"Libertarians support racism." I hope you see how ridiculous this statement is, you say "that gives people the right to employ whoever they like," this is a good thing. If you purport differently then you are a cultural Marxist, and believe that work should be given out based on socioeconomic factors (race, gender, religion etc.) and not on merit. This is still discrimination, you are discriminating against qualified individuals to employ less qualified individuals, and if you are doing
@M1O71 this on the grounds of race - then you are enacting racism. This has nothing to do with Libertarian philosophy. No Libertarian is supporting racism or discrimination - you clearly are. We will never have real equality until we can judge other people on their ability, and not on socioeconomic factors.
I am trying to be civil and have a real exchange of views with Paul supporters on my one Ron Paul video and some are actually being civil.Many are not.Of course it is a neg video but I figured that would get them to comment in the first place.I honestly like some of what Paul says.I just don't trust him as he is a politician.But on the big issues like the economy,health care,etc.I either do not agree or I do not understand his stance,the topic,or both.I do not understand the economy issue at all
@WatchPolitician because Ron Paul supporters and their and their cohorts deliberately go around and just rate down anything that exposes them for what they are and what their leader stands for.
@dumb0x69 Just like all of society I believe in taxation and yes I do believe money should be used to help others less well off than myself.And I have no problem in forcing people to pay tax either. I would start with Paris Hilton and Romney,increasing taxes on profits from interest over 1 million to about say 80%. And the top tax rate I would have back to the 95% rate it was back in the 1950's when unemployment was zero. Debt can be paid if we tax the creators of that debt-the big end of town
I don't support racism but a white supremacists has the same right to free speech that you do. Also i would like to pose a question, do you see the irony in the statements you have made? A racist is a person who makes harsh generalizations about a group of people who are considered to be a different race. The only difference with your opinion is you have made harsh generalizations about a group of people with a different opinions on political issues.
I was surprised at how well thought out your argument was, and amused at the irony. You hate a group of people, because you claim they would allow others to hate a group of people. Well at least they would allow you to hate them too lol.
The fact that thier are laws that cater to certain races is in of itself racist. You see a black man get beaten and murdered by a white guy. I see one human taking the life of another.
You can throw up as many laws as you want. You will not forcibly change peoples way of thinking or how they act. I think being racist is a waste of time n energy. But I will not use force to change them. They have to do it on thier own or fail.
@Biosynthnut "You will not forcibly change peoples way of thinking or how they act" The point isn't to change people's minds. People are free to believe whatever they want. However they are not free to deprive others of their rights or to hinder their day to day existence. Go watch some vids from the civil rights era of angry white mobs trying to prevent the integration of southern schools & universities and then tell me that "force" is so wrong in such a situation.
Further more, it is their RIGHT to run their business how they want. So if they want to be douchbag racist jerks. They will cater to those few, while businesses that cater to all. Will again prosper greater over the later.
@Biosynthnut People have no right to run their business "how they want" nor should they. A business is nothing "special" nor does it infer rights above society norms. Bigotry is disgusting and evil. laws that prevent it are good, laws that allow it to occur are evil.
@franks2732 Only a fascist and socialist would say an individual has no right to run their business as they see fit. Is it not their money they spent to start it? Their building, their equipment, their RESOURCES. Racism wasn't cured by a law. Racism was cured by people changing and coming together. Laws do not cure a racist person, a disease of the heart.
If someone does not impose force on you, how can you tell them they don't have the right to not service you.
@xKenseixX " Racism was cured by people changing and coming together" Hmm you mean like all of those white mobs coming together attempting to prevent desegregation of schools? Like the one in Little Rock that casued Pres. Eisenhower to deploy federal troops to enforce the desegregation order of the courts? Attitudes in the south gradually changed b/c that change was forced & as each new generation grew up integration was normal to them.
@xKenseixX "Only a fascist and socialist would say an individual has no right to run their business as they see fit" First of one can't be both a socialist & a fascist. Please learn political terminology. Second please point in the constitution where it says an indviduals property is an immovable rock around which the rest of society must navigate. Third what you advocate would then allow white supremacists, etc. to go build up their own segregated racists little enclaves. Sorry buddy, but no.
@xexixk Are you stupid, or just trying to be moronic. Did I say you're a socialist and fascist? No. I stated two different ideologies that center around individuals not having rights, i.e the collective mentality ect.. Please political terminology and reading comprehension, so to not further try to distort someones words. Seconds, please point where property rights are not protected and not a basic individual right. No one is forcing you to enter someones home, or eat somewhere.
@xKenseixX People wish to impose laws that would enable people to "force" people not to enter a business. Eat somewhere or use a privately own restroom etc etc. Or only serve certain types of people from a side entrance. Today you are not allowed to do that. I do not give a shit what you think , I only care as to your actions. We (the rest of us) have decided being a racist bigot is wrong. As such WE have made the "actions" illegal. Fuck what racists think. The law says they cannot ACT!
@xKenseixX Point out where in the constitution that it says a business is an immovable rock around which everyone in society must navigate. You trump the "individual right" of a racist but not of an individual to go about day to day business (ie shopping) with out undue burdens being places on them. The business owner is free to have whatever personal feelings they want but not to engage in discriminatory business practices.
@xexixk Third, you're scenario is retarded. So they can be closet racist, but can't own a business and hire who they want or serve who, when or how they want. Logical. Because owning your own establishment is a gift from the moral collective that is you, and government. Isn't that cute. Again, people changed, government didn't cure racism. We all know everyone will have a no blacks restaurant once freedom is legalized, right? I'm sure you will run to smoke pot once it's legalized, right? Idiot.
@xKenseixX As Queen Elizabeth said when she introduced the Protestant Reformation in the UK. I cannot change what are in mens hearts. No one can stop a person who is a "racist" from being a "racist". What we can do is stop them acting on it. Do you see any "whites only" coffee shops? No. The reason you do not see whites only coffee shops is because "racism" as an act is illegal. You cannot discriminate or you will be punished. Your mind your own, but regardless everyone still gets a coffee
@xKenseixX You are the idiot here, utterly blind of history. The Jim Crow laws existed because the majority WANTED them. The majority wanted to disenfrancise the minority. Has they just been stricken but no laws passed to compel integration you think the majority in the south would have just magically changed their minds? Yep the gov can regulate business, been doing for many years now. Nothing in the constitution says the gov can't.
@xKenseixX Go take a look at old news clips of angry white mobs upset over school integration? Look like reasonable people to you who would just suddenly and freely change their attitudes? The gov has a responsibility to protect the rights of all segments of society.
@franks2732 People can choose to not eat their or shop their. Protest and get the word out. But in the end, it's up to that business. Can I come over to your house for the party you throw, and demand you let me in? You have property rights only in your home according to you?
Why do we have racial quota's in job positions at state and private levels now? Individual liberty and freedom do just fine with out wanna-be protection laws that force their moral wills on others.
And you do know that if that business is run by a bigot/racists etc. And say the shop down the street welcomes everyone. The business that welcomes everyone will prosper more, then the bigot/racist shop. And they will either change and except everyone or go out of business. It's quiet simple.
@Biosynthnut It worked for over 150 years without a problem, racist behavior of the business owner did not deter buyers. racist businesses made money and prospered. I morally object to racism. It was only after the introduction of laws that prevented racism did racism end. I would rather have the laws than not because history proves it is the only way to guarantee protection for people
@franks2732 You cannot change how they think but by fuck you can change how they act. You throw up all them laws and stuff lol. Notice how since all them laws and stuff no "whites only" coffee shops exist. Fucking amazing, pass a law saying it's wrong and people stop doing it. By golly could be on a winner here
@Metalloveica Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.
@Metalloveica You are an idiot, Your ideology condones the actions of bigotry, not only that you would pass laws to make it acceptable. Thinking of you as an idiot, and having no tolerance for your beliefs is not bigotry. It is applying sound judgement . I do not discriminate against you and you may think how you choose, I have every right to object to your ideological beliefs. I have no more tolerance for you as I would a Nazi
I know three hardcore Libertarians. One of them uses the free health clinic, and the other two use food stamps. I've never known a libertarian to follow their own rules.
@atmabroadcasting you have to understand when they do it, it's ok as they are the future of the nation, but when everyone else uses government services they are freeloaders. Libertarians are the biggest unprincipled fools on YT
You, sir, are RETARDED. Employers have a right to hire who they want and choose who they do business with...How evil! Haha seriously, fuck you. You're an idiot.
@mboomer93 Actually they do not have that right, you may wish them to but they most certainly do not. Yes and I do believe it is evil for someone who simply owns a business to have a free pass from society
@franks2732 what the fuck is wrong with you you don't think people should be able to choose who they hire? so the government should just tell someone "oh you have to hire this person because I said so?" that's just insane. I know the original effect, preventing discrimination, is good, but once you create that kind of precedent you create an environment where the government can tell a business to do anything it says, and that, my friend, is the road to tyranny.
@mboomer93 Government tells a business many things it's called regulation existed since adam smith and will continue to exist. It is not the road to tyranny to tell someone what to do. A business wishes to impose it's private tyranny on it's employees. Business is not except from society. And just because you own a business does not exempt you from it. Who went and made the business owner special? they are not their own class
@franks2732 no one went and made the business owner special. In a libertarian world NO ONE is forced to hire ANYONE so there's no special rule for business owners. Explain how it's "private tyranny" for a business to choose who it hires.
