Libertarianism is stupid.

[mpjh]

I take it you don't like Mr Chavez.

Well, back to libertarianism. Libertarians disapprove of military actions in foreign countries. They disapproved of the Irag and Afghanistan wars. They believe that economic trade is our best use of foreign relationships.

[SultanOfSurreal]

Its also a hypocritical statement because the countries you list have oprressive governments and therefore the people have no liberties... ASSHOLE.. Get a mind of your own and do some research instead of being a follower you SMUCK...

Only Iraq, maybe Afghanistan could be vaguely considered that... Both Peru and Venezuela are Republics, just like the USA. They hold democratic elections and all that kinda stuff. They are sovereign nations that really didn't do anything to anybody. DanFrank, you're so stupid it hurts.

Oh yeah.... Venezuela has a great government. I'm sure that Hugo Chavez would step down honorably if someone else were elected.






Gringo no go Citgo, Hugo loco.

hey look a dumb asshole who knows nothing about venezuela and thinks chavez saying bad things about america makes him a dictator

fascinating, please go on

[PLAYER57832]

Actually, Libertarians used to be called Liberals. That was untill the fucking communists came along and ass raped the term. Now "Liberal" actually means, "give-me-a-big-ass-controlling-government-so-I-don't-have-to-have-freedom-or-responsibility"

No, liberal means socially ... do what you want, as long as it doesn't harm anyone, but don't you DARE tell me how to live my life!

Economically, it means that we need a basic "safety net" because people are not perfect, make bad mistakes, get sick, etc... and its far CHEAPER to pay for some housing and food than to have to deal with rampant theft (anyone hungry enough WILL steal), etc. When it comes to kids... it is FAR FAR CHEAPER to fill their bellies with decent food and provide decent medical care than to watch them become adults with poorer abilities because they were malnurished as kids.

Economically it means go ahead and make money, but you better pay your employees enough so they can have a reasonable house, decent food and medical care! If you cannot afford to do so, you cannot afford to stay in business! When those employees are paid so poorly so that stockholders in some remote city, even another country, can make a hefy check or so that CEOs can make a huge bonus ... its plain criminal.

Politically Its creating laws that protect INDIVIDUAL freedoms. That allow anyone to think, say or do anyting so long as it is not directly harmful to those around. Its also about not getting into other people's.other countries business unless we are asked/needed. And when it is necessary, we do what Is necessary and not just what will benefit us, because in the LONG run, that really will benefit us the most.

But this is a thread on Liberatarianism, not liberalism.

[PLAYER57832]

I take it you don't like Mr Chavez.

Well, back to libertarianism. Libertarians disapprove of military actions in foreign countries. They disapproved of the Irag and Afghanistan wars. They believe that economic trade is our best use of foreign relationships.

What I find ironic about Liberaterianism (and note, I was one for many years), is that everything they put forward works well, but only as long as there is a strong federal government ensuring that the biggest bully doesn't take everyone else's stuff/rights. Yet, they don't want the federal government involved in anything.

[captain.crazy]

I take it you don't like Mr Chavez.

Well, back to libertarianism. Libertarians disapprove of military actions in foreign countries. They disapproved of the Irag and Afghanistan wars. They believe that economic trade is our best use of foreign relationships.

What I find ironic about Liberaterianism (and note, I was one for many years), is that everything they put forward works well, but only as long as there is a strong federal government ensuring that the biggest bully doesn't take everyone else's stuff/rights. Yet, they don't want the federal government involved in anything.

Don't be daft! Libertarianism supports Federal government if it is contained in the role that it is afforded in the Constitution. Not in the role of Micromanaging Super Juggernaut that it has created for itself.

[GabonX]

(GABONX HAS ANOTHER OBSCURE STORY WHICH HE THINKS PROVES HIM RIGHT BUT ACTUALLY DOESN'T!)

Becausethe most significant event of the last century is an obscure story
Stating that something is stupid without explaining WHY it is stupid, and denouncing major historical occurrences as "obscure" doesn't reach the intellectual level of a high school debate. Nice try to avoid having to post anything of substance though

I'm beginning to enjoy how often my name comes up, means I must be doing something right

Libertarianism rules. Live and let live... and don't tread on me. We believe that if two adults want to do something together, they should be able to do it. That includes everything from ass sex, to an open duel. Libertarians believe that America should stop trying to be an empire, because its not right and empires all fall anyway. We Believe that you can put what ever you want to in your body and that you don't have to be politically correct to be fair. We believe that you are free to believe what ever you want to with regards to religion, and we think that everyone should be responsible for their own security (a.k.a. arm yourself. A cop can only arrest someone after a crime has been committed, they cant prevent shit.)

I think that about covers it, though I am probably forgetting something.

