Also, you could be a good politician if you slowed it down a little bit....i can understand this but the dumb ass half of america couldn't....think about it
This kind of discussion has been mostly silent in government over the past few years. Not since the days of Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley has this kind of intellectual call for freedom been discussed. This state of fear in government is history repeating itself. But whenever this has has happened, it never ends good for the people.
I agree with this speaker but democrats are just as bad in that they want to manage the economic system (cough cough communist). Its all based on the idea and individual's bad behavior can only be redeemed through the collective. The state must act in order to fix individuals.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
No I won't think about him like this, this is why CATO and Libertarians like this are a joke. Why not talk about the horrors of war J.M. stands for? Because that would unite people, so these puppets like him and CATO sell us the dividing line to 'help divide' the first rule in ruling Rome: divide the people. this guy a smoke screen for reality, don't fall for the puppets of which this guy is one. This is why libertarians fail so well.
We had the Depression laws about the banks, and Republicans repealed them ( Phil Grahmm of texas), then everything hits the fan, then they bail them out. Things haven't changed.
How are they "right wing lobbyist corporate fools" if they consistently criticize the neoconservatives for killing people in third world countries, bailing out big corporate bankers, and pushing religion back into public schools?
Anyone ever notice that when Libertarianism is discussed, there's a very intellectual quality to the discussion even with those who disagree, but when it's the standard red state vs. blue state argument it's always, "OMG! YOU ARE NAZIS!!!1111ONEONEONE"
@Sugarpants78 i think its because there is mutual respect among libertarians. we may disagree on something, but we realize that the constitution gave us the right to dissagree
@hellhound63, well said. As a leftist libertarian, I am often called a commie by my fellow classmates-- I attend a fairly conservative university btw. The conservative libertarians who attend my college (eg Ron Paul types) are always willing to respectfully listen to my views though. We need to figure out a way to neuter the two dominant political parties in our country. After all, isn't this the kind of thing Madison feared so much?
@Mike11069, exactly..... Its not like a persons complex views can be so simply described by the nomenclature Republican or Democrat. The terms libertarian, conservative, and liberal encompass a wide range of viewpoints, and facilitate academic quality discussion, rather than the meaningless platitudes spouted by today's factually challenged citizens.
@sfmike20 yea, misinformation sucks. i found that i could actually have a discussion with a friend of mine thats a liberal but at least sorta knows his stuff. of course it did end up with him calling me a capitalist pig and me calling him a commie bastard, but before that, it was preety good lol.
@Mike11069, lol.... I am not sure why people call me a commie though, as I am an anarcho syndicalist. I would recommend watching some of Chomsky's vids, if you have not already. There is also a funny bit from Monty Python and the Holy Grail on anarcho syndicalism.
the problem with libertarianism is the police would be bored ok. what would they have to do with their time without bustin teenagers drinking in a forest? fight real crime? pffft. it only happens sometimes. why cant you think of others....
I wouldn't say they'd get bored as in the ideal society they wouldn't exist. If guns are legal for everyone then the good people will far out number the bad. The only way to prosper in a true libertarian society is to be honest.
You don't even need a military, just look at the trouble England and America are having in Iraq and Afghanistan. With a country like America having 300 million people all armed, who the hell would want to invade them?
True but i think there would be alot more deaths here because arguements would just break out in gun play. I think guns should be legal but left at home. I live where guns aren't common and it would leave me uneased if everyone was straped with a smith and wesson.
But isn't libertarian another word for anarchy and peace?
Yes Libertarianism is freedom from the state and harm no other.
Think of this way. You say you believe that arguments would break out in gun play but would you really pull you gun out in front of a fully armed battalion of marines? This is the equivalent as everyone is armed not just the two people having an argument but everyone around you.
It is my belief that the good nature of humanity far out ways that of the bad and without the violence of the state we'd all be a great deal happier. :-)
Agreed, but you have to admit this is the society that Statism has created. If your working rather than spending all your time with your gang this should help reduce this kind of violence.
Because if you don't have a government (or limited government) then your country would be economically viable for any business to build factory's etc.
And gangs shooting each other is region specific, you really only ever see gangs in regions of high unemployment. Wouldn't you agree?
but in plenty of countries, reductions in state intervention have resulted in greater impoverishment/reductions in all HDI/unemployment. Moreover one could argue that countries with greater social safety nets are much less prone to street violence, one could make this comparison among oecd countries or among developing countries. case in point would be the US vs. Europe.