@mboomer93 Wage slavery refers to a situation where a person's livelihood depends on wages, especially when the dependence is total and immediate. It is a negatively connoted term used to draw an analogy between slavery and wage labor, and to highlight similarities between owning and employing a person. Private tyranny is where business uses it's power to control the "wage slave" it is also used as a mean to impose private racism, rather than state sanctioned racism. Bigotry is Bigotry
@franks2732 I know what wage slavery is, I'm not retarded so don't patronize me. And guess what "wage slavery" is the stupidest concept I've ever heard of. Your livelihood SHOULD depend on wages, you SHOULD have to work for what you have. And that has absolutely nothing to do with a business owner having a choice of who he does or doesn't hire.
@mboomer93 I am not patronizing you, so you accept it's existence. It is not a stupid concept to the persom without the 'freedom to chose". Having the freedom to chose means having the independent means to do so. I counter that very few have that freedom. Yours is a idealism of blind faith, and it has all to do with the business owner, because the business owner uses his "freedom" to exert his power. To refuse or accept is not the point. The point is in reality can people refuse? I counter No
@franks2732 Yes, you can refuse to work for someone if they are abusive, that's the whole point of a free market. And yes "wage slavery" is a stupid concept because slavery is, by definition, unpaid. Therefore there's no such thing as wage slavery.
@franks2732 if we had enacted pro-business policies instead of further expanding government, our economy would be growing and unemployment wouldn't be at 9%. You would have another job to go to. But thanks to enthusiasts of your favorite policies we don't have that.
@mboomer93 it seems in the last 40 years engagement with pro business policies has lead to the present system of stupidity. And rather than spend excess money business hordes it's profits. With too few jobs "Mr Average" cannot secure work. Where is this spending of wealth or the trickle down you speak of. Complete and utter balderdash. So where is non force principle now wally
@franks2732 It's not working because economic conditions, high government debt and spending, inflation, and regulatory uncertainty have made it unsafe to invest. Investors only invest if they think they can make a profit, and right now they just can't trust the market. If those policies I just mentioned were curtailed then we would see more investment and more jobs.
@mboomer93 Inflation in the USA is the one of the lowest figures it has been in 25 years. Under Reagan it reached 10.3% finishing at 5.4%. Regulation is the lowest on record in the last 40 years. All major corporations have all posted record profits and have seen CEO's salaries increase by 250%. America has the highest level of 'profit hoarding" in history. It's highest levels of growth were during it's years of high taxation. Inflation is low because average people have no money to spend tbc
@franks2732 further to all that i am not American, live in a nation with 5% unemployment, the lowest debt in the OECD and high regulation and government control. Perhaps the way to address your problems is not to adopt the free market but control it, tax the fuck out of the high end of town, use the money to invest in local industry, bring back protectionism and redistribute the wealth to people who actually produce jobs, and spend money on buying shit. 25% Of all US wealth is paper
@franks2732 History proves this is far from an idiotic statement. In the late 19th century American industrial workers had higher average wages than those from any other country in the world despite the fact that America had no minimum wage laws. Why? Because companies had to compete for workers, and one of the ways to get them to come was by paying higher wages.
@mboomer93 History actually agrees with my side of the fence far from increasing regulation in the last 30-40 years at has been the reverse. Before then people earned more, were more secure and had a higher standard of living, since then except in one area things have got worse-the rich have got richer. Wagers in the last 40 years have fallen and in the 19th century it was the biggest level of poverty in the industrial age
@mboomer93 well done and you might be also able to understand that very few people actually agree with your ideology. Perhaps it's the fact it is a load of toss? perhaps
@mboomer93 The worker seems to have little choice but to do so based on evidence, choice as you seem to claim is blanket, I counter that that "choice" is far from blanket nor is it really choice. It is force, weather direct or indirect. We live in a society that exists in the here and now, not in a mythical land (regardless of political idealism). A employee must work to support her/himself and those interdependent of self. Simply put "choice" is a limited commodity dependent on many fators
@BagofHay Not really, it is common knowledge that libertarians are in the habit of negging videos to alter the perception to the audience.Funny enough your ideology is so unpopular the only place you have left to spruik your bullshit is online. Out of all political parties that ran in the last US elections yours finished last. Even Nader out voted your political wing. And don't give me it's a 'movement" so is going to the toilet. You break your own rules of logic-the appeal to authority fallacy
@franks2732 What are you talkin' about? The libertarian party is the third-largest party in the USA. And most libertarians aren't even part of this party. The Libertarian party is still growing despite the fact that it represents a relatively small portion of people who would consider themselves libertarian. Its internet presence is tremendous because libertarians are devoted to their cause.
@BagofHay Actually that is not true, although the Libertarian Party used to be that mantle is now held by the Constitution Party (it is even worse for libertarians with the actual votes reducing) and the claim of the claim that most libertarians are not part of the party is bullshit. The claim that there is this groundswell of support come that fucking stupid Nolan chart and their own surveys which are slanted to alter the perspective of the results.
"libertarians called obama a facist communist neo-nazi-" blah blah fuckin blah
well frank its been a little slice of heaven, but with that last comment, i wipe my ass with this video and hammer the last nail into your logical coffin
whats the charming saying you jack-tars have over there?
@TwistedComplex So do you mean your 6 or so comment rant where you rattle on about nothing besides you and your ideologies self importance is meaningful debate. If the world only conformed to your logical view of it? LMFAO, now run along sonny there's a good boy
@TwistedComplex really It seems to push your buttons, the simple fact that you found it so compelling a video to rant on and on and on and on about sure would indicate you found it relevant enough to "bother with a reply" sort of proves my point don't you think
@TwistedComplex So the reason you ranted on is that although my comments have little significance you deemed them worthy of your need to vent your rage towards me? It does seem though if your arguments were so sound and logical why would you need to engage in personal insults and hyperbole to prove your point. You imply I am creating straw men but according to your own logical values you spend a great deal of time engaged in the logical fallacy of "attacking the man".Time for a rethink perhaps?
first of all where did i say, never mind IMPLY that your arguments "werent worth my time"
secondly who in this entire conversation said i was "attacking the man"
if you had a modicum of reading comprehension you would realize that YOU said those things. YOU made the assertion that you werent worth my time. YOU made the assertion that were "fightin the man, maaaan"
last and fucking finally. no matter how angry a person gets, thats NOT proof of your theories. dick
@TwistedComplex Please provide proof to support your claims, proof and evidence. It is not a hard ask provide me with proof to prove your point. And I don't hold to your values so I do not judge myself to your values. But if you hold to your values at least have the strength of character to apply them. Your an ignoramus playing in the sandpit of imagination. A place where your ideological values are best kept
@TwistedComplex first of all where did i say, never mind IMPLY that your arguments "werent worth my time"
1. "youre a stupid cunt" if you think companies don't keep certain races out because of the law
2. this is such a weak fucking video
the comments, you're a stupid cunt, and this is a fucking weak video, seem to indicate quite clearly that my arguments were not worth your time. Not than the first line makes any sense nor is supported by any evidence but none the less buddy, you said it
@TwistedComplex But you felt the video was worthy of a reply. Perhaps you could tell me how if my video is so stupid and pathetic that you deem it worthy of you spending your time trying to defeat the points made. Not that you have but none the less it does seem confusing. That if in fact my video is so stupid why would you waste your time with it? Could it be that just perhaps the video attacks your ideology and calls into question your values? And that comment on business what an idiot really
@TwistedComplex But you felt the video was worthy of a reply. Perhaps you could tell me how if my video is so stupid and pathetic that you deem it worthy of you spending your time trying to defeat the points made. Not that you have but none the less it does seem confusing. That if in fact my video is so stupid why would you waste your time with it? Could it be that just perhaps the video attacks your ideology and calls into question your values? And that comment on business what an idiot really
@franks2732 im WELL aware that this video calls into question my ideology and incase you didnt catch it the first time, how about you scroll down and reread what i said BEFORE we started having this conversation
in case your fingers are broken let me summarize:
"libertarians cherry pick" -no examples given
"they think friedman is the only person to get a nobel" - no examples given
"they defend the rights of racists" WELL ya got me there. it sucks being fair minded i guess
youre a stupid cunt if you think companies don't keep certain races out because of the law
they dont discriminate because its bad for business. simple as that.
and yes i support the rights of racists, murderers, terrorists, pedophiles, rapists, anarchists, arsonists, adulterers, thieves, scumbags and assholes
but i also support the right of law abiding civilians, cops, firefighters, and working citizens
i dont discriminate against discriminators. go fucking figure
@TwistedComplex do you really think calling me a stupid cunt and insulting my ass is doing your ideology any favors? I mean really you seem to believe I am the devil incarnate who offers nothing to "the argument" but you seem to spend a hell of a lot of time trying to "dispel" my comments.So if my argument was pointless and easy to defeat, I am at a loss why you deem it necessary to spend so much time explaining to the world why I am wrong. Go figure tbc
As to your comments in relation to racism, have you noticed that no "whites only coffee shops" exist. For all your belly aching it does see the Civil Rights Act has done it's job quite well. Where as your alternate vision sort of does not meet the aspirations of the Citzen body. It seems to me people don't believe the argument that it's OK to be a bigot? I mean that is your ideologies stance. So I look at the record, 40 years of proven laws that aid in fighting racism or your fucked up beliefs
@franks2732 the fact that, and correct me if im wrong, people like you will complain about the american government not treating terrorists and giving them a fair trial (which i fucking agree with) you then turn a blind eye to domestic crimes
"don't tread on our rights... UNLESS he is a racist of course"
oh great, then we can just call people racists and take away their rights. GREAT FUCKIN IDEA!
