assumed by them that a good % of people will prepare themselves for disasters. But not all, and hence in the event of a disaster the unprepared would suffer...

That is right for the most part, except for the assumption that a good percent of people will prepare, I for one recognized that the nanny state that we live in has made people dependent on it, thus many wouldn’t prepare and they would basically be screwed. However overtime I’m sure people would figure out that they need to be responsible, and if not, the natural selection will take over.

Conservatives (like me) would take the subsidiarity approach. IF individual families and groups of friends (like arfcommers etc) were prepared FEMA wouldn't be needed in our neighborhoods. If we were involved politically we could add a budget item to the local county or town for disaster related supplies as well as impress on the local churches, food banks, associations, scouts, etc. to all have a disaster supply kit or pantry, thus making the whole town less needy of FEMA.

You see some Libertarians might actually do this same thing. The difference is that we would form groups of people who would donate to the causes and help one another out; this would be done without any political action and would be 100% voluntary. With this type of a situation the people who want the extra protection can get it without the need for the government to put guns in people’s faces and steal their money.

Both liberals and libertarians not only seem to think there is no such thing as original sin, they also seem in action to despise the sanctity of marriage and essential need for families - to the point of legislating against ANY threat to marriage and family.

Wrong again, at least about the Libertarian, you see many Libertarians actually probably the majority take part in families and don’t really care much for hanging out with hookers, however they recognize the rights of others not to have families and to hang out with all the hookers they can handle. The funny thing about Libertarians is that we CARE about other peoples freedom as much as we care about our own, we recognize that if we don’t fight for other peoples freedoms that we don’t take part in, than no one else will fight for the freedoms that we take part in but they don’t. A principled Libertarian that doesn’t owns guns will fight for the rights of someone who does own guns just as hard as the gun owners would themselves. A principled Libertarian would fight as equally hard for someone’s right to speak out against guns as they would to preserve the right for people to own guns.

Let me use the example of gay marriage, the republican wants it outlawed, the democrat wants in legal, and the Libertarian wants nothing to do with it. The libertarian just doesn’t care, you see we want marriage out of control of the government, why must the government condone any marriage? Why must the government acknowledge any marriage? Why does the government need to discriminate against people who choose not to participate in a marriage by not giving them the same tax benefits? As far as I’m concerned what 3 adults and a goat (assuming you can devise a way for the goat to consent) want to do is up to them.

Destroy marriage and the family and what do you have if not isolated individuals who are now at the mercy of ANY group - be they government or private (gang or company). I'd rather be a part of a whole whose relationship with me is one of love and common conviction than an individual "at the mercy" of others who have a basically utilitarian approach to life: people given value for what they can do, rather than for who they are.

I think one thing that people don’t understand is that Libertarians aren’t against the family, they just want people to have a choice and not be forced into it and not to be discriminated against because they choose not participate in the whole family/kids/marriage world if they don’t want to.

Again, Libertarians aren’t interested in destroying marriage and family, we are interested in offering a choice to people who don’t want to participate, why must everyone subscribe to the same believes as you? Why can’t people choose to live their life the way they want without the government telling them what they can and can’t do?

Quoted: I also agree with this. I like to use libertarian ideals as a guide when I make value judgements. The  fallacy of the Libertarian party is the attempt to use libertarian ideals as an absolute when formulating public policy.

Exactly.

In the sense of a purist ideology, I'm 100% libertarian. People THINK I want to force them to obey the Bible, but as I've said a million times over, FORCED obedience is unacceptable to God, so I would never want that. I'd rather people live like the devil than THINK they are right with God because they obeyed God out of compulsion.

But libertarianism does NOT work in a world of greedy, lazy, self absorbed individuals (who too often turn to hateful, murderous scumbags) To base public policy on the fools gold of "live and let live" will destroy any nation that tries it.