There are alternatives to government as Stefan Molyneux explains on his website freedomainradio com (he also has a channel here too if you want to check it out)
Lost of people don't like to hear this but religion is a large contributor to violence, take Somalia for example one christian Government, one muslim Government and one muslim gang all fighting for supreme rule over the country.
Yet they're all evil gangs wanting to rule their population like slaves, just like every other government.
violence existed before the state's arrival, and has existed since. think of gangs as fully armed battalions. they still fight.
i'm inclined to agree with one of your statements though, the violence of the state is one of the main reasons we are unhappy. unfortunately that is mostly when it is in collusion with capitalism. you can trace almost every single act of internal and external aggression by this country to the advantage of capitalist classes.
Yes but to think that the capitalist corporation is the entity of violence and not the state I'd disagree. Without the state, capitalism is not violent. Granted, no proof has ever existed to support this as we've always had rulers. Your local shop keeper only wants to make a living, not control your every thought and action.
If a corporation gets too powerful and the people fear this power you can buy from a different corporation but you can never change the state.
chevron wants to commit violence. i think one good way to test your thesis, is to see if corporate violence decreases as the state loosens controls on corporations. i think sadly, you would see that it isn't the case. pinkertons, pmcs, the response to the bhopal disaster, the effect of pig farming on the south, pcb and heavy metal contamination in the water all cause harm to people. i agree that the state can cause tremendous violence, but it often mitigates corporate violence.
I agree that no matter the circumstances violence will always exist. However these incidents can never relate to a Stateless Society as the State is still present. The free market would still have controls and if such an incident occurs the free market is better equipped to deal with the situation. You'd still have a court system and under free market control everyone will have access to it, not just the rich.
But we're both peeing in the wind of course, we'll never know in this society. :-)
for sure, i share your skepticism of the state, particularly thinking about the violence that the state visits upon people all the time. but I am reticent to believe that capitalist entities would abstain from violence without the state. and so often you must think of how both a capitalist entity, particularly post-modern ones, and states are similar, having similar methods of security enforcement, monopoly of power, and control over their employees and citizens respectively.
When you use the term "capitalist classes", that leaves alot to be desired with regards to the meaning you inteded to convey. Libertarians represent the epitomy of capitalist ideaology. Corporate business (which i assume you were referring to in your comment) is an entirely different thing. Corporations grow up around the people, starve true capitalism and remove the freedom and opportunity from communities that would have existed otherwise.
but you're missing the substance of my critique. you like to avoid all the harms of capitalism by saying, that isn't true capitalism. but my argument is that when you look to oecd countries where the governments are provably less capitalist than the more economically liberalized oecd countries, businesses hurt people less, leading me to believe that "capitalist classes" and "corporate business" in a libertarian system would really harm people while also thriving economically.
In my opinion it's still a better alternative to the current system whereby big gov. beaurecrats entrench themselves within major corporations. The lack of actual free market fluidity is responsible for much more suffering than we'd probably see under a conservative libertarian system. Free market, liberty, prosperity, pursuit of happiness. All fantastic ideas. None of which are plausible without opportunity. Under the thumb of big government, opportunity is virtually non existant.
but seeing as it is hypothetical, i think the only way we can examine liberalization is at the margin. ie, what happens when an economy becomes more liberalized vs. less liberalized. and therefore i feel that you have to look at what happens in society when govt becomes less influential in business, lets business get away with more stuff, etc. etc. do businesses act better or worse?
Yes, this is libertarian idea as well. Regulation to prevent abuse of individuals, but much less regulation than current. Small government not huge beauracracy. As i read your comment, i reread it a couple times because the way you typed it lead me to believe at first that you may have been confusing Libertarian ideaology with Liberal ideaology. If so, were opposite sides of the spectrum on most issues Zang. I consider myself a conservative decentralist libertarian. Definetely not a liberal.
the way europeans use liberal and the way americans use libertarian are pretty similar. almost every regulation is under the premise that we need to prevent abuse of individuals, ie. the USDA, the EPA, ERISA, etc. etc. if you look at a lot of the fundamental positions of ppl like the cato instutute, they would destroy these parts of the government and trust the BBB to tell us when companies are doing wrong.
