The End of the Libertarian Fantasy

Civil liberties my ass, moving rights to the states where they will be denied is not what I call supporting civil liberties. But Libertarian's heads are as thick as bricks and cannot understand what Paul is really up to.

No, disrespectful, it means we pass pooper scooper laws to make sure the dog owners clean it up, while libertarians think that's too much government interference. They always figure out away to avoid personal responsibility even when they step in it.

If everybody behaved ethically there would be no need for laws, but everybody does not behave ethically--liberals, consevatives or libertarians. Utopia does not now,never has and never will exist.

Well said! BRAVO!

This along with numerous other stupid things you have posted prove you know NOTHING about Libertarianism! One of the Cornerstone tenants of Libertarianism is the belief that people should have the right to do what they please with the "EXCEPTION" of harming others or their property.

When it is cheaper to wipe your @$$ with a dollar bill than a piece of Charmin you will take it seriously!

Even during Slavery there were a fare number of Slaves who bought the BS that they were better off as Slaves than as free men. This is why when the $h!ht hit the fan they sided with their Masters over the other Slaves. I see the same mentality at work today.

oh lord - someone "Hit n run assassin back-stab voted",.......that ? Explanations ?

no comment ? no balls ?
well,.............thats given...............

disagree - Libertarian-ism is close to TRUE "social Darwinism" - - - for what THATS worth -

the GOP is ALL about "old school good ol boy crony capitalism and geriatric plutocracy"

- and you can take THAT - "to the BANK"

If the new libertarians were true to the core of the idealism like a Barry Goldwater was. The new crop of libertarians are a hybrid that are willing to bastardize the core beliefs for a buck or two.

. . . .Im not sure you really appreciated the "to the BANK" of my comment,....but fair enough.

Barry Goldwater Jr. is one of Ron Paul's biggest supporters. I think he would disagree with your assertion. I think Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are VERY close to Goldwater on MOST issues.

Unless you're a woman in Paul's case. Then personal liberties fall by the wayside. That is a VERY glaring difference. Goldwater was a staunch supporter of a woman's right to choose. And oh yeah, Goldwater hated the religious right and despised Reagan for elevating them to political relevance. Paul embraces religious backing, or anyone that will throw him a buck or two. Keep convincing yourself that Paul is a libertarian purist. He's not. He's a homophobic, misogynist political opportunist.

Ron Paul has been asked MANY times why he allows his religious beliefs to inform his position on Abortion, but he does not let it inform his positions on Drugs, Prostitution, or Gay Rights issues. His answer is always the same and I will paraphrase.

He is Pro-Life because as a Physician he takes an oath to do no harm, and as a Libertarian he believes one of the basic tenants of Libertarianism is to not harm others or their property.

Quote “As an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can assure you life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the unborn, no matter what I do, so there’s a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights, and if there’s an injury or a killing, there is a legal entity. There is no doubt about it.” End quote

Ron Paul has very little backing from the Religious Right because he REFUSES to kiss Israel’s ass, so I am not sure where you get that silliness from.

As far as being Homophobic goes Ron Paul was the “ONLY” candidate last time around who said he SUPPORTED Gay Marriage. Even your Supreme Leader said he did not and then started blathering on about Civil Unions and how they were the same difference.

But the do no harm proponent disagrees with helping the unfortunate who can't afford to pay their own way through safety nets. His "churches will take care of the unfortunate" is a crock because the churches can't care of ALL the unfortunate and he knows it. That is where his libertarrian ideal collapses under the impracticality of it. It calls for an every man for themselves attitude in direct opposition to the teaching of "I'm my brother's keeper". How many churches will readily help a gay person and welcome them into their good Christian midst. Not many I would think. And he's against abortion even in the case of medical necsessity for the mother, so where does his "do no harm" oath come in there. The unborn will take precedence over the living mother even if she leaves other children behind that will no longer have a mother. Isn't that against your strictest tenants to have the traditional family unit in place or the whole world goes to hell? Paul uses the GOP to make sure his ideals remain in place, so that doesn't put him above the fray. Obama is no Supreme Leader of mine. I don't believe in Supreme Leaders of any stripe and certainly not some political Messiah who has contrasting beliefs to the extremes that Ron Paul has. For as many good ideas that he professes there are as many dangerous ones to society in general. We'll never agree on that, so there's the rub.

