North Carolina US Senate Debate Mike Beitler (L), Richard Burr (R), Elaine Marshall (D) 10/13/10

Yes, I wish people discussed the ISSUES more, but.... I guess fishing through my past and trying to end me early was their initial strategy.... won't work. They will have to discuss the issues with us sooner or later.

Exactly! This is the very thing that you won't hear from the lamestream media or the republicrats. Keep up the good work!

Call in if you want to discuss Libertarianism.

With the right words you can make ANYTHING AND ANYONE sound great.

i would call in but i don't want you tracing the call.

like the great chupa libre wrestlers, my mask must remain on.

Why must people not know who you are?

Some people can, but he can't.
His words about "statism" and "government violence" just make his whole position sound like a manifesto written in a cabin in the woods.

Ah- so you are against an individual's right to privacy.
One more thing you would not understand, being a public figure since you were nine.

Privacy, for one.

When someone said the earth was round 1000 years ago, people thought it was crazy then.... in fact, they tried to silence them, belittle them, criticize the messenger, and often times used violence to try to stop them from spreading their "blasphemy". My point being, everything I am saying is true, it just isn't accepted as mainstream fact yet. It's not that I want to sit here, wasting away discussing this issue with people. The fact remains though, people need to hear the truth about what politics really is. It's guns, and it is often used against the little guy.

Me asking him why he hides his face does not mean I am against his privacy. He can simply answer nothing and life continues for both of us, no liberties infringed upon. If I was to send the state to his house to arrest him for not showing me his face, that would be me violating his right to privacy.

I would not use the state to infringe on him, especially since he has infringed on no one else.

He has every right to keep private, but what is the big deal letting people know who you are? Just wondering...

Oh, please. stop putting yourself on a pedestal.

Sometimes crazy people really ARE crazy.
Let's play the odds here.

No, what you are saying is NOT true- but you have deluded yourself to think so.

You have paranoid delusions about governments pointing guns at peaceful citizens, all because you are too selfish to want to pay your taxes.

So what you mean is: "Everyone has the right to privacy, but why use it?"

That's what I interpreted from your post, at least.

You're deluded to think I'm evil, so obviously talking common sense with you will never work....

You have the privacy to stay in the closet if you're gay, you have the privacy to do recreational drugs in your own home. I'm just asking why you are afraid of having people know who you are. Just wondering, something more than....for privacy. Why does privacy concern you when it comes to political beliefs? Just asking a question....

You are deluded to think anyone said "evil", and I knew from the beginning that rational thought does not work with you- you keep spouting off paranoid rants.

i hope you make this a running bit, not just for shankling opponents, maybe some mixed martial arts bouts with neo trolls vs enviromentalist.

Excellent!

...Do the wrestling commentary for EVERYTHING!!!

It's fucking awesome & hilarious!

is that supposed to be a pic of the improved part of somalia ?

Stop pretending you are even talking to me with these spam posts,
You are just crop-dusting current with political pamphlets.

I'm defending my case in my rebuttal to you. Have you ever researched this information?

Stop pretending like everything I post is spam.

Yeah, the part of Somalia thats doing better is actually Somaliland and they have a functioning government and oh, a THRIVING DEMOCRACY.

HAH ! ( NO ,..........REALLY ! HAH ! That WAS funny ) +^d

If I had a secure coke supply, some light armour, and some deadly houri ASSASSINETTES,.... and local connections,....I would make a GO! of Somalia !

+^d !

Actually, it is simply that reality is not up to ideals.
No real nation can ever exist that matches the ideals of Libertarianism, because people are humans.
It is the same reason why the opposite extreme, Communism, does not work.

Only a system that recognizes human nature CAN work- and that's Socialism.
The happy medium. The middle path. The best of both worlds.

So what is the difference between socialism and communism in your eyes?

I contend that communism doesn't work because it is based around centralized coercive monopolies (governments) and a loss of self-ownership.

It was talking about the North side, the North side is what is referred to as Somoliland.

Oh my god- you are involved in politics, you keep yelling "communist" at the top of your lungs, and you have no idea what the words mean!

You are Sarah Palin in man-drag!

Communism is where the government OWNS the means of production. They own the land, they own the businesses, and everyone works for the government, and gets paid by the government. In an ideal Communist state, everyone is middle class. No rich, no poor, just middle class for everyone. In practice, there are no ideals.

Communism does not work because human beings are greedy little bastards. They do not work for the common goal, they work for individual reward. So, Party members because wealthy, and did not give a damn about the people in the breadlines.