Quoted: Quoted: I also agree with this. I like to use libertarian ideals as a guide when I make value judgements. The  fallacy of the Libertarian party is the attempt to use libertarian ideals as an absolute when formulating public policy. Exactly. In the sense of a purist ideology, I'm 100% libertarian. People THINK I want to force them to obey the Bible, but as I've said a million times over, FORCED obedience is unacceptable to God, so I would never want that. I'd rather people live like the devil than THINK they are right with God because they obeyed God out of compulsion. But libertarianism does NOT work in a world of greedy, lazy, self absorbed individuals (who too often turn to hateful, murderous scumbags) To base public policy on the fools gold of "live and let live" will destroy any nation that tries it.

Actually, greedy and self absorbed people are likely the ones who would most likely contribute heavily in a more libertarian society.   Besides, you can't legislate away laziness or greed or self absorbtion.   Currently we subsidize all those activities via wealth redistribution, however.

HHhmmmm....good thoughts...

Quoted: As governments can only be comprised of man they will inevitably corrupt themselves over time.

Absolutely true, which is why even conservatism isn't an absolute answer. Its just the  best available answer, IMO.

The true libertarian ideology is one of extremely limited (yet still existent) government in which the rights of the individual to lead their lives as they see fit is the predominant reason for the government to exist.   The government should perform basic functions of defense, as well as interractions with external entitites.   Their regulatory process and rules should only be created to ensure the further protection of the individual's rights and freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness.    It is not anarchy in that there is regulation and room for it, however, it is greatly limited and controlled via extensive checks and balances as well as states rights.

I don't disagree with any of this.  But the Libertarians I talk to seem to.

Ironically, that is what this government and country WAS and no longer IS.

True.

Current modern conservatism in no way reflects the interests of individual freedom and rights any longer but has become an abberation of its original self and now serves as oppressor rather than the liberator it originated as.

This is a point of disagreement. "Conservatism" is an ideology which does NOT change over time. "Current modern conservatism" is a paradox. Conservatism is NOT defined by those who CLAIM to be conservatives, any more than Chrsitianity is defined by those who claim to be Chrsitians, in circumstances they both violate the core principles of the respective ideology.

I don't need the government to tell me what drug I can or can't eat, or what sort of rifle I should own, or to pull me over at random checkpoints on the highway to see if I perhaps might have been drinking (even though I never do).

THIS IS THE CORE OF THE ISSUE.

I'll grant that premise. But this is the VERY mistake Libertarians make. They think public policy can be determined with them as the baseline. NEWSFLASH - American is NOT a country made up of one person (you) or even a large percentage of people like you. As I said above, public policy MUST be based on the mean average of the citizens behaviour. It CANNOT be based on upstanding citizens such as yourself. As a result, in order for society to survive, you MUST AND WILL necessarilty chafe under laws you have no need of.

I don't need government to steal my personally earned money and items and redistribute them to others whom 'need it'.   If I feel like being charitable, it should be my own perogative.     What I do need government to do is secure our borders, provide for international trade and interstate trade.

All of which is consistent with  conservative ideology.

Spare me the rhetoric, but modern conservatism does not appear to be liberating nor freedom generating from my perspective.  It appears to be the flip side of the same coin of liberalism, in that the greater good of a few (the few being different for each 'group') superceeds the basic inheirant loyalty to freedom and liberty that is what this country requires to be as great as it was in it's past.

Again, there is no such thing as "modern conservatism." Conservatism is what it always has been.

But good thoughts, by and large I agree  with you.

Quoted: Quoted: Actually, greedy and self absorbed people are likely the ones who would most likely contribute heavily in a more libertarian society.   Besides, you can't legislate away laziness or greed or self absorbtion.   Currently we subsidize all those activities via wealth redistribution, however. That's true if the greedy and self absorbed don't resort to hurting other people in their daily activities.

No actually, the greedy and the lazy are the ones that make the good theory of libertarianism unworkable in the real world.

Greed is all about taking from others what  they have. Lazy is all about being unwilling to contribute your share to the burden of society. Those mindsets are actually  what mandate oppressive laws, to reign in the greedy and lazy.