The problem is that the harm done mostly comes from government interference or assistence. Had government never been recruited by "big business", their size would have never developed to this degree thanks to open competition. It is the protection of big business by government that has allowed them to grow, and also to be protected by powerful government officials or institutions. Without government help, they would have virtually nothing to the way of actual power (other than the good kind).
why is this true? what prevents corporations from hurting the environment, hiring children to work next to wood cutting machinery, or just setting up an abusive company town. i ask because corporations did this soon after the industrial revolution before they were regulated against this.
First of all, only when there is initiation of force can there be a legitimate complaint. When there is initiation of force (including fraud) any transgression should legitimately be able to be fought through the justice system. My point is, any industry that keeps conducting its business in an irresponsible manner would be competed out of existence. Government interference stopped this mechanism and allowed certain industries to thrive while covering their backs in exchange for money.
When you read Gabriel Kolko's books you will realize that the competition of the free market was so horrible to the big industrialists that they actually asked government for regulations to throw a barrier to their competition. Politicians in return got lots of money in return for helping them achieve monopoly status.
You think they asked for regulations because they wanted to be more "humane"?
In a free market, any bad working cond. will drive workers to the competition.
the assumption of perfect competition or even broad competition, is fraught with problems. so many industries naturally function with economies of scale. so, if there are industries, that left unregulated, are oligopolistic, what should we do in a libertarians world? moreover, insofar as libertarians acknowledge that "big business" is problematic do they favor ant-trust legislation? do you oppose consumer protection laws? do you oppose health and safety standards?
please explain how anti-trust legislation strengthens big business? if you look how often anti trust statutes are levelled against companies (and not unions) over time, as it has decreased you see a staggering increase in both individual market cap of multiple companies (in real terms) and general income inequality among citizens.
The problem is looking at HOW anti-trust legislation is used and who it is used against. Can you define a trust? Can you give me the strict legal definition that's applied? It doesn't exist. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act is a broad generalization that should be killed if only due to the legal principle of "Void for Vagueness".
Just like "Insider Trading", the BATFE "Machine Gun" regulations, Superfund and so much other Executive Branch bullshit since the non-delegation doctrine was killed.
The Clayton Anti-Trust Act tried to redefine and solidify some of those problems but still fell short.
So with FDR's reign, you get a proponent of Keynesian Economics, a proponent of Regulatory Legislation AND a proponent of the Unitary Executive Theory.
The growth of the Executive Power never went away. You've just given bureaucrats and politicians power to decide which companies live and which die. Guess, when you follow the money, which companies get to survive.
Capitalism doesn't keep big business honest, the free-market does. Capitalism is simply the private ownership of business and the means of production. The free-market is a lack of regulations like the anti-trust laws.
Not exactly. Capitalism is when private entities control the trade of a nation (ie they own the businesses). Corporatism is when the corporations control the entire country.
The government is pushing true free market aside with behemoth regulations and helping to create Corporatism. Small businesses cannot compete when everyone wants cheaper prices and large corporations like Wal-Mart corner the market. We can help reverse this trend, but we must pay and shop more at small businesses instead of buying 100% of our goods at Wal-Mart and explain to the American people why they need to not shop at Wal-Mart and spread their wealth around especially at small businesses.
I agree with your assessment of the problem, but not exactly with the solution. In a true free market, people are free to spend as they please and the best are rewarded by getting more business. If Wal-Mart can give me more, then I will shop there. If I like the experience better at corner store, I will shop there. The real way to fight Corporatism is to get the corrupt politicians who enact the biased legislation that gives Wal-Mart the unfair advantage out of office.
The problem is fraud laws are never enforced. It seems like instead of punishing business we help them and start to run them. That is the WRONG thing to do. Not only that, if the government took away the stupid laws and regulations that prevented people from starting businesses we might have twice the amount of business that we have now, meaning more employment and more competition.
In a free market, the multitude of competition would be such that businesses would be forced to comply to consumer demand. If so many people were worried about hazards, pollution etc. the variety of choice would force industry to improve.