@TwistedComplex I am not an American but I have never met "people like me" (LMFAO what a stupid comment from the campion of logic) who turn a blind eye to domestic crimes. Considering America "the land of the free" jails more people per capita than any other nation on earth. Maybe just maybe a different approach to "crime" is needed. And as America has many active home grown terror cells like the Huctree Militia (who said they were Christian libertarians). Many on the left do worry
@alex7491681 I have spoken the truth 100%, you are deluding yourself if you do not believe what I am saying is true. But I will ask you one question, Do you see any "whites only" signs, do you see any 'no jews allowed" signs. have you seen any since the Civil Rights Act. Fucking funny that don't you think, they all magically disapeared
Look you cant tell me what i believe. your blinded by what youve been told to see the truth. Liberty means freedom, and thats what were giving back to the people. And besides our words "refuse to trade for whatever reason" are being interpreted by you, so I wouldnt talk about interpretation right now.
@alex7491681 Nope i am not blinded or blinked i am simply saying exactly what your political party believes. It is the libertarian party platform, perhaps you should take it up with them if you disagree with it. Perhaps as you are jewish you like the idea of "no jewish allowed" signs on business door. And perhaps it's ok for you to go to a one horse town where the local bigot owns the only garage and you are refused service because of your background. Perhaps that is OK by you. Not me
So your saying that anyone who says anything the slightest bit racist should be put in jail? Imagine that. Government regulation doesnt help these matters. It just makes it worse. Its like prohibition. When we banned alchohol, we got al capone. Now, with laws against marijuana and other drugs, we got the bloods and crips. Government regulation makes things like that happen. We cant control how people think. That the key word in Libertarian, "liberty". Liberty and Justice for All.
@alex7491681 Well actually in my country we have laws that make it illegal for people to make racist comments. But I actually think those laws are being used more as political weapons than solving underlying racist beliefs. I will be doing a video on that shortly. But "SAYING AND DOING" are two very different things. Your Political Political party would introduce laws that enable racism. The key to words like, liberty and justice is how they are interpreted not the words themselves
Your missing the point. Were saying people have the right to be racist. We dont support it. Its like abortion. I dont support it, but I trust that most people, unless in a bad situation, wouldnt kill the baby.
@alex7491681 That is the bloody well point. "People would have the right to be racist" and yes I do have a very big problem with that. Weather you "personally" or individually disagree is not the point. The fucking well point is you would allow someone to discriminate.
Look I dont care. Im not gonna insult you, but I respect the Constitution enough to allow freedom of expression as long as it doesnt infringe on the rights of others. And it doesnt say you can discriminate against people like that. Go to lp.org and look at their platform. And by the way, dont even like Ron Paul. If the only way he wants to get elected is by cloaking himself as a Republican, then he doesnt even respect the TRUE beliefs of our party.
@alex7491681 Actually it does say that people can run a business that says "jews are not allowed" it is in the LP platform and I pointed that out to you. What do you think the words 'refuse to trade for whatever reason' mean. Ring up the LP and ask them. Hey ask your libertarian buddies. It is a fact, one sadly that you are failing to address
Im not racist or any of that stuff. Im Jewish and against racism and discrimination, but that doesnt mean you can take away the right to free speech. You should quit listening to rumors and crap like that and actually check out their platform.
@alex7491681 actually the policy platform of the American Libertarian Party is to allow someone to open a business which has on the front door "No Jews Allowed", "Irish unwelcome", "blacks only served at side window" . That is what both Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party believe. I think you should actually check their platform. You are factually incorrect. LP party platform "The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever". So yes they allow racism
you need to explain further, your not givign enough detail,you say libertarians are insane HOW, how are they SO insane, please explain to me, i would like to have a conversation of why you think we are such idiots, all you do is insuilt us, without fact or reason, you give 2 or 3 very vague reasons, thats it. how can you insult someone or a group of people without even explaining what part of them you hate? PLEASE reply i want to politically kick your ass.
I'm a libertarian and here's how I see your specific points.
1) Libertarianism does not advocate racism, or encourage racism. Broadly it supports the freedom to choose actions so long as they are not explicitly violent or threatening of violence to others. So yes, if business owner X was a biggot and didn't want to hire Y because he doesn't like Y, this is legally acceptable to (hardcore) libertarians. It's not the same as advocating one be a biggot in the first place.
Personally, as a business owner I say little prayer every day to have competitors who would be stupid enough to limit their pool of potential quality employees and paying customers.
2) Re: Regarding metaphysics. Libertarianism in total is NOT homogenous. sounds like your beef is primarily with deontological purists. Yet there are entire other branches that are purely consequentialist. and reach similar if not identical conclusions.
@Vettezuki "Personally, as a business owner I say little prayer every day to have competitors who would be stupid enough to limit their pool of potential quality employees and paying customers" personally you would do nothing to stop it and you would not care about the racist activities of your competitors. You are willing to allow racism as long as it does not effect you personally. You are an idiot
@franks2732 You don't get it. Living as a non-racist, working with all people, is the best way to filter racism out of society. I, and all libertarians, 100% support having removed legally enforced segregation, but stop short of legally enforced integration. For one thing you can't just wish and enforce your way to a society you prefer.
3) Regarding cherry picking of history and statistics. This can be true of course. Selection and confirmation bias are common cognitive biases to all people. This is why I often like to site the work of non-libertarians in making libertarian points. eg,Gabriel Kolko's "The Triumph of Conservatism" which is an excellent historical work on the collusion of business and government that runs counter the common (false) narrative that regulations emerged purely as a reaction for protecting the weak.
@Vettezuki You have little understanding of political theory or history, it is rather sad really. Funny but extremely sad at the same time that your ideology would generate the need to reinvent history to conform with it.
@franks2732 I've given you one reference to a historical work written by a LEFTIST historian, extensively and meticulously researched from original sources. It's a unique and bold approach compared to just saying "you don't understand anything." As for political theory, where do you want to start, Plato, or leap ahead to Hume, Locke, Marx, Hegel, whoever. Give me a break.
@franks2732 I've given you one reference to a historical work written by a LEFTIST historian, extensively and meticulously researched from original sources. It's a unique and bold approach compared to just saying "you don't understand anything." As for political theory, where do you want to start, Plato, or leap ahead to Hume, Locke, Marx, Hegel, whoever. Give me a break.
4) Not that it matters particularly, but there was another guy who won the Nobel Prize in economics named F.A. Hayek. As a young man, he was a Fabian Socialist. Then through the study of economics became what would now be called a libertarian.
5) You are partially correct about the Revolutionary War not being an entirely libertarian enterprise, but guys like the Jefferson and Paine (failure not withstanding) were very very hard core classical liberals who would now be considered libertarians.
@Vettezuki F.A. Hayek has been discredited and his theories debunked, even Friedman has the good sense to see through such nonsense.
I am also 100% correct, not one single member of the American revolutionary war were libertarian, as libertarianism did not exist in 1776. You are using a term called "revisionism" to re write history to conform to your ideologies narrow premise. You are indeed very naive, stupid and deluded
@franks2732 Hayek has been debunked? By whom? When? Hell, a lot of ABCT theory is LITERALLY playing out in front of our eyes, practically like reading a text book example. Friedman was using an entirely different methodology . . .and reaches many of the same conclusions regarding the state vs. individual in economics. "Free to Choose" and "The Use of Knowledge in Society" even drive at the same basic point.
@Vettezuki Hayek is debunked by everyone and is actually thought of as a joke, secondly "politically Friedman agreed with your idea of individuality but he did not agree with Hayek at all on economic matters. Friedman even published a book on the subject rejecting all the claims of the Austrian school. That is a fact. But yes they did agree on two things, the state has the right to tax your ass and redistribute money to poor people. rejected by Mises and the other wacko's tbc
@Vettezuki Market forces can accomplish wonderful things, he realized, but they cannot ensure a distribution of income that enables all citizens to meet basic economic needs. His proposal, which he called the negative income tax, was to replace the multiplicity of existing welfare programs with a single cash transfer — say, $6,000 — to every citizen. yes that is Milt advocating social welfare on a grand scale-give everyone a golden handshake from the government LMFAO
@Vettezuki in 1943 Mr. Friedman proposed a progressive consumption tax as the best source of revenue to meet critical national objectives. ... High tax rates on consumption by the wealthy, Mr. Friedman argued, would generate additional revenue with only minimal sacrifice. yes he disagreed with income tax but dash gone it he loved consumption taxes and favored higher taxes on the most wealthy, guess what for? to help poor folk out LMFAO
"A society that puts equality...ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."
"We have a system that increasingly taxes work and subsidizes nonwork." (Hint: that was later than 1943)
Off on a tangent, but I love what he's driving at:
"If the only motive was to help people who could not afford education, advocates of government involvement would have simply proposed tuition subsidies."
@franks2732 1943 was literally the middle of WWII and still within scope of the "New Deal" era. His (much) later work suggested rather different ideas on the whole, especially after having seen how fantastically inefficient government bureaucracies were.
"
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. " - MF
@Vettezuki The fedal government has been in charge of the USA since 1776 and seems to be still in charge and going along strong. in fact I disagree with the USA in it's direction but non the less, 300 years of proof that 'government works' opposed to your "nothing"
@Vettezuki "Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance - where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks - the case for the state's helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong" Hayeks own words. Both him and Friedman supported the "state" and advocated for it, both were both "statists" and tax supporters
@franks2732 True. *Some* (key word) libertarians would call them statists. But golly you seem to be warming up to "Free to Choose" Friedman and "Constitution of LIberty" Hayek, I don't mind. It's a great step. Since you're in to Hayek now, maybe get beyond just reading quotes off a site somewhere and pick up some of the the complete works. I also recommend "Prices and Production."