And those of us who are hard working and productive of necessity must suffer under the laws necessary to prevent the greedy and  lazy from destroying this nation.

"THIS IS THE CORE OF THE ISSUE.

I'll grant that premise. But this is the VERY mistake Libertarians make. They think public policy can be determined with them as the baseline. NEWSFLASH - American is NOT a country made up of one person (you) or even a large percentage of people like you. As I said above, public policy MUST be based on the mean average of the citizens behaviour. It CANNOT be based on upstanding citizens such as yourself. As a result, in order for society to survive, you MUST AND WILL necessarilty chafe under laws you have no need of. "

Not true, you assume this to be true. Give an example of a situation that the free market would not correct for, if you really think about it you fast realize that the market and other factors will adjust when people act out.

Quoted: That depends upon your definition of greed.  I might (and do) classify a suitable amount of greed as good, but you would call it working in your own self interest. IMO, greed is the opposite of laziness.

Contrary to what Michael Douglas said in the movie "Wall Street" greed is NOT good. But then I do NOT correlate the willingness to work hard in  order to acquire with greed.

Greed is wanting more than your fair share. If someone works hard and grabs the brass ring, then the brass ring BELONGS to them.

Greed and laziness go hand in hand - two sides of teh same coin.

Quoted: Not true, you assume this to be true. Give an example of a situation that the free market would not correct for, if you really think about it you fast realize that the market and other factors will adjust when people act out.

I'm a big free market advocate.

I have roundly defended Microsoft's choking out the competition.

But taken to extremes, even the free market can be a bad thing. Taken to extremes, companies can actually create mini dictatorships, where the free market no longer exists. In reality, the "free market" seldom happens organically. Often, its only maintained by force of law.

Everything in balance.

Quoted: "THIS IS THE CORE OF THE ISSUE. I'll grant that premise. But this is the VERY mistake Libertarians make. They think public policy can be determined with them as the baseline. NEWSFLASH - American is NOT a country made up of one person (you) or even a large percentage of people like you. As I said above, public policy MUST be based on the mean average of the citizens behaviour. It CANNOT be based on upstanding citizens such as yourself. As a result, in order for society to survive, you MUST AND WILL necessarilty chafe under laws you have no need of. " Not true, you assume this to be true. Give an example of a situation that the free market would not correct for, if you really think about it you fast realize that the market and other factors will adjust when people act out.

alright mr orwell84, quit messing around on the computer and get to work!!

heh heh. just kidding, welcome aboard! i told you there was all kinds of good stuff here.

Quoted: Quoted: That depends upon your definition of greed.  I might (and do) classify a suitable amount of greed as good, but you would call it working in your own self interest. IMO, greed is the opposite of laziness. Contrary to what Michael Douglas said in the movie "Wall Street" greed is NOT good.

I disagree. Greed is good, indeed greed is great.
Greed is the driving force behind most of our
great works.

Quoted: Greed is wanting more than your fair share.

Settling for your "fair share" leads to mediocrity.
The only person who defines "fair" should be yourself.

Greed gave us the automobile, railroads, steel, oil,
airplanes, and the most of the great inventions of
our time. Consequently, the concept of "fair share"
gave us socialist Europe. Take your pick.

Quoted: Greed and laziness go hand in hand - two sides of teh same coin.

Only in the government can laziness and greed
coexist. Only the government has the power to
reward lazy "have nots" with the riches of the
"greedy."

I'm a big free market advocate.

I have roundly defended Microsoft's choking out the competition.

But taken to extremes, even the free market can be a bad thing. Taken to extremes, companies can actually create mini dictatorships, where the free market no longer exists. In reality, the "free market" seldom happens organically. Often, its only maintained by force of law.

Everything in balance.


I think you are forgetting what the free market is, what we have today isn’t a free market it is an extraordinarily regulated and controlled market, it’s not even close to being free. If we had a free market you would have no regulation, no restrictions on the part of the government, you would essentially be able to sell whatever you want and use whatever business practices you want, there would be no government protection rackets like the USPO and such. What we have today is pretty damn far from anything that even resembles being free.