That is also why Laissez-faire Capitalism of Libertarianism does not work. It ends up with a small group of bizarrely stinking rich reaping their individual rewards, and a huge population of dirt poor with no way to advance, and almost no middle class. With no governments to regulate corporate action, we get monopolies, price fixing, unsafe working conditions, child labor, and dangerous products.

No, the free market does not solve this. We are not in the era of the Butcher, the Baker and the Candlestick maker, where a new Baker can move in and compete on price with the old baker, in the good old fashioned free market way.

This is the era where the bakers shake hands and agree to sell bread for $10 a loaf, the Butcher is selling cat meat as beef, and the local candlestick makers have all been pushed out by the KANDL, Inc. big-box discount superstore for all your wax-based lighting needs.

With no government regulations, companies screw the public.

In Socialism, just like Capitalism, private citizens own land, and have businesses. People can get rich off of their hard work and creativity. They can even have huge corporations. While some people work for the government, most do not.

Unlike Libertarianism, but like Communism, Socialism realizes that a goverment has a responsibility to it's citizens. It has the responsibility to police individuals, so they do not violate each other's human rights.

It has the responsibility to police corporations, so they do not violate the rights of their employees and consumers, and to ensure that they provide what they advertise.

It has the responsibility to provide education to it's citizens, so the nation as a whole benefits. It has a responsibility to provide health care, especially preventative health care, so that we have a strong, healthy, productive population. Helping the least of us is not purely altruistic- it benefits us ALL.

Libertarians have latched on to a false dichotomy of "independence" vs "dependence". The truth is INTERDEPENDENCE. We all count on each other. Every life has impact on every other life. By having a nation filled with healthy, educated people we ALL benifit, far more than if you horde every single penny out of your greedy desire to never pay taxes.

Thanks, you keep acting like this is information people have never seen before. It's not like this stuff is secret.

What does it matter if my grandpa has money? He always told me, "Michael, I am rich,...you're not." He wasn't rubbing it in my face, just saying that I had to go out in the world and make my own, and do good for myself, that he wasn't hand out central. I appreciated that from him, and we did make a historic run (which was pretty cool learning how to fly at the age of 9), but what does that have to do with anything? I still live in the same world you live in. I still want the best for everyone, I just don't believe that comes through top-down bureaucratic central planning.

We didn't go on the show to brag about it either, we were invited and went. I was 9 years old for goodness sakes, and I don't throw this in people's faces today.

You have me all wrong. Peace

Once again, what does any of this have to do with the issues? I am not rich.

So you are not going to defend your choice of shorts ?

I didn't have a choice in shorts, maybe that's why I am so pro-choice today! Lol

i think private businesses should have they right to discriminate against anyone wearing shorts like those.

It is easy for a child of privilege to be a libertarian, having received the good things in life on the backs of the poor and disadvantaged.

They do...

I received nothing on the backs of the poor and disadvantaged. I have done food drives, Relay for Life, blood drives, flown to Mexico on Mercy missions to bring free aid and medical to those in true need. I care about others truly and to suggest I use disadvantaged people because I went to a private school here or there (which I also went public), is simply disappointing to hear from you.

How can you deny that your privilege comes at the expense of those with less? I am not blaming you, only stating a fact. As a product of upper middle class America I am in the same boat. We both were given advantages that many others were denied.

As a child of privilege, having had every advantage, don't you see how fundamentally immoral your libertarian position is? After having received every advantage, you now want to say "every man for himself" and pretend that that would be somehow fair?

Take off your blinders, and make better use of your position, so much of which having been determined by the sheer luck of being born in one set of circumstances rather than another.

"How can you deny that your privilege comes at the expense of those with less?"
~Because people can have less without me taking it from them. It's not as if I stole from them and my parents are nowhere near upper middle class. I am not denying that others have it hard, but it is not my fault that they have it harder, nor is it other people's fault that are better than me that I am not where they are. It's not always someone else's fault. I do place much of the responsibility on government for devaluing our currency 96% since 1913 due to the Federal Reserve's fiat currency inflationary actions. I do blame the government for making it harder on small businesses to compete with their corporatist friends and lobbyist partners. I do believe that government for making it harder on the youth by giving them criminal records through prohibition. I do blame the government for wasting our money and putting our grandchildren in debt slavery. I do blame the government for large scale war and for all the other corporatist advantages that occur, deviating us farther and farther away from a free market.

"After having received every advantage"
~That is far from true.

I happened to be born with a decent brain, and I have used it for much good, and that is exactly why I am on this site taking a beating from right and leftists so that more can hear the message of peace and prosperity.

I'm sorry, but I just don't believe in Gods or governments.