@franks2732 As for the revolutionary war and actors of that time, I said SOME held positions that were consistant with libertarian positions/theory. For example, when Jefferson wrote to Madison in response stating, "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
@Vettezuki Thomas Paine was also great: "Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices…The first is a patron, the last a punisher."
@Vettezuki their actions had nothing at all to do with your political ideology, how could they? Your ideology did not exist in 1776. Secondly your statement is just vague rhetoric and can easily be applied to any political ideology, you are simply looking at the words through your ideological prism. Jefferson was happy to give "man" his freedom but thought blacks were not humans, so their life was not counted, nor were women and men who did not own property or held the station of wealth counted
@franks2732 You can't be dense enough to not know the connection between classical liberalism and libertarianism . . . it's not possible. Is it? As for jefferson, who was lifelong best buds with Paine, he was not a perfect man to be certain. As for Paine, and just that one quote and there are more even more radical anti-state writings what OTHER ideology would it fit wiith? Mmm? Progressim, modern liberalism, socialism, conservatism. Not very well at all now? Libertariansm? By crikey, yes.
@Vettezuki Thisis to say nothing of the history of 19th century libertarians and its core American roots with guys like Lysander Spooner, who as an abolitionist, and Benjamin Tucker on women's rights.. See Wendy McElroy (a woman) on the role of free markets and the liberation of women for for another. You apparently have a pamphlet world view of what libertarianism was and is. You've yet to actually make an argument beyond "you guys are bad boooh." This got pretty boring pretty fast. Ah well
@Vettezuki No "Lysander Spooner" was not a libertarian was an individualist anarchist, he even attended the "first international" and is regarded as one of the strongest fighters for workers rights. Like most (if not all anarchists) he advocated for an end to "wage slavery" which he saw as no different to that of slavery. He advocated the end of the state and ALL forms of control including that of private control. Although Rothbard claims him, it is unfounded and another example of revisionism
@franks2732 And his work "No Treason" etc. for it's demolishing of social contract theory and justifications for state power line up with and influenced what ideology? Libertarian-anarchy.
@Vettezuki Bullshit, plain and simple. You cannot lay claim to the past as part of your ideology, when your ideology did not exist. When you do so that is called revisionism. You are making the past "subject" to your beliefs today. The dead cannot defend against it. It is the highest form of intellectual dishonesty.
@Vettezuki further Tucker on workers rights " He argued, "strikes, whenever and wherever inaugurated, deserve encouragement from all the friends of labour. . . They show that people are beginning to know their rights, and knowing, dare to maintain them. and furthermore, "as an awakening agent, as an agitating force, the beneficent influence of a strike is immeasurable. . . with our present economic system almost every strike is just." tbc and read this little gem of a line
@franks2732 And that's fine. Who said anything against rights to organize labor? They may be silly and self destructive these days a lot of times, but it's certainly the right of people to freely associate and bargain for better XYZ on a free market. Fine. That's hardly anti-libertarian. The history of unions forming to freeze out cheap immigrant and minority labor, now that's anti-libertarian.
@Vettezuki unions are hardly anti socialist either LMFAO what a dill. But would you like me to quote what your intellectual figures said of unions. You do not want to go there
@franks2732 You're quite good with the straw man and ad hominm. At what point did I say unions-were anti-socialist. They're just not in themselve sinherently anti-libertarian either. They're fine to THE EXTENT they are voluntary associations. Separate from this one can make claims against their utility and their motifs, but this is separate from the legitimacy of people organizing amongst themselves.
@Vettezuki I am the last person to deny that increased wealth and the increased density of population have enlarged the number of collective needs which government can and should statisfy.
@franks2732 Read "The Constitution of LIberty" in full to see what he was advocating. While not hardcore libertarianism (true) it's not socialist or even progressive in the conventional modern sense. Plus I thought Hayek was discredited. Are you cherry picking?
@Vettezuki I have developed, over the years, some sense of the difference between real horseshit that you can step in and Ideal Platonic Horseshit that exists, evidently, only in the contemplation of those who worship such abstractions; and I continue to notice that Natural Law bears an uncanny resemblance to ideal Platonic Horseshit.
@Vettezuki Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid
@Vettezuki Far from advocating a "minimal state", we find it unquestionable that in an advanced society government ought to use its power of raising funds by taxation to provide a number of services which for various reasons cannot be provided or cannot be provided adequately by the market.
@franks2732 See my other reference regarding "Constituion of LIberty" But hell, if you're warming up to a thorough Hayekian world view, after previously claiming he's be discredited, we're getting somewhere!
"Libertarians support racism." I hope you see how ridiculous this statement is, you say "that gives people the right to employ whoever they like," this is a good thing. If you purport differently then you are a cultural Marxist, and believe that work should be given out based on socioeconomic factors (race, gender, religion etc.) and not on merit. This is still discrimination, you are discriminating against qualified individuals to employ less qualified individuals, and if you are doing
M1O71 2 weeks ago
@M1O71 this on the grounds of race - then you are enacting racism. This has nothing to do with Libertarian philosophy. No Libertarian is supporting racism or discrimination - you clearly are. We will never have real equality until we can judge other people on their ability, and not on socioeconomic factors.
M1O71 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
BrosseLa 3 weeks ago
I am trying to be civil and have a real exchange of views with Paul supporters on my one Ron Paul video and some are actually being civil.Many are not.Of course it is a neg video but I figured that would get them to comment in the first place.I honestly like some of what Paul says.I just don't trust him as he is a politician.But on the big issues like the economy,health care,etc.I either do not agree or I do not understand his stance,the topic,or both.I do not understand the economy issue at all
SuperPacJack 3 weeks ago
Why did you disable rating?
WatchPolitician 3 weeks ago
@WatchPolitician because Ron Paul supporters and their and their cohorts deliberately go around and just rate down anything that exposes them for what they are and what their leader stands for.
irishgodfatherchris 3 weeks ago
Ron Paul and his fan boys remind me of Justin Bieber and all the tween girls that go crazy over him.
SuperPacJack 3 weeks ago
@SuperPacJack No the girls have more common sense lol
franks2732 3 weeks ago
@franks2732 LOL! HAHAHA!
SuperPacJack 3 weeks ago
Hi franks. You look like you have way more stuff than me. Do you think the government should tax away some of your wealth to give to me?
dumb0x69 3 weeks ago
@dumb0x69 Just like all of society I believe in taxation and yes I do believe money should be used to help others less well off than myself.And I have no problem in forcing people to pay tax either. I would start with Paris Hilton and Romney,increasing taxes on profits from interest over 1 million to about say 80%. And the top tax rate I would have back to the 95% rate it was back in the 1950's when unemployment was zero. Debt can be paid if we tax the creators of that debt-the big end of town
franks2732 3 weeks ago
@BritishLibertarian Why not ask yourself why you think 'big" government is bad? Why not ask the sane question? Why can I not have good governance?
franks2732 1 month ago
What is it like 41 percent now who say they are socially liberal and fiscally conservative? you hate all of them?
MirageScience 1 month ago
I don't support racism but a white supremacists has the same right to free speech that you do. Also i would like to pose a question, do you see the irony in the statements you have made? A racist is a person who makes harsh generalizations about a group of people who are considered to be a different race. The only difference with your opinion is you have made harsh generalizations about a group of people with a different opinions on political issues.
Trolling4RonPaul2012 1 month ago
ONLY SOMEONE WHO HATES LIBERTY WOULD TURN OFF RATINGS.
Trolling4RonPaul2012 1 month ago
this coming from a man that never dated a black woman, go die you idiot liberal, you fuckin dumb socialist
jmoney31705 1 month ago
I was surprised at how well thought out your argument was, and amused at the irony. You hate a group of people, because you claim they would allow others to hate a group of people. Well at least they would allow you to hate them too lol.
Codad 1 month ago
The fact that thier are laws that cater to certain races is in of itself racist. You see a black man get beaten and murdered by a white guy. I see one human taking the life of another.
Biosynthnut 1 month ago
You can throw up as many laws as you want. You will not forcibly change peoples way of thinking or how they act. I think being racist is a waste of time n energy. But I will not use force to change them. They have to do it on thier own or fail.
Biosynthnut 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Biosynthnut "You will not forcibly change peoples way of thinking or how they act" The point isn't to change people's minds. People are free to believe whatever they want. However they are not free to deprive others of their rights or to hinder their day to day existence. Go watch some vids from the civil rights era of angry white mobs trying to prevent the integration of southern schools & universities and then tell me that "force" is so wrong in such a situation.
xexixk 1 month ago
Further more, it is their RIGHT to run their business how they want. So if they want to be douchbag racist jerks. They will cater to those few, while businesses that cater to all. Will again prosper greater over the later.
Biosynthnut 2 months ago
@Biosynthnut People have no right to run their business "how they want" nor should they. A business is nothing "special" nor does it infer rights above society norms. Bigotry is disgusting and evil. laws that prevent it are good, laws that allow it to occur are evil.
franks2732 2 months ago
@franks2732 Only a fascist and socialist would say an individual has no right to run their business as they see fit. Is it not their money they spent to start it? Their building, their equipment, their RESOURCES. Racism wasn't cured by a law. Racism was cured by people changing and coming together. Laws do not cure a racist person, a disease of the heart.