What you see now is "symbolic politics" where politicians pretend to worry about the people but actually say one thing, do the other, and only keep promises made to the lobbyists that lined their pockets. Lobbyists from big business.
corporatism is a bad thing we agree. but look at markets where there is less government interference with commerce and look at markets where there is more. we could use those differences to see if reducing restraints on business always increases competition and is socially beneficial.
fallinidols. Its got to be better than the patriot act. trust me when the goverment claims they can look into your personal life (internet, what books you get at the library, tap your phone) without a search warrent it wont be long till you get to go to prision as well. When the goverment sets up a head shop as a front so they can bust Tommy Chong for selling a bong thats pretty sad. Why is it that you can have alcohol legal, yet not have pot ( vertiauly no fatel accedints) illegal?
yeah dude its a classic case of your government knows best. that fact alone should get anyone to question there gov and see through there lies.just fighting blindly to see to there means of greed and conflict there own laws. theres no such thing as law only personal morals.
...the problems with the Corportocracy is that we let it happen. We allow all of these regulations to pass without question which funnel money to the top. "They" are only doing to us what we allow them to do. Unfortunately, people don't want responsibilty. There is the desire to be slaves. They'll vote against their rights for the illusion of security. I hate to say it but religion conditions us for this. We WANT to believe in the benevolent dictator. I'd rather be free.
It all comes down to this. The majority of people in America seem to believe that there is some magical wizard, hiding in a cave somewhere, who is going to fix all of our problems. But, the fact is, there is no wizard. It's just us. All of our problems have to be fixed by us. "For the people, BY the people". It's OUR responsibility.
We can also vote w/our dollars. If you know that the price of object X has lobby money built right into it, then don't buy that product. It's so much easier to just use the big stick of government rather than own up to our own resposibility. You might not win but at least you can sleep at night knowing you did what you can do at the individual level. APATHY is the American people's biggest enemy. When 90% of the people I talk to say "I don't care about politics" that tells me why we have...
Glad to see libertarians slamming the GOP. I'm not a lib, but I have a lot of pity for them (even if I think their thinking on political economy is a little crazy). I can't think of any other political group that basically gets raped by the large party (GOP) that is supposed to support its platform. Even the environmentalists had Al Gore! There will never be a truly Libertarian candidate. I'm afraid the movement is doomed to being fringe.
I suppose governments just don't feel the need to limit their own power. It takes public pressure and greater political engagement to bring about change in that direction.
I doubt that will happen. Americans are fundamentally conservative. Look what happens every time someone tries to privatize social security. Oh sure, it's fine when we're picking on welfare recipients, but don't touch entitlements. As sad as it makes the Lib, Americans do want some forms of big government. They'd see losing it as a return to pre-New Deal Depression Era misery, right or wrong.
Republicans suck just as much Democrats. Don't let them brain-wash you.
We, Libertarians, need to step up on not just the economic issues, but on our personal liberty as well. The Republicans don't seem to have a problem banning gay marriage and establishing public prayer.
Personally, I'd sell out to the 17th Amendment faster than having my Bill of Rights shredded. Come on people, Viva La Revolucion!
As a Anarchist/Libertarian Socialist, I have my own critiques of "Libertarianism" in America, mainly the fact that they have this silly notion that they can obtain a free market with a state or that the state is even a legitimate organization to begin with.
I think it's a little hypocritical how most "Libertarians" will attack the state and recognize the private tyranny of corporatism plaguing America yet they still cling onto their constitution. Wake up, it's just a piece of paper.
Thats the problem with statists, they see the Constitution as just a piece of paper. We see it as a living document. Sounds like nonsense, but it keeps our rights. Of course I cling to it. The government has been stepping all over it for years.
I wish Anarchy would work honestly, so in a sense I am an anarchist in thought, but I when I think in terms of government, I cling to minarchy. I agree with you on corporatism, but is one of the downsides to capitalism. I'm thinking of solutions
to corporate tyranny through libertarianism. Its a hard thing to take a side with, but I prefer corporations that can just not hire me, to states that can take anything from me.
Corporations are creations of the state, they're given limited liability protection by the government so the share holders only lose whatever money they've invested into the company. Of course, as with everything the state does, this only hurts the tax payer at the end of the day.
That's the thing, it's not a living document and it doesn't secure any rights.If any one person chose to disregard it and see it as illegitimate, then it's useless. It only holds whatever value you ascribe to it. This is why it's been abused or ignored, at the end of the day it's an illegitimate document to those in the ruling class.