Well said, I agree with almost everything you've said, not that I would ever call myself a Libertarian.

Frankly Snorri, it doesn't matter if this doesn't work for everyone. This philosophy places the responsibility on the individual, therefore failure can't be blamed on anyone but the self.

People you don't know don't owe you things just because you exist, and nobody has the right to tell another person what liberties they can and cannot have because they might abuse them.

Its also a hypocritical statement because the countries you list have oprressive governments and therefore the people have no liberties... ASSHOLE.. Get a mind of your own and do some research instead of being a follower you SMUCK...

Only Iraq, maybe Afghanistan could be vaguely considered that... Both Peru and Venezuela are Republics, just like the USA. They hold democratic elections and all that kinda stuff. They are sovereign nations that really didn't do anything to anybody. DanFrank, you're so stupid it hurts.

Rigged elections don't count

[xelabale]

Uhuh, and that is why Iraq, Afghanistan, Peru, Venesuela, etc. etc. are all asking us to stay out of their business.

well your from california.. That explains your post.. The hollywood state.. Ass backwards .. Feed and medicate all the ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS into bankruptcy.. Where are the californians tea parties?


Its also a hypocritical statement because the countries you list have oprressive governments and therefore the people have no liberties... ASSHOLE.. Get a mind of your own and do some research instead of being a follower you SMUCK...

Iraq and Afghanistan have US proxy governments you oppressive f*ck. Why do you want tea parties danfrank? You get into opposition after 8 years and now you don't want to play the game? Doesn't work that way pal. How much research have you done into the oppressive Peruvian government SCHMUCK? There is some evidence that the democratically elected Chavez may have vote rigged. There is some evidence that the democratically elected Bush may have vote rigged. SCHMUCK.

How does a libertarian state govern itself? In fact if we're getting tautological isn't libertarian state a tautology? So who organises shit? What happens to a libertarian who has an accident and needs to go to hospital - does he have his own hospital? Who builds his roads?

As soon as you are doing something cooperative - planting a field and harvesting, for example - you have a responsibility to people other than yourself. If you don't conform to that you are what we term a free-loading shite. You are therefore no longer a libertarian, but an asshole.

[GabonX]

As soon as you are doing something cooperative - planting a field and harvesting, for example - you have a responsibility to people other than yourself. If you don't conform to that you are what we term a free-loading shite. You are therefore no longer a libertarian, but an asshole.

I get it..

..I have to give you the food I planted and grew. Sounds perfectly fair to me

[Snorri1234]

How does a libertarian state govern itself? In fact if we're getting tautological isn't libertarian state a tautology? So who organises shit? What happens to a libertarian who has an accident and needs to go to hospital - does he have his own hospital? Who builds his roads?

Is however a far better question, Gabonx.

[mpjh]

The stupid liberals that live in cities, pay taxes, have families, and care about their fellow citizens in real ways.

[GabonX]

How does a libertarian state govern itself? In fact if we're getting tautological isn't libertarian state a tautology? So who organises shit? What happens to a libertarian who has an accident and needs to go to hospital - does he have his own hospital? Who builds his roads?

Is however a far better question, Gabonx.

You're assuming I call myself a Libertarian or subscribe to the libertarian philosophy. I am fiercely independent and I will never let anyone do my thinking for me about anything.

As I understand it, the philosophy is not such that it would totally eliminate government, but rather would minimalize it.

The Government would function better than it does now if they were forced to balance the budget ahead of time and had less money to do it with. Throwing money at a problem without an understanding of the root causes, seldom fixes it and increases debt.

[GabonX]

The stupid liberals that live in cities, pay taxes, have families, and care about their fellow citizens in real ways.

The liberals who choose to live in major cities and then complain about overpopulation

[Nobunaga]

The stupid liberals that live in cities, pay taxes, have families, and care about their fellow citizens in real ways.

... Interesting, that sounds like the "typical conservative" as well.

...

[mpjh]

Could be -- I am just excluded the ones that stockpile canned goods and guns and hide in the "rural" areas.

[GabonX]

For the record, it has been attributed to those red neck gun toting conservatives that your precious California was not invaded by the Japanese in World War 2.

The fact that Americans had guns motivated the Japanese brass to stay out of the American mainland. Frankly I would like other countries to follow that same train of thought.

[PLAYER57832]

I take it you don't like Mr Chavez.

Well, back to libertarianism. Libertarians disapprove of military actions in foreign countries. They disapproved of the Irag and Afghanistan wars. They believe that economic trade is our best use of foreign relationships.

What I find ironic about Liberaterianism (and note, I was one for many years), is that everything they put forward works well, but only as long as there is a strong federal government ensuring that the biggest bully doesn't take everyone else's stuff/rights. Yet, they don't want the federal government involved in anything.