As for Microsoft, while they’re not by any means the largest violators they certainly abuse patents and use other government protections to mess with competition. I have no problem with the better company prevailing and crushing all the competition, as a matter of fact I encourage it, however I don’t encourage using the government like some mafia style protection racket by buying up politicians, lobbying, and using patents to stomp out the competition, all of those practices are contrary to what the free market is all about.

alright mr orwell84, quit messing around on the computer and get to work!!

Bla, it's tuesday! What do you want from me? haha.

Quoted: I disagree. Greed is good, indeed greed is great. Greed is the driving force behind most of our great works. Greed gave us the automobile, railroads, steel, oil, airplanes, and the most of the great inventions of our time. Consequently, the concept of "fair share" gave us socialist Europe. Take your pick.

Again, I don't correlate hard work with greed.

Greed is about wanting more than you have earned. Which is NEVER a good thing.

All the examples you give are examples of just compenation of what people have earned thru hard work.

Quoted: I think you are forgetting what the free market is, what we have today isn’t a free market it is an extraordinarily regulated and controlled market, it’s not even close to being free. If we had a free market you would have no regulation, no restrictions on the part of the government, you would essentially be able to sell whatever you want and use whatever business practices you want, there would be no government protection rackets like the USPO and such. What we have today is pretty damn far from anything that even resembles being free.

I understand that.

basically what you describe is business by anarchy. And is EXACTLY the type of environment  that a Microsoft COULD abuse to its own ends.

As for Microsoft, while they’re not by any means the largest violators they certainly abuse patents and use other government protections to mess with competition. I have no problem with the better company prevailing and crushing all the competition, as a matter of fact I encourage it, however I don’t encourage using the government like some mafia style protection racket by buying up politicians, lobbying, and using patents to stomp out the competition, all of those practices are contrary to what the free market is all about.

So you don't really agree with an entirely free market.

I understand that.

basically what you describe is business by anarchy. And is EXACTLY the type of environment that a Microsoft COULD abuse to its own ends.

No it’s not business anarchy, business obviously wouldn’t be able to kill people against their will and sell their organs, because murder would of course be illegal. However, under the free market there are NO government regulations, restrictions or protections, the government stays 100% out off all economic practices.

So you don't really agree with an entirely free market.

I agree 100% with the free market; I want the free market to be as free and as unregulated as possible. I don’t see how you can think that providing companies’ protection against their competitors is what the free market is about, if companies are given protections against competition you have the exact opposite of a free market is. If companies are allowed to have government created monopolies (note that the only type of monopoly that can exist is one created by the government, monopolies don’t happen in a completely free market) than it has a negative effect on the economy.

Quoted: I agree 100% with the free market; I want the free market to be as free and as unregulated as possible.

So do I.

But human nature has proven that is a pipe dream.

A completely free market WILL have child labor abuses , it WILL have unsafe working conditions, it WILL have abuse of workers.

Again, this is why Penn said "Men will either be governed by God, or they will be ruled by tyrants."

Those who are governed by God do NOT abuse workers, allow unsafe conditions, or exploit child labor (IF they are following God's rules) .

But without God that WILL happen.

Therfore since man will NOT control himself, gov't MUST step in.

I'm all for the free market in theory, but it doesn't work in practice. Tho we need to SEVERLY move toward the free market in America today.

But there MUST be some gov't regulation, ONCE AGAIN based on the mean average of the popualtion's (in this case, business mgmt's) proclivity toward abusive and immoral behaviour.

Quoted: We are having a problem with definitions today. At NO time ever is using the government to criminalize the competition consistant with the spirit of the free market.

In a free market, the gov't is prohibited from making laws to prohibit a business from using the gov't to its own advantage.

its a vicious circle.

For instance (this is the first example that comes to mind) , if in a free market economy, one states speed limit is 35 mph, and another states limit is 85 mph, a business could gain a competetive advantage being able to get products to market faster in teh 85 mph state.

