Fuck libertarianism.

[taitai]

Seriously.

What's the deal? With no strong central power, there would be no body that could negotiate strong business interests overseas, or even have a stable currency to trade by. Hell, business couldn't get by with out the commons. Roads, telecoms, electric grid, etc.

I'm not even going to talk about the vast benefit a strong central government gives to the citizenry since, well, most of you are bastards who believe that the self should be self-sustaining. Despite the fact that the entire breadth of existance prior to the 20's lead to the depression in the 30's and until we had a strong central system that did care for it's less fortunate did we had a real middle class...

 

[abasuto]

There's a big mouth libertarian named Neil Boortz who infects an AM station here. The only thing he's good for is his push for Fair Tax ( which I'm in favor of ).

Normally he just runs his mouth swearing that humans play zero role in climate change, the war in Iraq must go on for "freedom" and how we should build a giant impervious wall along the Mexican border.

He's basically an all around conservative except on two issues ( he's pro-choice and pro civil unions ).

 

[LoneSage]

I'm a libertarian because Junichiro is, so it works out.

 

[aria]

We should all be gentlemen farmers, apparently.

 

[Lashujin]

Seriously.

What's the deal? With no strong central power, there would be no body that could negotiate strong business interests overseas, or even have a stable currency to trade by. Hell, business couldn't get by with out the commons. Roads, telecoms, electric grid, etc

I think most libertarians think that these things are good, and should be payed for without taxes (i.e. with user fees) whether this would work or not, I don't know.

It seems you have no idea what libertarians believe at all.

 

[abasuto]

We should all be gentlemen farmers, apparently.

It worked for Jimmy Carter.

 

[jdotaku]

Boortz is on some issues libertarian as pointed out and on others is not. IN the end he is not a libertarian however but then he is not a conservative either. More of an independent.

Personally: A strong currency? Do you consider the dollar a strong currency? Its been losing its value for the last 100 years, big time. A strong currency has to be backed by something-gold or silver for instance. What we have now is filthy fiat money the government can just print and print.

The things you listed are fine (roads etc) but could be done much more efficiently than they presently are.

 

[abasuto]

A strong currency has to be backed by something-gold or silver for instance. What we have now is filthy fiat money the government can just print and print.

I'm amazed we're not a physical cashless society. I'd estimate atleast 85% of all money I spend is done via debit card.

 

[lithy]

I consider myself a Libertarian.

So fuck you.

 

[Segata_Sanshiro]

Libertarian philosophy kind of appealed to me as a rebellious youngster, since they're ideologically pretty much the opposite of the Catholic Church. I was assigned Capitalism and Freedom by an economics professor, and having only been exposed to Michael Moore/Rush Limbaugh types I was taken by Friedman's rational manner, as well as his support for racial minorities, the poor, and other disenfranchised groups (in 1962).

But really, even when I subscribed to it, I thought some of the arguments were just ridiculous. In addition to discussing it with people who know their stuff I would check out this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire

It illustrates a lot of the problems faced by the working class at that time. Really, unless you're a multimillion/billionaire factory owner, reforms like an 8-hour workday, minimum wage laws, safe working conditions, etc. etc. are good things.

 

[jdotaku]

segata I will point you to this book: HOw capitalism saved america it explains how capitalism brought about the good things you speak of (8 hour days etc)

I use credit/debit quite a bit also but I'd say half of my spending is still cash. It will be a terrible day when we become a cashless society

 

[SpamYouToDeath]

Libertarianism gives you autism. Known fact.

 

[taitai]

Personally: A strong currency? Do you consider the dollar a strong currency? Its been losing its value for the last 100 years, big time. A strong currency has to be backed by something-gold or silver for instance. What we have now is filthy fiat money the government can just print and print.

The things you listed are fine (roads etc) but could be done much more efficiently than they presently are.

The myth that the private sector is more efficient than the Government is easily shattered by the comicstrip Dilbert(well, it shatters the myth that the private sector *is* efficient).