Nah. It breeds tribalism , and then Feudalism ; look to history.

( we "lefty" anarchists know better,.....pats self on back . . .)

Ah, you prefer the government control your actions. Well, to each his own.

I never said that. But for anyone to think that government can be totally taken out of the mix of one's life is very, very, very naive. Are you one of those people? You wish to promote an every man for himself world and it just doesn't work that way. You have no clue what type of world we would have in an anarchic society.

No one is advocating it totally be taken out, it does have it's purposes. The size and scope are the debate. Anti-Libertarians miss that nuance.

No. You do.

Why, because I don't equate reducing the size and scope of any number of federal government bureaucracies with closing the fire department and stopping building roads? It's the anti-libertarians that take it to that extreme, the strawman arguement that you'll have to build you own roads and inspect your own meat. No one has said that. And your infering that they have is disingenuous at best.

There's nothing disingenuous about that at all. You talk tough about all the things that eliminating the effectiveness of these departments won't impact without any proof to the contrary. You're the one that is living a pipe dream of superiority that libertarianism will bring to fore without really knowing a damn thing about what impact it would have on society.

Reducing the size and the cost to the taxpayers does not reduce effectiveness. Effiency promotes and sharpens effectiveness. Thinking smarter, and as a result, cheaper, works better, in every case. Throwing money at a problem never works. Yours is the pipe dream, the government can take our money from us and waste it as they like and we will prosper from it.

Your the ones who want to shrink government to the size of a baby and drown it in the bath tub. Reducing the size of critical departments to the point that they can't do the job required of them does not make any of these departments more effective. Quick trying to convince me you know better than I do because it's not working.

you funny mans.

Let's be honest, the first thing businesses do is throw as much money at a problem as they can. Then, after seeing the results, they then begin to carefully pick and choose the path which creates the most revenue for the top dogs and to hell with everyone else.

The studies that have been/are being done tend to prove that most "Effective(?)" CEOs COOs are psychopathic or sociopathic.

Chainsaw Jack, and Bain are two fine examples; or turn to NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple-america-and-a-squeezed-middle-c...

It is UNTRUE to say we believe in no restrictions! We believe that you SHOULD be restricted from harming other people and their property. How is that no restrictions?

The FEDERAL Government should be in our lives to the very LIMITED extent the Founders intended and no more!

You just pick and choose the ones that suit your ideology. You only want to control the people you don't agree with, like a woman's right to choose or a black man's right to sit at a lunch counter that the FEDERAL government has no right to dictate. That's not harming the individual one bit, is it? I understand.

See above.

In a TRULY free Country that RESPECTS Private Property Rights a Black man would have just as much a right to open a Restaurant and not serve White people if he so chose as vise versa. At the end of the day if the Government has the authority to FORCE me to sell you somersetting then why do they not have the authority to FORCE you to buy somersetting from me?

As to the abortion issue see my reply to Scooter.

I have not heard anyone say anything about not sharing, but my question is, do you like being restricted? Do you enjoy it? Or are you afraid of what you might do without restrictions? Do you need the government to restrict your actions? Does the government's restrictions on how you live your life make you feel safer? Why do you want to be restricted?

You give people to little credit. I know that pollution is bad and I know what company's products and services I will and will not use or support. Your premise is that people are sheep who can't think for themselves and must be guided through life. I give the human race more credit than that.

But you will vote for them for President?

Amen brother, amen.

Agreed. Fully. +^d

at the end we all slave of our own consumption ..

Thanks buckeye_bill