Then say Company A used its influence to keep company B inside the 35 mph state. The free market you envision would be prohibited from telling Company A to cease and desist. Company A used state law to crush Companyy B and in the free market, you can't do a thing about it.

Not a perfect example, more given just to illustrate the principle.


In  the free market, companies WILL find ways to leverage even the most minimalist libertarian form of gov't to brutalize their competitors.

Okay garandman... you baited me.... sort of.

I just read something somebody wrote in this thread that reminded me of the true CORE belief of Libertarianism in a nutshell:  Government's sole purpose should be to protect Liberty for the individual... 'Liberty' being defined as 'the absence of coercion' (force or threat of force).

To my mind, that's really the founding principle behind what the "Founding Fathers" were trying to give us.  And the problem today is that both "conservatives" and "liberals" simply believe the government should do much more than 'protect Liberty for the individual'.  In fact, they seem to believe that is an archaic and outdated idea entirely!!!

It kinda boils down the the two opposing ideologies which I was taught back in the early 1980's in high school Government Class.  "The needs of the many outweigh the needs or desires of the few", which I was taught was the central theme of Communism.  

The good old U.S. of A., I was taught, believed that the individual is the core of society, and if you protect that individual's unfettered Liberty, you protect his ability to 'be all he can be', and society as a whole will receive the greatest possible benefit from that individual.

Quoted: Did you realize that you aren't making sense?

It may seem a bit circular. Re-read and study it.

Quoted: Okay garandman... you baited me.... sort of. I just read something somebody wrote in this thread that reminded me of the true CORE belief of Libertarianism in a nutshell:  Government's sole purpose should be to protect Liberty for the individual... 'Liberty' being defined as 'the absence of coercion' (force or threat of force). To my mind, that's really the founding principle behind what the "Founding Fathers" were trying to give us.  And the problem today is that both "conservatives" and "liberals" simply believe the government should do much more than 'protect Liberty for the individual'.  In fact, they seem to believe that is an archaic and outdated idea entirely!!! It kinda boils down the the two opposing ideologies which I was taught back in the early 1980's in high school Government Class.  "The needs of the many outweigh the needs or desires of the few", which I was taught was the central theme of Communism.   The good old U.S. of A., I was taught, believed that the individual is the core of society, and if you protect that individual's unfettered Liberty, you protect his ability to 'be all he can be', and society as a whole will receive the greatest possible benefit from that individual.

I did bait you, but new thread, so all former promises are null and void.  

I agree with the role of gov't being to protect individual liberty.

But liberty ALSO ALWAYS carries responsibility.

Abuse of liberty requires intervention. Gov't often is the only one with a big enuf club.

Abuse of alcohol and drugs is so rampant in this country, and so obvious a contributor to murder, negligent homicide, manslaughter, suicide, wife abuse, child abuse and a 1,000 other major social maladies, gov't MUST  step in.

Again, you CANNOT base public policy on good people like yourself.

Its MUST be based on the mean average of societal behaviour. DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS??

Quoted: But libertarianism does NOT work in a world of greedy, lazy, self absorbed individuals (who too often turn to hateful, murderous scumbags) To base public policy on the fools gold of "live and let live" will destroy any nation that tries it.

Over the years I have observed that you are one of the most die hard capitalists on the board which is quite refreshing and a lot of what you discuss can be classified as "libertarian" however that comment above makes me scrach my head.  That arguement sounds like something a liberal would say.  I get sick and tired of hearing them talk about how bad capitalism is because of "greed" etc.  I would say that I am a Boortz libertarian because he described it better than I could.   He has always said that libertarians what to limit government, on the domestic side to roads and basiclly make anything legal as long as the activity of another doesn't restrict the right of others to their lives, liberty or property.  That is not anarchy that is pure freedom.

Those who are governed by God do NOT abuse workers, allow unsafe conditions, or exploit child labor (IF they are following God's rules) .