Listen to "The Market For Liberty" audiobook and then tell me that your ideal society is moral...

http://freekeene.com/free-audiobook/

can't you do better than waving your hands and pointing at libertarian spam?

All children deserve a superb education , whatever their parents or grandparents station in life . This is one area where the libertarian mindset ( it is not a philosophy ) shows its true ugliness .

He kind of has the same debate skills as me. He(usually) points to a video/gives one and says, "Watch that.".

EDIT: I have the excuse that I have Asperger's Syndrome, and my social skills are pieces of shit.

Oh poor little rich boy, grew up in an ivory tower with his naive view of life, thinks that if the mean old cops and government bureaucrats would all go way, then everything would be peachy-keen!

Like Siddhartha before he left the palace, you have no clue what the world is like for people who did not have your privileged existence.

You see the government restricting freedom when they are ENSURING freedom by stopping some people from infringing on the rights of others.

I am not rich, I had 1 grandpa who was rich, and I certainly did not grow up rich, watching my father go to prison and watching my mother work multiple jobs to put food on the table. Why all the false conclusions and stereotypes?

"You see the government restricting freedom when they are ENSURING freedom by stopping some people from infringing on the rights of others."
~I'm sorry, but the government is protecting itself more than it is protecting our freedoms. Government is inherently against individuals rights because it is not about education and civilized behavior, it is about force and threats of coercion on peaceful people. Government works for the people in government, not for the People. There's just not enough people researching this information so the false Keynesian and neoconservative arguments just keep getting brought up time and time again.

I am not saying people shouldn't have a right to create a government, just allow people to opt out if they do not consent. If it's that good of a system, people will voluntary enter into it and the programs that it carries. If not, they can opt out and be sovereign. This would be progress, peaceful, and civilized behavior for the individuals in society.

So, you really don't understand the cause and effect relationship of how economic systems like Capitalism affect the working classes.

No wonder you can sit so blissfully in denial, and just say "let them eat cake!"

So how about instead of a centralized coercive monopoly, we have a government by the people and for the people, that provides an education to all it's citizens, without any profit motive behind it at all?

You say:
"I'm sorry, but the government is protecting itself more than it is protecting our freedoms."

Yet, you want to toss the baby out with the bathwater.

Instead of wanting to improve the system by removing corporate influence over government, you want to remove government regulations of corporations.

That is ass-backwards.

"I am not saying people shouldn't have a right to create a government, just allow people to opt out if they do not consent. If it's that good of a system, people will voluntary enter into it and the programs that it carries. If not, they can opt out and be sovereign. This would be progress, peaceful, and civilized behavior for the individuals in society."

With the exception of nations like North Korea, that's the way it works NOW.

When you are born, your parents consent for you.
When you grow up, you can continue with the default, or opt out.

You cannot opt out of civilization and still reap the benefits of civilization.

You cannot stop paying taxes, or consider yourself above the laws of this country, and still get the protection of the government and it's laws.

THAT is wanting something for nothing.

Because this is a civilized nation, you can opt out- renounce your citizenship, and move away.

I used a metaphor to one of your colleges- this is a Fitness Club. It has membership dues. By paying your dues you can use the equipment, and the smoothie bar, and the personal trainers, and enjoy the nice, clean, well-maintained establishment.

If you decide to not pay your dues, you have to leave the fitness club.

If you decide to dump your smoothie all over the equipment and not clean it up, or you decide to hide in the ladies locker room for a quick peek, you can be kicked out on your ass.

That is capitalism.

It is what you supposedly value.

Everything that applies to a business, also applies to a government.

I think the real question is why are Republicans pretending to oppose bailouts when they supported TARP and the auto bailout. They also claim to oppose government involvement in healthcare but they voted in Medicare Part D and endorsed Romneycare (i.e. Scott Brown). They also claim to oppose stimulus spending, but they voted for the first stimulus under Bush. In short, they only oppose big government when they are not in power.

Classic video, the Republican party has been and will continue to be the original party of statism even before the Democrats. They are the party of imperialism, protectionism, central banking and corporatism.

I must disagree with your picture definition of libertarianism

I would encourage everyone to research the libertarian platform and keep in mind that every law is backed by the political politicians and coercive force. Libertarians are individuals who believe that the People through Freedom, not compulsed central planning, will breed much more prosperity and peace.
http://www.lp.org/platform

And again, you use the words "coercive force", showing you have never had a civics class.
AGAIN- look up the phrase "Social Contract".
Look up the phrase "Consent of the Governed".

So, which one are you?