I never said *strong* I said *stable.*

But the dollar hasn't lost value compared to the value of gold per ounce significantly since 1906. If you compare the value of Gold in 1906 vs the value of Gold in 2006 in constant dollars, you're well within 1 or 2 percent off. In fact, during the relatively liberal clinton years, the value of the dollar vs the value of gold per ounce would've left you with a *much* stronger dollar than in 1906! Of course, that's only if you compare the value of the dollar to the value of Gold and not against other currencies.

(see: http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ for the value of the dollar compared against the value of the dollar in other time periods. http://goldinfo.net/yearly.html for the value of gold over history.)

Basing our dollar on the economic strength of our industry is simply smarter than Gold. Gold has *nothing* backing it up. If you want to talk about an economic system that just isn't viable... Gold is only precious because it's shiny and rare. The dollar is based on our ability to produce products. Cars, TVs, radios, refridgerators, computers, movies... These back the dollar. Which are real and actually worth something to people in ways shiny rocks can't be.

 

[SpamYouToDeath]

Gold is only precious because it's shiny and rare.

Which makes it a good standard. There's a limited amount, most has already been found, and everyone has at least a little. It's a universal currency because there's a fixed amount which everyone feels has value.

 

[taitai]

Which makes it a good standard. There's a limited amount, most has already been found, and everyone has at least a little. It's a universal currency because there's a fixed amount which everyone feels has value.

That's why it makes it a *bad* standard. It means our economy and currency can't grow unless we obtain more gold, even if we own foreign currencies, it'd still be severely limited.

 

[SpamYouToDeath]

That's why it makes it a *bad* standard. It means our economy and currency can't grow unless we obtain more gold, even if we own foreign currencies, it'd still be severely limited.

No. The ecomony expands because money buys more, not because there's more money.

 

[taitai]

No. The ecomony expands because money buys more, not because there's more money.

Money can't make more gold. YOu can obtain more gold, but the expasion of industry is something that will not keep up with the amounts of gold. Gold is good to fall back on when you're broke, but not something to back your currency with.

 

[SpamYouToDeath]

Money can't make more gold. YOu can obtain more gold, but the expasion of industry is something that will not keep up with the amounts of gold. Gold is good to fall back on when you're broke, but not something to back your currency with.

What I'm saying is that if gold is used as a standard, no one can just print money. They CAN'T. The curency will IMMEDIATELY lose value. It is more likely for this to limit inflation than it is to limit economy growth.

 

[taitai]

What I'm saying is that if gold is used as a standard, no one can just print money. They CAN'T. The curency will IMMEDIATELY lose value. It is more likely for this to limit inflation than it is to limit economy growth.

But that's the problem. Just printing out money, while sounding bad, isn't actually all that bad. When the economy is robust and growing, the ability to keep up demand of dollars is very important. Because the dollar was tied to gold in the 50's, it caused a major problem where the economy grew, but the value of the dollar was stagnant and the US was unable to pay out promised gold.

By tying the economy to the value of itself rather than the value of the amount of gold we owed, a control can be kept on dollar gluts/dollar gaps.

 

[zer0hue]

Over the past six thousand years of civilized history, at least one clear and definable pattern can be discerned: organized authority has demonstrated itself to be ruthlessly ignorant, stubbornly unchanging, easily corruptible, and ultimately destructive to those it governs. There are no exceptions.

Your argument against libertarianism is predominantly material and excessively emotional. I don’t know if your mind equates financial stability with ethical accord, or if you have absolutely no concern for the latter. Regardless, the gross domestic product will never serve as any genuine measure of a political philosophy.