However, the ruling class in and of themselves are just as illegitimate as the constitution itself. None of them can justify their own authority.
A good analogy to your analysis of the constitution is the value of a monetary system. A dollar is only worth something because people believe it's worth something
great name, by the way. The private pursuit of happiness "just sounds bad"? Why? You don't like the founding documents that underscore this philosophy? Are you a Marxist or fascist of some sorts? What's wrong with individuals pursuing their own happiness?
actually McCain was proven innocent in the Keating Five Scandal. The Democrates who ran the investigation say he had nothing to do with the scandal. But go ahead and keep grasping at straws.
He was reprimanded for his actions in the scandal, but they decided he just "didnt understand the situation", so they didnt do any consequential punishment.
Regardless, he was proven to have been involved with keating.
I'd rather have George Bush 3 than karl Marx 2 as well but I'd also be a lot happier putting up with Karl Marx 2 for just 4 years so people really understand just how bad it is and then make a radical shift in ideology in 2012 and go with somone who actually believes in small government. I'm voting Bob Barr and yes I know he won't win but the long term effects outweigh what will happen if there is NO party running on a small government platform for a lot longer than 4 years.
It's time for Republicans to go sit in a corner for a term or two. They will have time to purge themselves of these neocon fanatics and those closer to Ron Paul will inherit the Party. Ron Paul and Barack Obama, two men of integrity and conviction, could have a real debate about America's future. McCain is a pathetic joke.
All we need to do is read the constitution. Thats the book we need to follow. I swore to uphold the constitution. Everyone in the military did. Yet so many bills are passed without anyone doing anyhting. The Patriot Act? what the fuck. This nation is turning over to fascism at a very rapid rate and evryone blows it off like its not happening. Anyone who believes in freedom and civil liberities needs to wake the fuck up. We have become a nation of "dumbed down" naive fools
@drunkenboxer1985 the irony is, public education is doing a great deal of the dumbing down. and these dumb people with genuine concerns tend to 'remedy' public education with more gov intervention. and then you have 'social lib's, (an oxymoron, really) and lefty's that seem to be allergic to economics... sigh, it's frustrating being a libertarian.
@drunkenboxer1985 on the contrary my brother, anyone who believes and GRASPS the concepts of freedom and civil liberty are already aware of the government's current authoritarian excursions. People like you and I, the ones who are aware of this, are the minority of the country, and it is we that breed a revolutionary period. The way to do this is to raise awareness among the majority of the people. Once that is done, the revolution (or reform) will be prevalent and perfectly possible.
Libertarians are just ashamed-republicans-in-hiding with an extra dose of greed thrown into the mix.
Do us all a favor and shut the fuck up & go hide in your US Flag jammies & suck on your independent thumb while dreaming of fiscal responsibility while we set to work fixing all the damage that your fiscal responsibility nutjob ideology about has done to turn our country into a Hellish mess of uncared for sick children, ruined airlines & public transit systems, dead factories & falling bridges.
Both McCain and Obama would pass so many aweful laws through the Democratic congress that it makes me nautous. I'm voting for Barr so at least I'll have made my desires public.
I consider Paul the guide and people like Barr, the Generals of the Revolution. Living up to Paul's ideals is like living up to Jefferson's vision, it orients your ship, but you need to make difficult compromises and get dirty to be an effective leader.
I'd rather have a Barr-Paul ticket..sure, they may have been Republicans (Paul still is Republican), but they're concerned about the direction of their party. The social issues have driven the party further and further to the radical right.
I agree with you but wouldn't call it the "radical right". I'd go with "the new big government right" or "neocon" for short. I'm hoping Barr gets a nice piece of the vote and they blame him for the republicans losing badly. Maybe just maybe (though I doubt it) the neocons will realize that they're not going to win if they want to be a pro-big government party.
And David Ruprecht (who himself is a Libertarian) has said that Libertarians support lower taxes and smaller government (and they're walking the walk, unlike the Republicans, who are only talking the talk; they claim they support lower taxes and smaller government, but fail to deliver).
John McCain said on his website that he would at least leave the abortion issue up to the states. Bob Barr said he was "pro-life" and DOES NOT DISCUSS his position on abortion on his website. John McCain is more open than Barr. Abortion would still be legal in blue states under John McCain. Please vote for McCain. McCain will not raise taxes like Obama.