If someone does not impose force on you, how can you tell them they don't have the right to not service you.
xKenseixX 1 month ago
@xKenseixX " Racism was cured by people changing and coming together" Hmm you mean like all of those white mobs coming together attempting to prevent desegregation of schools? Like the one in Little Rock that casued Pres. Eisenhower to deploy federal troops to enforce the desegregation order of the courts? Attitudes in the south gradually changed b/c that change was forced & as each new generation grew up integration was normal to them.
xexixk 1 month ago
@xKenseixX "Only a fascist and socialist would say an individual has no right to run their business as they see fit" First of one can't be both a socialist & a fascist. Please learn political terminology. Second please point in the constitution where it says an indviduals property is an immovable rock around which the rest of society must navigate. Third what you advocate would then allow white supremacists, etc. to go build up their own segregated racists little enclaves. Sorry buddy, but no.
xexixk 1 month ago
@xexixk Are you stupid, or just trying to be moronic. Did I say you're a socialist and fascist? No. I stated two different ideologies that center around individuals not having rights, i.e the collective mentality ect.. Please political terminology and reading comprehension, so to not further try to distort someones words. Seconds, please point where property rights are not protected and not a basic individual right. No one is forcing you to enter someones home, or eat somewhere.
xKenseixX 3 weeks ago
@xKenseixX People wish to impose laws that would enable people to "force" people not to enter a business. Eat somewhere or use a privately own restroom etc etc. Or only serve certain types of people from a side entrance. Today you are not allowed to do that. I do not give a shit what you think , I only care as to your actions. We (the rest of us) have decided being a racist bigot is wrong. As such WE have made the "actions" illegal. Fuck what racists think. The law says they cannot ACT!
franks2732 3 weeks ago
@xKenseixX Point out where in the constitution that it says a business is an immovable rock around which everyone in society must navigate. You trump the "individual right" of a racist but not of an individual to go about day to day business (ie shopping) with out undue burdens being places on them. The business owner is free to have whatever personal feelings they want but not to engage in discriminatory business practices.
xexixk 2 weeks ago
@xexixk Third, you're scenario is retarded. So they can be closet racist, but can't own a business and hire who they want or serve who, when or how they want. Logical. Because owning your own establishment is a gift from the moral collective that is you, and government. Isn't that cute. Again, people changed, government didn't cure racism. We all know everyone will have a no blacks restaurant once freedom is legalized, right? I'm sure you will run to smoke pot once it's legalized, right? Idiot.
xKenseixX 3 weeks ago
@xKenseixX As Queen Elizabeth said when she introduced the Protestant Reformation in the UK. I cannot change what are in mens hearts. No one can stop a person who is a "racist" from being a "racist". What we can do is stop them acting on it. Do you see any "whites only" coffee shops? No. The reason you do not see whites only coffee shops is because "racism" as an act is illegal. You cannot discriminate or you will be punished. Your mind your own, but regardless everyone still gets a coffee
franks2732 3 weeks ago
@xKenseixX You are the idiot here, utterly blind of history. The Jim Crow laws existed because the majority WANTED them. The majority wanted to disenfrancise the minority. Has they just been stricken but no laws passed to compel integration you think the majority in the south would have just magically changed their minds? Yep the gov can regulate business, been doing for many years now. Nothing in the constitution says the gov can't.
xexixk 2 weeks ago
@xKenseixX Go take a look at old news clips of angry white mobs upset over school integration? Look like reasonable people to you who would just suddenly and freely change their attitudes? The gov has a responsibility to protect the rights of all segments of society.
xexixk 2 weeks ago
@franks2732 People can choose to not eat their or shop their. Protest and get the word out. But in the end, it's up to that business. Can I come over to your house for the party you throw, and demand you let me in? You have property rights only in your home according to you?
Why do we have racial quota's in job positions at state and private levels now? Individual liberty and freedom do just fine with out wanna-be protection laws that force their moral wills on others.
xKenseixX 1 month ago
And you do know that if that business is run by a bigot/racists etc. And say the shop down the street welcomes everyone. The business that welcomes everyone will prosper more, then the bigot/racist shop. And they will either change and except everyone or go out of business. It's quiet simple.
Biosynthnut 2 months ago
@Biosynthnut It worked for over 150 years without a problem, racist behavior of the business owner did not deter buyers. racist businesses made money and prospered. I morally object to racism. It was only after the introduction of laws that prevented racism did racism end. I would rather have the laws than not because history proves it is the only way to guarantee protection for people
franks2732 2 months ago
@franks2732 You cannot change how they think but by fuck you can change how they act. You throw up all them laws and stuff lol. Notice how since all them laws and stuff no "whites only" coffee shops exist. Fucking amazing, pass a law saying it's wrong and people stop doing it. By golly could be on a winner here
franks2732 1 month ago
Let me see if I get this right.
"Simply put, libertarians support the right for a racist bigot to be a bigot."
and
"I don't give a shit what they say, I have no tolerance for them at all. They are utterly scum."
You may not be a racist, but it sure sounds like you are a bigot. But that is okay because I support the right of a bigot to be a bigot.
Metalloveica 3 months ago
@Metalloveica Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.
Metalloveica 3 months ago
@Metalloveica You are an idiot, Your ideology condones the actions of bigotry, not only that you would pass laws to make it acceptable. Thinking of you as an idiot, and having no tolerance for your beliefs is not bigotry. It is applying sound judgement . I do not discriminate against you and you may think how you choose, I have every right to object to your ideological beliefs. I have no more tolerance for you as I would a Nazi
franks2732 3 months ago
I know three hardcore Libertarians. One of them uses the free health clinic, and the other two use food stamps. I've never known a libertarian to follow their own rules.
atmabroadcasting 4 months ago
@atmabroadcasting you have to understand when they do it, it's ok as they are the future of the nation, but when everyone else uses government services they are freeloaders. Libertarians are the biggest unprincipled fools on YT
franks2732 4 months ago
@atmabroadcasting Yeah....I'm sure they're Liberatians
evolutionist101 4 months ago
You, sir, are RETARDED. Employers have a right to hire who they want and choose who they do business with...How evil! Haha seriously, fuck you. You're an idiot.
mboomer93 5 months ago
@mboomer93 Actually they do not have that right, you may wish them to but they most certainly do not. Yes and I do believe it is evil for someone who simply owns a business to have a free pass from society
franks2732 5 months ago
@franks2732 what the fuck is wrong with you you don't think people should be able to choose who they hire? so the government should just tell someone "oh you have to hire this person because I said so?" that's just insane. I know the original effect, preventing discrimination, is good, but once you create that kind of precedent you create an environment where the government can tell a business to do anything it says, and that, my friend, is the road to tyranny.
mboomer93 5 months ago
@mboomer93 Government tells a business many things it's called regulation existed since adam smith and will continue to exist. It is not the road to tyranny to tell someone what to do. A business wishes to impose it's private tyranny on it's employees. Business is not except from society. And just because you own a business does not exempt you from it. Who went and made the business owner special? they are not their own class
franks2732 5 months ago
@franks2732 no one went and made the business owner special. In a libertarian world NO ONE is forced to hire ANYONE so there's no special rule for business owners. Explain how it's "private tyranny" for a business to choose who it hires.
mboomer93 4 months ago
@mboomer93 Wage slavery refers to a situation where a person's livelihood depends on wages, especially when the dependence is total and immediate. It is a negatively connoted term used to draw an analogy between slavery and wage labor, and to highlight similarities between owning and employing a person. Private tyranny is where business uses it's power to control the "wage slave" it is also used as a mean to impose private racism, rather than state sanctioned racism. Bigotry is Bigotry
franks2732 4 months ago
@franks2732 I know what wage slavery is, I'm not retarded so don't patronize me. And guess what "wage slavery" is the stupidest concept I've ever heard of. Your livelihood SHOULD depend on wages, you SHOULD have to work for what you have. And that has absolutely nothing to do with a business owner having a choice of who he does or doesn't hire.
mboomer93 4 months ago
@mboomer93 I am not patronizing you, so you accept it's existence. It is not a stupid concept to the persom without the 'freedom to chose". Having the freedom to chose means having the independent means to do so. I counter that very few have that freedom. Yours is a idealism of blind faith, and it has all to do with the business owner, because the business owner uses his "freedom" to exert his power. To refuse or accept is not the point. The point is in reality can people refuse? I counter No
franks2732 4 months ago
@franks2732 Yes, you can refuse to work for someone if they are abusive, that's the whole point of a free market. And yes "wage slavery" is a stupid concept because slavery is, by definition, unpaid. Therefore there's no such thing as wage slavery.
mboomer93 4 months ago
@mboomer93 No you cant nor do you have any real choice. Choice under your system is only available to those who can afford it.
franks2732 4 months ago
@franks2732 Oh my god yes you can you can just leave and go work for someone else. Not that hard
mboomer93 4 months ago
@mboomer93 ha ha ha ha and this from a guy who's nation has 9% unemployment. Got to have another job to go to buddy. What an idiotic statement
franks2732 4 months ago
@franks2732 if we had enacted pro-business policies instead of further expanding government, our economy would be growing and unemployment wouldn't be at 9%. You would have another job to go to. But thanks to enthusiasts of your favorite policies we don't have that.