Even if I were to take your economic argument to task, it still withers against reasoned analysis. Since the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, American currency hasn’t been tied to any tangible wealth, making it a figment of pure speculation. From the nation’s beginning until this period there was steady, uninterrupted economic growth. Only after the Federal Reserve system was established did the Great Depression occur, and all the many cycles of financial wax and wane that have followed ever since. Your “imaginary economy” where money is printed wantonly on demand is intellectually unsound and is proving itself ruinous for the world’s rigidly-interconnected financial nexus.

As for your incoherent and historically inept musings on our inherent need for centralized authority, well... let’s just say I find it highly appropriate that you have a petty tyrant for an avatar.

Oh, and I’m not a libertarian.

 

[norton9478]

Libertarians are just like Marxists...

Escept for the fact that they have never gotten a guinea pig to copletely ruin.

 

[Segata_Sanshiro]

Only after the Federal Reserve system was established did the Great Depression occur, and all the many cycles of financial wax and wane that have followed ever since.

Are you seriously trying to say there weren't any recessions prior to 1913? Good ol' neo-geo.com. I can always count on you for pure gold.

As for your incoherent and historically inept musings on our inherent need for centralized authority, well... let’s just say I find it highly appropriate that you have a petty tyrant for an avatar.

Articles of Confederation, the Confederate States of America? Ever read up on either of these? A strong central government is the only sort that has ever worked for this country.

 

[taitai]

Over the past six thousand years of civilized history, at least one clear and definable pattern can be discerned: organized authority has demonstrated itself to be ruthlessly ignorant, stubbornly unchanging, easily corruptible, and ultimately destructive to those it governs. There are no exceptions.

But why does civilization persist? In the last 2 to 300 years of our western world we've been able to build up transparent governments that work in the favor of the people.

Your argument against libertarianism is predominantly material and excessively emotional. I don’t know if your mind equates financial stability with ethical accord, or if you have absolutely no concern for the latter. Regardless, the gross domestic product will never serve as any genuine measure of a political philosophy.

Even if I were to take your economic argument to task, it still withers against reasoned analysis. Since the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, American currency hasn’t been tied to any tangible wealth, making it a figment of pure speculation. From the nation’s beginning until this period there was steady, uninterrupted economic growth. Only after the Federal Reserve system was established did the Great Depression occur, and all the many cycles of financial wax and wane that have followed ever since. Your “imaginary economy” where money is printed wantonly on demand is intellectually unsound and is proving itself ruinous for the world’s rigidly-interconnected financial nexus.

As for your incoherent and historically inept musings on our inherent need for centralized authority, well... let’s just say I find it highly appropriate that you have a petty tyrant for an avatar.

Oh, and I’m not a libertarian.

But prior to 1971, the exchange rate on the open market for dollars was entirely pegged on the value of Gold.

Also prior to the federal reserve, we did have a central bank that was established, we had 2 central banks, one after the other in the 18th and 19th century.

Beyond that, the Depression was spurred by bad credit decisions on the part of banks and scandals inside the stock market on top of the dust bowl, which was an man-caused environmental disaster. It wasn't the vast printing of money that caused that to happen. IT caused a major fucking panic in the 70's, only due to the reliance on Gold as a fucking standard.

Your'e more full of shit than I am. I'm not saying small Governments or weak governments *can't* work, they just won't work for America which has relied on a strong central Government for so long now.

Are you seriously trying to say there weren't any recessions prior to 1913?

Great point, mostly because when Jackson plowed the debt under with the nation's reserve funding, he threw the economy into the shitter.

 

[Shred]

Actually way back in the day most Americans took care of themselves and the government was more like a mediator. Now a days too many people in this country expect and rely on the government to take care of them and their families.
If you think about it before the modern era the people of the United States of America supported the government now people expect the government to support them. Kind of sad how we have become a nation of whining babies who want the government to legislate a perfect non-confrontational like for us.

 

[norton9478]

Actually way back in the day most Americans took care of themselves and the government was more like a mediator. .

Actually, people were more likely to let god take care of them and the goverment was just trying to keep from going under...

There was no such thing as Chemo Therapy.