1st, stop spinning this god nonsense, god has nothing to do with anything. Second, a free market is extraordinary competitive, that means companies are working hard to get the best employees, thus any company who has unsafe working conditions would get seriously bad employees and that wouldn’t work out well for the company. And in the event that a company chooses to have unsafe working conditions than the employees that work they are free to leave and go work for someone else. If an employee can’t get better work, than to bad the government isn’t supposed to hold your hand through life, the government isn’t supposed to be your nanny.

As for child labor laws, I’m against them, if a child needs to work to help support the family through hard times I see no reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to do so. It is up the parents to keep their kids safe and to do what is best in their interest, not the government, and not the tax payers.

Not to flame or anything, and no offense personally, but that statement that you made sounded a little liberal to me ;).

Did you realize that you aren't making sense?

My thoughts exactly.

Quoted: Quoted: But libertarianism does NOT work in a world of greedy, lazy, self absorbed individuals (who too often turn to hateful, murderous scumbags) To base public policy on the fools gold of "live and let live" will destroy any nation that tries it. Over the years I have observed that you are one of the most die hard capitalists on the board which is quite refreshing and a lot of what you discuss can be classified as "libertarian" however that comment above makes me scrach my head.  That arguement sounds like something a liberal would say.  I get sick and tired of hearing them talk about how bad capitalism is because of "greed" etc.  I would say that I am a Boortz libertarian because he described it better than I could.   He has always said that libertarians what to limit government, on the domestic side to roads and basiclly make anything legal as long as the activity of another doesn't restrict the right of others to their lives, liberty or property.  That is not anarchy that is pure freedom.

Youa re correct. I am a die hard capitalist. Thanx for noticing.

But everything must have its balance.

If people would control themselves, I'd be ALL FOR the libertarian ideals.

But I live in the  real world, where even capitalism has its limits.

Quoted: 1st, stop spinning this god nonsense, god has nothing to do with anything. .

No thank you.

I'll post what I want.

Apparently, you don't REALLY care that much for the  free marketplace of ideas, if you think you can tell me what to post.



EVERYONE loves their OWN variety of regulation.

We just found the kind you love.

Quoted: Government can't meddle in business, so one business using the government to meddle in another businees cannot be stopped. There's no way the concept can make complete sense without violating the free market SOMEHOW.  Make sense?

Which means the ONLY true free marketplace is where gov't does not  exist.

Which is a non-sensical, purely theoretical proposition I'll leave to the eggheads to argue.

I just wanted to add this thought -  Though I think there is a genuinely workable Libertarian ideal that could be acheived, and that mankind absolutely should constantly strive for, I have to (sort of) agree with garandman to the point that because of the nature of man, you will almost be guaranteed that even the best laid plans of the most noble and intelligent people will eventually be corrupted by scumbags.

99.9% of all people who would seek public office, are the very people who should be barred from ever holding public office.   Decent people generally have better things to do.

Samey samey throughout history.  It's always the scumbags who are willing to stomp down anybody or anything in their way who rise to power eventually.  Occasionally, you have some anomaly like our Bill of Rights that pops up, but even it will probably be erased from the history books eventually (or rewritten to fit some future regime's policies).

Bread and circuses is where they always end up.

Quoted: 99.9% of all people who would seek public office, are the very people who should be barred from ever holding public office.   Decent people generally have better things to do.

100% agreement on that!!!

Quoted: Quoted: 99.9% of all people who would seek public office, are the very people who should be barred from ever holding public office.   Decent people generally have better things to do. 100% agreement on that!!!

I'll see your 100% and raise you 105%.



Which as one wise man said - ALL forms of gov't are dommed to collapse based on the humans that fill the political offices.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Those who are governed by God do NOT abuse workers, allow unsafe conditions, or exploit child labor (IF they are following God's rules) .



I disagree with that.  I am not governed by "God" though I would say that as a business man, while competitive, I really suck at it because I am too nice.  I have seen a lot of people who go to church 2x a week be nasty assholes.