mboomer93 4 months ago
@mboomer93 it seems in the last 40 years engagement with pro business policies has lead to the present system of stupidity. And rather than spend excess money business hordes it's profits. With too few jobs "Mr Average" cannot secure work. Where is this spending of wealth or the trickle down you speak of. Complete and utter balderdash. So where is non force principle now wally
franks2732 4 months ago
@franks2732 It's not working because economic conditions, high government debt and spending, inflation, and regulatory uncertainty have made it unsafe to invest. Investors only invest if they think they can make a profit, and right now they just can't trust the market. If those policies I just mentioned were curtailed then we would see more investment and more jobs.
mboomer93 4 months ago
@mboomer93 Inflation in the USA is the one of the lowest figures it has been in 25 years. Under Reagan it reached 10.3% finishing at 5.4%. Regulation is the lowest on record in the last 40 years. All major corporations have all posted record profits and have seen CEO's salaries increase by 250%. America has the highest level of 'profit hoarding" in history. It's highest levels of growth were during it's years of high taxation. Inflation is low because average people have no money to spend tbc
franks2732 4 months ago
@franks2732 further to all that i am not American, live in a nation with 5% unemployment, the lowest debt in the OECD and high regulation and government control. Perhaps the way to address your problems is not to adopt the free market but control it, tax the fuck out of the high end of town, use the money to invest in local industry, bring back protectionism and redistribute the wealth to people who actually produce jobs, and spend money on buying shit. 25% Of all US wealth is paper
franks2732 4 months ago
@franks2732 History proves this is far from an idiotic statement. In the late 19th century American industrial workers had higher average wages than those from any other country in the world despite the fact that America had no minimum wage laws. Why? Because companies had to compete for workers, and one of the ways to get them to come was by paying higher wages.
mboomer93 4 months ago
@mboomer93 History actually agrees with my side of the fence far from increasing regulation in the last 30-40 years at has been the reverse. Before then people earned more, were more secure and had a higher standard of living, since then except in one area things have got worse-the rich have got richer. Wagers in the last 40 years have fallen and in the 19th century it was the biggest level of poverty in the industrial age
franks2732 4 months ago
@franks2732 and btw I do understand that other people have, as you so eloquently put it, "won awards and shit."
mboomer93 4 months ago
@mboomer93 well done and you might be also able to understand that very few people actually agree with your ideology. Perhaps it's the fact it is a load of toss? perhaps
franks2732 4 months ago
@franks2732 and it's also ridiculous to say the business owner controls the worker, the worker doesn't HAVE to work for them
mboomer93 4 months ago
@mboomer93 The worker seems to have little choice but to do so based on evidence, choice as you seem to claim is blanket, I counter that that "choice" is far from blanket nor is it really choice. It is force, weather direct or indirect. We live in a society that exists in the here and now, not in a mythical land (regardless of political idealism). A employee must work to support her/himself and those interdependent of self. Simply put "choice" is a limited commodity dependent on many fators
franks2732 4 months ago
Can you imagine that? Employers hiring whomever they want? You call that freedom? This is ridiculous! That's not freedom--that's racism!
I completely agree with you--Libertarianism is racism and libertarians are scum!
No, but in all seriousness...die.
BagofHay 5 months ago
@BagofHay why thank you. i see you are friends with fringe, how is the racist bigot? still losing every argument he gets into
franks2732 5 months ago
@franks2732 Judging by the amount of likes this video has, my point of view is a lot more mainstream than you would like to believe.
BagofHay 5 months ago
@BagofHay Not really, it is common knowledge that libertarians are in the habit of negging videos to alter the perception to the audience.Funny enough your ideology is so unpopular the only place you have left to spruik your bullshit is online. Out of all political parties that ran in the last US elections yours finished last. Even Nader out voted your political wing. And don't give me it's a 'movement" so is going to the toilet. You break your own rules of logic-the appeal to authority fallacy
franks2732 5 months ago
@franks2732 What are you talkin' about? The libertarian party is the third-largest party in the USA. And most libertarians aren't even part of this party. The Libertarian party is still growing despite the fact that it represents a relatively small portion of people who would consider themselves libertarian. Its internet presence is tremendous because libertarians are devoted to their cause.
BagofHay 5 months ago
@BagofHay Actually that is not true, although the Libertarian Party used to be that mantle is now held by the Constitution Party (it is even worse for libertarians with the actual votes reducing) and the claim of the claim that most libertarians are not part of the party is bullshit. The claim that there is this groundswell of support come that fucking stupid Nolan chart and their own surveys which are slanted to alter the perspective of the results.
franks2732 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@franks2732 I don't even know what you just said.
BagofHay 5 months ago
"libertarians called obama a facist communist neo-nazi-" blah blah fuckin blah
well frank its been a little slice of heaven, but with that last comment, i wipe my ass with this video and hammer the last nail into your logical coffin
whats the charming saying you jack-tars have over there?
oh yeah. frank, get bent
TwistedComplex 5 months ago
@TwistedComplex So do you mean your 6 or so comment rant where you rattle on about nothing besides you and your ideologies self importance is meaningful debate. If the world only conformed to your logical view of it? LMFAO, now run along sonny there's a good boy
franks2732 5 months ago
"they cherry pick arguments"
what arguments? what statistics, when, where, what was the context? what did we misunderstand? what are we wrong about?
yes ladies and gentlemen, the person who said libertarians are no different than muslims cant provide any supporting evidence to his claims YET AGAIN
TwistedComplex 5 months ago
@TwistedComplex by golly one would think that I may have been giving a general overview of the tactical ploy of many libertarians, fuck me freddy
franks2732 5 months ago
i think you need to rethink your position of how libertarians are like christians and muslims.
because guess what. if you belong to a political party, YOU are like christians and muslims.
you have an ideology and so do religions. INCEPTION!!!!
this is such a weak fucking video
TwistedComplex 5 months ago
@TwistedComplex really It seems to push your buttons, the simple fact that you found it so compelling a video to rant on and on and on and on about sure would indicate you found it relevant enough to "bother with a reply" sort of proves my point don't you think
franks2732 5 months ago
Comment removed
TwistedComplex 5 months ago
Comment removed
TwistedComplex 5 months ago
i have to applaud you sir
not only in 3 comments did you manage to say NOTHING of significance, you also punched the logic barrier in the face and raped it in the ass
walk me through the mind of frank.
how does replying to a video PROVE that the video is true? how does me being infuriated by your ignorance PROVE that youre not ignorant?
once again you you gave a big fat "fuck you" to logic and torched down a field of straw men that you created in your own fantasy world
TwistedComplex 5 months ago
@TwistedComplex So the reason you ranted on is that although my comments have little significance you deemed them worthy of your need to vent your rage towards me? It does seem though if your arguments were so sound and logical why would you need to engage in personal insults and hyperbole to prove your point. You imply I am creating straw men but according to your own logical values you spend a great deal of time engaged in the logical fallacy of "attacking the man".Time for a rethink perhaps?
franks2732 5 months ago
Comment removed
TwistedComplex 5 months ago
Comment removed
TwistedComplex 5 months ago
@franks2732 here we go again
first of all where did i say, never mind IMPLY that your arguments "werent worth my time"
secondly who in this entire conversation said i was "attacking the man"
if you had a modicum of reading comprehension you would realize that YOU said those things. YOU made the assertion that you werent worth my time. YOU made the assertion that were "fightin the man, maaaan"
last and fucking finally. no matter how angry a person gets, thats NOT proof of your theories. dick
TwistedComplex 5 months ago
@TwistedComplex Please provide proof to support your claims, proof and evidence. It is not a hard ask provide me with proof to prove your point. And I don't hold to your values so I do not judge myself to your values. But if you hold to your values at least have the strength of character to apply them. Your an ignoramus playing in the sandpit of imagination. A place where your ideological values are best kept
franks2732 5 months ago
@TwistedComplex first of all where did i say, never mind IMPLY that your arguments "werent worth my time"
1. "youre a stupid cunt" if you think companies don't keep certain races out because of the law
2. this is such a weak fucking video
the comments, you're a stupid cunt, and this is a fucking weak video, seem to indicate quite clearly that my arguments were not worth your time. Not than the first line makes any sense nor is supported by any evidence but none the less buddy, you said it
franks2732 5 months ago
@franks2732 actually the comments "youre a stupid cunt" and "this is a weak video" seem to indicate that youre a stupid cunt who makes weak videos
TwistedComplex 5 months ago
@TwistedComplex But you felt the video was worthy of a reply. Perhaps you could tell me how if my video is so stupid and pathetic that you deem it worthy of you spending your time trying to defeat the points made. Not that you have but none the less it does seem confusing. That if in fact my video is so stupid why would you waste your time with it? Could it be that just perhaps the video attacks your ideology and calls into question your values? And that comment on business what an idiot really
franks2732 5 months ago
@TwistedComplex But you felt the video was worthy of a reply. Perhaps you could tell me how if my video is so stupid and pathetic that you deem it worthy of you spending your time trying to defeat the points made. Not that you have but none the less it does seem confusing. That if in fact my video is so stupid why would you waste your time with it? Could it be that just perhaps the video attacks your ideology and calls into question your values? And that comment on business what an idiot really
franks2732 5 months ago
@franks2732 im WELL aware that this video calls into question my ideology and incase you didnt catch it the first time, how about you scroll down and reread what i said BEFORE we started having this conversation
in case your fingers are broken let me summarize:
"libertarians cherry pick" -no examples given
"they think friedman is the only person to get a nobel" - no examples given
"they defend the rights of racists" WELL ya got me there. it sucks being fair minded i guess
TwistedComplex 5 months ago
youre a stupid cunt if you think companies don't keep certain races out because of the law
they dont discriminate because its bad for business. simple as that.