Don't be daft! Libertarianism supports Federal government if it is contained in the role that it is afforded in the Constitution. Not in the role of Micromanaging Super Juggernaut that it has created for itself.

In mpj'h's mind.. somewhat. In your version.. you think everything is "micromanaging".

[mpjh]

First I am in New Mexico today, right next to the White Sands Missile Range, Fort Bliss, and the NASA listening station. I don't see many rednecks her, but hear and speak a lot of Spanish.

Second, nobody kept the Japanese off the mainland -- they never intended to invade. But my father and a bunch of his fellow GIs whopped their asses in the Pacific anyway.

[PLAYER57832]

The stupid liberals that live in cities, pay taxes, have families, and care about their fellow citizens in real ways.

The liberals who choose to live in major cities and then complain about overpopulation

huh?

As opposed to those who go out and build their own individual house on former farm land or even untouched land?

I am afraid I don't get your point GabonX.

[PLAYER57832]

Second, nobody kept the Japanese off the mainland -- they never intended to invade. But my father and a bunch of his fellow GIs whopped their asses in the Pacific anyway.

They actually did invade the continental US, just not very effectively or in great numbers.

But, I am interested in where you get the information that they never intended to invade. This is quite different from what I have read, been taught. Imperial Japan might have taken off more than it could chew, but it began with the assumption it was a nation led by a god and would eventually dominate the world by right.

[mpjh]

The Japanese did not have enough troop ships or landing craft to bring an army to the mainland. Clearly, if they intended to invade, they would have prepared such resources.

You need to be careful about "what you have been taught." I distinctly remember a textbook in grade school that said that we should eat fish because the supply of fish in the ocean was "unlimited."

[PLAYER57832]

The Japanese did not have enough troop ships or landing craft to bring an army to the mainland. Clearly, if they intended to invade, they would have prepared such resources.

You need to be careful about "what you have been taught." I distinctly remember a textbook in grade school that said that we should eat fish because the supply of fish in the ocean was "unlimited."

To the last paragraph, of course! I remember being upset because I failed a test question that asked if man could go to the moon? I said "yes" (we could).. and got the question wrong, because the textbook said we could not. (this was just before the moon landing).

However, I am not talking just a few sources. The story I heard is twofold, that Japan wanted to secure Hawaii and then use that as a "jumping off" place once they had crippled the US. (though they did invade the Alaskan Islands,too) Also, they underestimated the US willingness to fight and overestimated their own superiority. They thought they would do much better than they did.

History is pretty clear in hindsite, but things look different at the time.

And they did drop a balloon bomb on the US mainland. Historians differ on how much that was part of a larger plan that failed and how much of it was simply accidental.

[GabonX]

The stupid liberals that live in cities, pay taxes, have families, and care about their fellow citizens in real ways.

The liberals who choose to live in major cities and then complain about overpopulation

huh?

As opposed to those who go out and build their own individual house on former farm land or even untouched land?

I am afraid I don't get your point GabonX.

There is an implicit irony in that many of the people who falsely believe that there is an overpopulation crisis also choose to live in the most highly populated areas.

Second, nobody kept the Japanese off the mainland -- they never intended to invade. But my father and a bunch of his fellow GIs whopped their asses in the Pacific anyway.

You're wrong about this but frankly that's irrelevant. The point is that an armed populace acts as a deterrent to invasion, and if invasion occurs there is a means of resistance.

Another example of this is Warsaw. The city of Warsaw held out against German troops even after the military fell. A few armed fighters managed to resist Hitler's forces longer than the entire country of Poland! If every city in Europe would have had this fortitude World War 2 would have played out very differently. It may have been over without American involvement, but for the second time in less than half a century European weakness and irrational pacifism cost American lives.

A more modern example is the Iraq war. Despite all of our capabilities to the contrary, the war was fought on the ground. The insurgency demonstrates that even the strongest army can be opposed with basic conventional weapons.

[mpjh]

There is no evidence that either of your claims are true. In fact, it is pure daydreaming fluff.

[PLAYER57832]

The stupid liberals that live in cities, pay taxes, have families, and care about their fellow citizens in real ways.

The liberals who choose to live in major cities and then complain about overpopulation

huh?

As opposed to those who go out and build their own individual house on former farm land or even untouched land?

I am afraid I don't get your point GabonX.

There is an implicit irony in that many of the people who falsely believe that there is an overpopulation crisis also choose to live in the most highly populated areas.

Except its efficiency, not irony. If you want more room for crops, etc.. then everyone but the farmers (etc.) should live in cities.

[mpjh]

Yes, exactly. An we should stop paving over the best farm land in the world.