Please tell us where we can find Bob Barr saying or writing that because I couldn't find it on his website. On Glenn Beck's show, he made no indication that that was his position. He pandered to the Pro-lifers and said something retarded about abortion being an "act of aggression". He is, at the very least, guilty of lying by omission.
rigght. actually, i can't back that up. I tried to find it, perhaps I confused his marriage position with the abortion issue. Nevertheless, it is clear he is pro-life and would support removal of Roe v. Wade and allowing states to make their own law. This doesn't mean he wouldn't advocate all states putting anti-abortion laws on the books.
Bob Barr supports states rights over the national federal rights. McCain believes in and ultra control of the President. He if he was President would raise taxes. If you don't believe in this look up 'The Real McCain'. A great video by bravenewfilms. A true republican will never support McCain
I checked Barr's site, he's leaving the Marriage and Abortion issues up to the state. He himself was a former Republican that was author of the DOMA, and now he's realized his party has gone in the wrong direction.
30 years from now, after Barack Obama gets elected, how will you explain to your children that you allowed the Supreme Court to be packed by people who destroyed the 2nd Amendment and the right to private property.
"Well son, John McCain wasn't Conservative enough for me."
Folks, this November, let's vote for McCain, vomit together after we do and regroup to try again.
Well one is proposing a 39 percent income tax and many other higher taxes such as the estate tax and the other is not. Do you really have to ask that?
This is typical Republican lying idiocy. Do you really believe that the unimaginable deficits piled up under the Republicans don't cost us? The dollar is in a free fall, the Social Security fund has been raided of trillions of dollars, and one day the government will default on interest payments on the debt. Fuck your 39 percent income tax.
Yes, so? Privatizing education would benefit families, students, and the general public immensely given the track record of public education since the 1970's. Welfare programs simply transfer wealth from the rightful owners of property to people who are well-connected with those in power. Private charity has a record of being more effective meeting the needs of the deserving poor. Strict liability would be a more efficient and fairer way to manage the benefits and risks of nuclear power.
Not "privatizing education"--- doing away with education for all who can't afford $4000 or more a year per child. The result being an uneducated thirdworld USA. Welfare acts as a safety net and keeps the crime rate lower than it would be without it, at a benefit to all who earn in a society.
Strict liability won't help after a major catastrophe-- this isn't about efficiency or managing risks, with after-disaster payouts to parties injured (as if the company at fault for a large disaster wouldn't just bankrupt), this is about getting as close to 0% chance as possible of any disaster happening*-- not any amount of risk for a large disaster is truly "acceptable."
*For efficiency AND lowering risk to as close to 0% as possible, smart power suppliers will go with pebble reactors.
There are trade-offs. I do agree though that sometimes regulation is necessary. The issue though is to find solutions where we can minimize regulation. The Soviets had lots of government regulation and were environmental disasters, so the answer is not necessarily more government.
Solutions can be found now, where needed-- the pre-2006 LP plank(s), however, called for throwing out all regualtion and essentailly letting nature take it's course-- with greed being what it is, that course would be disastrous.
The Soviets, at Chernobyl, did NOT have independent agency oversight, and that led to the biggest nuclear plant disaster yet seen.
Many of the "regulations" people cry about are protecting the common man from corporate socialism-- I for one am thankful for them.
There are different kinds of libertarians with various degrees of opposition to state action. Many in the LP are much more extreme than, say, Chicago School libertarians. I agree that the state can play some role in some of the issues you raise.
How do you mean? To me corporate takeover happens more when regulations come in and knock out the small business owner lower competition. The truth is a free market reduces corporate socialism! Upton Sinclair is just one of many examples. The man writes a book trying to expose the dangerous conditions people worked in(even though people in China would die to work in a place like it). What happened? The corporations pushed through legislation that put pressure on small competitors. It's a scam!
The quickest way to get to corporate socialism is the course we are on right now! Once the government and big business start working together(happens more and more everyday) equilibrium markets will vanish and so will our prosperity. Maintaining a free society with minimal federal D.C. beauracracy is important to keeping out the socialist controllers. Regulations should happen on a state level if anything, not a centralized national system.