and yes i support the rights of racists, murderers, terrorists, pedophiles, rapists, anarchists, arsonists, adulterers, thieves, scumbags and assholes
but i also support the right of law abiding civilians, cops, firefighters, and working citizens
i dont discriminate against discriminators. go fucking figure
TwistedComplex 5 months ago
@TwistedComplex do you really think calling me a stupid cunt and insulting my ass is doing your ideology any favors? I mean really you seem to believe I am the devil incarnate who offers nothing to "the argument" but you seem to spend a hell of a lot of time trying to "dispel" my comments.So if my argument was pointless and easy to defeat, I am at a loss why you deem it necessary to spend so much time explaining to the world why I am wrong. Go figure tbc
franks2732 5 months ago
As to your comments in relation to racism, have you noticed that no "whites only coffee shops" exist. For all your belly aching it does see the Civil Rights Act has done it's job quite well. Where as your alternate vision sort of does not meet the aspirations of the Citzen body. It seems to me people don't believe the argument that it's OK to be a bigot? I mean that is your ideologies stance. So I look at the record, 40 years of proven laws that aid in fighting racism or your fucked up beliefs
franks2732 5 months ago
@franks2732 the fact that, and correct me if im wrong, people like you will complain about the american government not treating terrorists and giving them a fair trial (which i fucking agree with) you then turn a blind eye to domestic crimes
"don't tread on our rights... UNLESS he is a racist of course"
oh great, then we can just call people racists and take away their rights. GREAT FUCKIN IDEA!
TwistedComplex 5 months ago
@TwistedComplex I am not an American but I have never met "people like me" (LMFAO what a stupid comment from the campion of logic) who turn a blind eye to domestic crimes. Considering America "the land of the free" jails more people per capita than any other nation on earth. Maybe just maybe a different approach to "crime" is needed. And as America has many active home grown terror cells like the Huctree Militia (who said they were Christian libertarians). Many on the left do worry
franks2732 5 months ago
Look ive had enough for today. Feel free to tell me what masterpiece of a political party you belong to tommorow. Good debate.
alex7491681 5 months ago
@alex7491681 I have spoken the truth 100%, you are deluding yourself if you do not believe what I am saying is true. But I will ask you one question, Do you see any "whites only" signs, do you see any 'no jews allowed" signs. have you seen any since the Civil Rights Act. Fucking funny that don't you think, they all magically disapeared
franks2732 5 months ago
Look you cant tell me what i believe. your blinded by what youve been told to see the truth. Liberty means freedom, and thats what were giving back to the people. And besides our words "refuse to trade for whatever reason" are being interpreted by you, so I wouldnt talk about interpretation right now.
alex7491681 5 months ago
@alex7491681 Nope i am not blinded or blinked i am simply saying exactly what your political party believes. It is the libertarian party platform, perhaps you should take it up with them if you disagree with it. Perhaps as you are jewish you like the idea of "no jewish allowed" signs on business door. And perhaps it's ok for you to go to a one horse town where the local bigot owns the only garage and you are refused service because of your background. Perhaps that is OK by you. Not me
franks2732 5 months ago
So your saying that anyone who says anything the slightest bit racist should be put in jail? Imagine that. Government regulation doesnt help these matters. It just makes it worse. Its like prohibition. When we banned alchohol, we got al capone. Now, with laws against marijuana and other drugs, we got the bloods and crips. Government regulation makes things like that happen. We cant control how people think. That the key word in Libertarian, "liberty". Liberty and Justice for All.
alex7491681 5 months ago
@alex7491681 Well actually in my country we have laws that make it illegal for people to make racist comments. But I actually think those laws are being used more as political weapons than solving underlying racist beliefs. I will be doing a video on that shortly. But "SAYING AND DOING" are two very different things. Your Political Political party would introduce laws that enable racism. The key to words like, liberty and justice is how they are interpreted not the words themselves
franks2732 5 months ago
I mean the babys life would suck sorry accidently backspaced it
alex7491681 5 months ago
and if their in a bad situation, then the babys life would be like i just described
alex7491681 5 months ago
Your missing the point. Were saying people have the right to be racist. We dont support it. Its like abortion. I dont support it, but I trust that most people, unless in a bad situation, wouldnt kill the baby.
alex7491681 5 months ago
@alex7491681 That is the bloody well point. "People would have the right to be racist" and yes I do have a very big problem with that. Weather you "personally" or individually disagree is not the point. The fucking well point is you would allow someone to discriminate.
franks2732 5 months ago
Look I dont care. Im not gonna insult you, but I respect the Constitution enough to allow freedom of expression as long as it doesnt infringe on the rights of others. And it doesnt say you can discriminate against people like that. Go to lp.org and look at their platform. And by the way, dont even like Ron Paul. If the only way he wants to get elected is by cloaking himself as a Republican, then he doesnt even respect the TRUE beliefs of our party.
alex7491681 5 months ago
@alex7491681 Actually it does say that people can run a business that says "jews are not allowed" it is in the LP platform and I pointed that out to you. What do you think the words 'refuse to trade for whatever reason' mean. Ring up the LP and ask them. Hey ask your libertarian buddies. It is a fact, one sadly that you are failing to address
franks2732 5 months ago
Im not racist or any of that stuff. Im Jewish and against racism and discrimination, but that doesnt mean you can take away the right to free speech. You should quit listening to rumors and crap like that and actually check out their platform.
alex7491681 5 months ago
@alex7491681 actually the policy platform of the American Libertarian Party is to allow someone to open a business which has on the front door "No Jews Allowed", "Irish unwelcome", "blacks only served at side window" . That is what both Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party believe. I think you should actually check their platform. You are factually incorrect. LP party platform "The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever". So yes they allow racism
franks2732 5 months ago
This guy is retarded. He's twisting libertarian beliefs into something we dont believe
alex7491681 5 months ago
@alex7491681 Everything stated in this video is a fact and is 100% in line with your ideological beliefs.
franks2732 5 months ago
you need to explain further, your not givign enough detail,you say libertarians are insane HOW, how are they SO insane, please explain to me, i would like to have a conversation of why you think we are such idiots, all you do is insuilt us, without fact or reason, you give 2 or 3 very vague reasons, thats it. how can you insult someone or a group of people without even explaining what part of them you hate? PLEASE reply i want to politically kick your ass.
subscribefori 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@subscribefori hey dont worry im doin that right now come and help
alex7491681 5 months ago
I'm a libertarian and here's how I see your specific points.
1) Libertarianism does not advocate racism, or encourage racism. Broadly it supports the freedom to choose actions so long as they are not explicitly violent or threatening of violence to others. So yes, if business owner X was a biggot and didn't want to hire Y because he doesn't like Y, this is legally acceptable to (hardcore) libertarians. It's not the same as advocating one be a biggot in the first place.
Vettezuki 5 months ago
Personally, as a business owner I say little prayer every day to have competitors who would be stupid enough to limit their pool of potential quality employees and paying customers.
2) Re: Regarding metaphysics. Libertarianism in total is NOT homogenous. sounds like your beef is primarily with deontological purists. Yet there are entire other branches that are purely consequentialist. and reach similar if not identical conclusions.
Vettezuki 5 months ago
@Vettezuki "Personally, as a business owner I say little prayer every day to have competitors who would be stupid enough to limit their pool of potential quality employees and paying customers" personally you would do nothing to stop it and you would not care about the racist activities of your competitors. You are willing to allow racism as long as it does not effect you personally. You are an idiot
franks2732 5 months ago
@franks2732 You don't get it. Living as a non-racist, working with all people, is the best way to filter racism out of society. I, and all libertarians, 100% support having removed legally enforced segregation, but stop short of legally enforced integration. For one thing you can't just wish and enforce your way to a society you prefer.
Vettezuki 5 months ago
@Vettezuki Your an idiot
franks2732 5 months ago
3) Regarding cherry picking of history and statistics. This can be true of course. Selection and confirmation bias are common cognitive biases to all people. This is why I often like to site the work of non-libertarians in making libertarian points. eg,Gabriel Kolko's "The Triumph of Conservatism" which is an excellent historical work on the collusion of business and government that runs counter the common (false) narrative that regulations emerged purely as a reaction for protecting the weak.
Vettezuki 5 months ago
@Vettezuki You have little understanding of political theory or history, it is rather sad really. Funny but extremely sad at the same time that your ideology would generate the need to reinvent history to conform with it.
franks2732 5 months ago
@franks2732 I've given you one reference to a historical work written by a LEFTIST historian, extensively and meticulously researched from original sources. It's a unique and bold approach compared to just saying "you don't understand anything." As for political theory, where do you want to start, Plato, or leap ahead to Hume, Locke, Marx, Hegel, whoever. Give me a break.
Vettezuki 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@franks2732 I've given you one reference to a historical work written by a LEFTIST historian, extensively and meticulously researched from original sources. It's a unique and bold approach compared to just saying "you don't understand anything." As for political theory, where do you want to start, Plato, or leap ahead to Hume, Locke, Marx, Hegel, whoever. Give me a break.
Vettezuki 5 months ago
4) Not that it matters particularly, but there was another guy who won the Nobel Prize in economics named F.A. Hayek. As a young man, he was a Fabian Socialist. Then through the study of economics became what would now be called a libertarian.
5) You are partially correct about the Revolutionary War not being an entirely libertarian enterprise, but guys like the Jefferson and Paine (failure not withstanding) were very very hard core classical liberals who would now be considered libertarians.
Vettezuki 5 months ago
@Vettezuki F.A. Hayek has been discredited and his theories debunked, even Friedman has the good sense to see through such nonsense.