I'd say the first one, Naive, fits you like a glove.
But, Terrified, Petty Tyrant, and Dreamer all fit you too.

You are definitely Naive to the results of a free market without government oversight, and a Dreamer if you think the world would be a better place without laws.

You are Terrified of the government, even though it represents you and your interests, and your posts here have definitely exposed the Petty Tyrant dwelling within you.

How does me wanting to free other people equate me to being a Petty Tyrant?

The SEC, the government "regulators", backed up the largest individual ponzi scheme in the world....Bernie Madoff! They basically gave him the green light/rubber stamp for over one and a half decades. It's not really their faults, they are given an impossible task. They are not able to truly do what their job descriptions propose as it's impossible.

Government is simply coercion, and I believe that society can answer more complex social problems through peaceful interaction.

You can continue to cut me down all you want, it doesn't really help your cause though. I just believe in people spreading their preferences for their society without using state coercion.

No, there is no "coercion".
That's like saying that the police FORCE you to not commit rapes, so it's the evil cops fault that you don't have the freedom to rape.

The social contract means you give up some of your freedoms in exchange for a stable environment in which to live. As a result, you also have the responsibility to conform to that civilization you are a part of.

Do you have the right to not consent? Sure you do- all you have to do is renounce your citizenship in the US, and go live somewhere else. Or, if you want to remain, stay here with a work visa.

Since you were born here, your parents "opted in" for you. As an adult, you are free to opt out at any time.

Lol, I'm behind because I didn't use false and derogatory attacks?

i might consider this news if it was not posted by the guys
CAMPAIGN MANAGER.
but since Shanklins job is getting this guy elected
i will consider this a Political ad.

How do you artificially inflate page views? Either they are real, or they are not. What do you mean by artificially inflating page views?

"Libertarians continue to stoop to such despicable and boorish tactics only alienates community members, and reinforces the notion that Libertarians are at bottom juvenile losers"
~Stoop to what tactics? Libertarians posting libertarian information just like the other people who post their political information and ideas on here? That is a "tactic"? Explain why we are losers.

Why would be knee's be wobbling from someone pointing out the fact that I volunteer for Dr Beitler's campaign? My question also, what makes it "less news" depending on who posted it?

Absolutely . Voted up .

Well gee mister poliece officer, what do you mean by "speeding"?
Well, I was driving my car, and that little dial there pointed to the number "70", and that sign over there said "40", but I would not call that "speeding".
At each red light my car was perfectly still- one must average that in to determine my total rate of motion.
What's your definition of "speeding"?
It does not seem to match my definition of "speeding", officer, I swear.

PUPPET ACCOUNT - active for a year
600 comments - all on Shanklin posts, not 1 comment on any others.
570 votes - all on Shanklin posts, not 1 vote for anyone else.

Is Dr Beitler forced to comment on other articles? What is the definition of puppet?

Stop with all the questions you already know the answers to.
"how do you inflate page views?" "what's a puppet?"
you are a Polital Director of your party / a Campaign Manager for Beitler / you own your own Consulting Firm, & you describe yourself as a Political Activist, you have held seminars teaching "tricks" to other activists.
YOU KNOW DAMN WELL WHAT A PUPPET IS.

You yell at me for asking about a definition?...which you never defined...

I have never held seminars to trick activists and I think my motives are clear, Freedom. Tricks are why I hate the political game.

You just pulled a trick right there. . .
I said - you hold seminars Teaching Tricks to political activists,
and you give a trick answer - I have never held seminars To Trick activists.

And you don't do such a good job of defining things like 'statist' & 'our enslavement' so don't press me for definitions of my insults toward you.
Yes I am insulting you, and before you get your short shorts in a bunch, remember you are a public figure,
you've been on Letterman & Fox News, (god knows what else)
if you can't take the heat from a handful of people here on current, you should get out of politics & the spotlight. Or at least stick to the spotlight of your radio show / YouTube page / campaign headquarters / board seat / lecture circuit / consulting office.

Oh I can take it, I just think it's unfounded, and you never discuss the ISSUES!

I don't hold seminars to trick activists, what are you talking about?

Statism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism

I ask you listen to this audiobook when you get the chance.
"The Market For Liberty"
http://freekeene.com/free-audiobook/

And you repeat the backward self serving answer that makes it seem like i am acussing you of TRICKING activist, when i am clearly acussing you of TEACHING the tricks to the activist.

i have twice said that you are TRAINING Political Activists,
and you have twice rearranged my question in order to avoid answering it.

What tricks are there? Me telling people to just be honest and straightforward? I know, it's a trick the republicans and democrats never seem to play.....