I am also 100% correct, not one single member of the American revolutionary war were libertarian, as libertarianism did not exist in 1776. You are using a term called "revisionism" to re write history to conform to your ideologies narrow premise. You are indeed very naive, stupid and deluded
franks2732 5 months ago
@franks2732 Hayek has been debunked? By whom? When? Hell, a lot of ABCT theory is LITERALLY playing out in front of our eyes, practically like reading a text book example. Friedman was using an entirely different methodology . . .and reaches many of the same conclusions regarding the state vs. individual in economics. "Free to Choose" and "The Use of Knowledge in Society" even drive at the same basic point.
Vettezuki 5 months ago
@Vettezuki Hayek is debunked by everyone and is actually thought of as a joke, secondly "politically Friedman agreed with your idea of individuality but he did not agree with Hayek at all on economic matters. Friedman even published a book on the subject rejecting all the claims of the Austrian school. That is a fact. But yes they did agree on two things, the state has the right to tax your ass and redistribute money to poor people. rejected by Mises and the other wacko's tbc
franks2732 5 months ago
@franks2732 "I am favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible. " Friedman
Specifically what book are you referring to BTW.
Vettezuki 5 months ago
@Vettezuki Market forces can accomplish wonderful things, he realized, but they cannot ensure a distribution of income that enables all citizens to meet basic economic needs. His proposal, which he called the negative income tax, was to replace the multiplicity of existing welfare programs with a single cash transfer — say, $6,000 — to every citizen. yes that is Milt advocating social welfare on a grand scale-give everyone a golden handshake from the government LMFAO
franks2732 5 months ago
@Vettezuki in 1943 Mr. Friedman proposed a progressive consumption tax as the best source of revenue to meet critical national objectives. ... High tax rates on consumption by the wealthy, Mr. Friedman argued, would generate additional revenue with only minimal sacrifice. yes he disagreed with income tax but dash gone it he loved consumption taxes and favored higher taxes on the most wealthy, guess what for? to help poor folk out LMFAO
franks2732 5 months ago
Comment removed
Vettezuki 5 months ago
@franks2732 Since you're fond of quote wars:
Milton Friedman:
"A society that puts equality...ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."
"We have a system that increasingly taxes work and subsidizes nonwork." (Hint: that was later than 1943)
Off on a tangent, but I love what he's driving at:
"If the only motive was to help people who could not afford education, advocates of government involvement would have simply proposed tuition subsidies."
Vettezuki 5 months ago
@Vettezuki if only the evidence backed his logic LMFAO
franks2732 5 months ago
@franks2732 1943 was literally the middle of WWII and still within scope of the "New Deal" era. His (much) later work suggested rather different ideas on the whole, especially after having seen how fantastically inefficient government bureaucracies were.
"
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. " - MF
Vettezuki 5 months ago
@Vettezuki The fedal government has been in charge of the USA since 1776 and seems to be still in charge and going along strong. in fact I disagree with the USA in it's direction but non the less, 300 years of proof that 'government works' opposed to your "nothing"
franks2732 5 months ago
@Vettezuki "Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance - where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks - the case for the state's helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong" Hayeks own words. Both him and Friedman supported the "state" and advocated for it, both were both "statists" and tax supporters
franks2732 5 months ago
@franks2732 True. *Some* (key word) libertarians would call them statists. But golly you seem to be warming up to "Free to Choose" Friedman and "Constitution of LIberty" Hayek, I don't mind. It's a great step. Since you're in to Hayek now, maybe get beyond just reading quotes off a site somewhere and pick up some of the the complete works. I also recommend "Prices and Production."
Vettezuki 5 months ago
@Vettezuki DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT the fact that the Internet came from a government project.
franks2732 5 months ago
@Vettezuki Nobody has a right to free food or medical care or other amenities. Children are thus either imaginary or property
franks2732 5 months ago
@franks2732 As for the revolutionary war and actors of that time, I said SOME held positions that were consistant with libertarian positions/theory. For example, when Jefferson wrote to Madison in response stating, "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
Vettezuki 5 months ago
@Vettezuki Thomas Paine was also great: "Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices…The first is a patron, the last a punisher."
Vettezuki 5 months ago
@Vettezuki their actions had nothing at all to do with your political ideology, how could they? Your ideology did not exist in 1776. Secondly your statement is just vague rhetoric and can easily be applied to any political ideology, you are simply looking at the words through your ideological prism. Jefferson was happy to give "man" his freedom but thought blacks were not humans, so their life was not counted, nor were women and men who did not own property or held the station of wealth counted
franks2732 5 months ago
@franks2732 You can't be dense enough to not know the connection between classical liberalism and libertarianism . . . it's not possible. Is it? As for jefferson, who was lifelong best buds with Paine, he was not a perfect man to be certain. As for Paine, and just that one quote and there are more even more radical anti-state writings what OTHER ideology would it fit wiith? Mmm? Progressim, modern liberalism, socialism, conservatism. Not very well at all now? Libertariansm? By crikey, yes.
Vettezuki 5 months ago
@Vettezuki Thisis to say nothing of the history of 19th century libertarians and its core American roots with guys like Lysander Spooner, who as an abolitionist, and Benjamin Tucker on women's rights.. See Wendy McElroy (a woman) on the role of free markets and the liberation of women for for another. You apparently have a pamphlet world view of what libertarianism was and is. You've yet to actually make an argument beyond "you guys are bad boooh." This got pretty boring pretty fast. Ah well
Vettezuki 5 months ago
@Vettezuki No "Lysander Spooner" was not a libertarian was an individualist anarchist, he even attended the "first international" and is regarded as one of the strongest fighters for workers rights. Like most (if not all anarchists) he advocated for an end to "wage slavery" which he saw as no different to that of slavery. He advocated the end of the state and ALL forms of control including that of private control. Although Rothbard claims him, it is unfounded and another example of revisionism
franks2732 5 months ago
@franks2732 And his work "No Treason" etc. for it's demolishing of social contract theory and justifications for state power line up with and influenced what ideology? Libertarian-anarchy.
Vettezuki 5 months ago
@Vettezuki Bullshit, plain and simple. You cannot lay claim to the past as part of your ideology, when your ideology did not exist. When you do so that is called revisionism. You are making the past "subject" to your beliefs today. The dead cannot defend against it. It is the highest form of intellectual dishonesty.
franks2732 5 months ago
@Vettezuki further Tucker on workers rights " He argued, "strikes, whenever and wherever inaugurated, deserve encouragement from all the friends of labour. . . They show that people are beginning to know their rights, and knowing, dare to maintain them. and furthermore, "as an awakening agent, as an agitating force, the beneficent influence of a strike is immeasurable. . . with our present economic system almost every strike is just." tbc and read this little gem of a line
franks2732 5 months ago
@franks2732 And that's fine. Who said anything against rights to organize labor? They may be silly and self destructive these days a lot of times, but it's certainly the right of people to freely associate and bargain for better XYZ on a free market. Fine. That's hardly anti-libertarian. The history of unions forming to freeze out cheap immigrant and minority labor, now that's anti-libertarian.
Vettezuki 5 months ago
@Vettezuki unions are hardly anti socialist either LMFAO what a dill. But would you like me to quote what your intellectual figures said of unions. You do not want to go there
franks2732 5 months ago
@franks2732 You're quite good with the straw man and ad hominm. At what point did I say unions-were anti-socialist. They're just not in themselve sinherently anti-libertarian either. They're fine to THE EXTENT they are voluntary associations. Separate from this one can make claims against their utility and their motifs, but this is separate from the legitimacy of people organizing amongst themselves.
Vettezuki 5 months ago
@Vettezuki I am the last person to deny that increased wealth and the increased density of population have enlarged the number of collective needs which government can and should statisfy.
Hayek, New Studies
franks2732 5 months ago
@franks2732 Read "The Constitution of LIberty" in full to see what he was advocating. While not hardcore libertarianism (true) it's not socialist or even progressive in the conventional modern sense. Plus I thought Hayek was discredited. Are you cherry picking?
Vettezuki 5 months ago
@Vettezuki I have developed, over the years, some sense of the difference between real horseshit that you can step in and Ideal Platonic Horseshit that exists, evidently, only in the contemplation of those who worship such abstractions; and I continue to notice that Natural Law bears an uncanny resemblance to ideal Platonic Horseshit.
Robert Anton Wilson, "Natural Law"
franks2732 5 months ago
All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
Adam Smith, An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations
franks2732 5 months ago
@Vettezuki Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid
Thomas Jefferson
franks2732 5 months ago
@franks2732 See Paine quote on distinction between Government and Society. It's non-trivial. One can be anti-government (state) and pro-society.
Vettezuki 5 months ago
@Vettezuki your an idiot and making yourself look a bigger fool
franks2732 5 months ago
@Vettezuki Far from advocating a "minimal state", we find it unquestionable that in an advanced society government ought to use its power of raising funds by taxation to provide a number of services which for various reasons cannot be provided or cannot be provided adequately by the market.
Hayek, "Law, Legislation, and Liberty" 1982 LMFAO
franks2732 5 months ago
@franks2732 See my other reference regarding "Constituion of LIberty" But hell, if you're warming up to a thorough Hayekian world view, after previously claiming he's be discredited, we're getting somewhere!
Vettezuki 5 months ago
@Vettezuki You know, getting on the Net has done more to turn me off Libertarianism than -- well, than anything....
Dan Clore
franks2732 5 months ago