Do you want the same people who run Homeland Security, the Pentagon, and our horrible veterans (government run) hospitals taking over our technological healthcare system and creating a national agency of health? Government monopoly doesn't work but as long as regulations continue to increase in the medical field......prices will rise, shortages will increase, quality will decline, and healthcare as we know it will continue to slowly diminish!
Government doesn't need to own industry, regulation is in itself coercive control. The more regulation the better for the state and the worse for the people! Please check out this video! video(dot)google(dot)com/videoplay?docid=6732659166933078950
Vouchers could be used to provide people with money for private school. And they could use it to pay for schooling, if it costs more they pay the difference, if it costs less then it could be saved.
Also keep in mind that privatizing it would mean that SOMEONE would start up a low-cost school, creating competition and this would help keep costs low.
No, the pre-2007 platform was about totally doing away with free public education for the masses, vouchers are not part of the ivory tower insanity in that platform, and again, expecting the lower middle class and poor to be able to afford private school, even if the average fees magically dropped 30% (avg. $5500 for elem. school in my area, $10,000 or more for HS) is ridiculous. It would turn the US into a 3rdworld nation of uneducated masses- Soylent Green & Rollerball, the LP future).
Even without vouchers, it would NOT results in what you're talking about. SOMEone would come along and make a low-cost school because they KNOW that a lot of people would send their kids there and they'd make money from all those people signing up their kids there. SO it still would bring prices down and create competition so long as NO school was given disadvantages by the government but also no benefits from government either.
Exactly how much per child do you think the poor can afford? Tell the woman with 3 kids making $20K a year that she will have to pay $3000 a year each for school and watch her laugh. They would be on the streets-- hello, crime rate increase.
You are falling for the false idea that "business" can always manage everything in society better than "government," and that is not true. That idea drags the few good ideas of the LP down -- the profit motive is NOT always what is best for society.
Of course the LP platform pre-2006 also had a plank to do awway with all labor laws, including child labor laws, so I guess all those poor and lower middle class elementary-school-aged kids would at least be able to get work at local factories-- how cute it would be to see little six-year-olds sewing soccer balls for $2 an hour-- heck, maybe we can even get them in the military! The dream world of "Metropolis" would be just around the corner for the uber-wealthy, huzzah!
Well, most families who currently send their children to private schools are middle middle class and working class. They are not rich. There are private scholarships and other arrangements for the poor. Parochial schools welcome low income students. As for welfare, people got along without social services for most of the history of the U.S. as poverty rates declined. The decline in poverty stopped and reversed AFTER the Great Society.
If public education ended tomorrow there would be nowhere near enough "private scholarships and other arrangements" for the poor and middle classes who couldn't afford private school even if tuition was 30% less than now.
Parochial schools lower their tuition with tithe money-- which is not going to triple overnight so they can accept extra students who can afford very little.
All of society benefits from an educated populace. Annual cost per citizen for public education-- about $150.
A vote for McCain is a vote for a resurgent shift from neo-con to neo-lib. The same goes for the Dems. We are all doomed unless we vote for Ron Paul and heed the advice of the Cato Institute. Liberty=Property,Consent,Contract and Privacy.
what a long drawn out commentary to tell us something simple: that McCain is a mainstream republican who protects concentrated govt power - on top of wasting our time with pseudo intellectual chatter; Welch doesn't give a decent analysis and tries to paint McCain as anti-corporate when it's clear that he's like all "moderate" Rep and Dem politicians (which is about 90% of the Senate), totally supportive of a big corporate and big gov agenda, and this combination is the reason the media loves him
no, its a valuable analysis and you should think about it, mccain shows typical patterns of behaviour of dictators, the concern with small issues, an exaggerated believe in military and nation and sacrifice of the individual for the greater good, this guy is dangerous, dont underestimate the gravitas such personalities can develop!
well, when you put it that way, maybe that is some useful information that can be gleaned out of the presentation, but I still think the more significant effort of the speaker is to paint McCain as some kind of rebel willing to confront established powers, and I think that part is not true
Even if he doesn't, which I hope he does, you can still vote for the Libertarian party. If all Ron Paul supporters did that, they'd get a decent percentage to be sure. Even if they didn't win, you could at least feel good about your vote.
it's possible that we could but Ron Paul supporters objective isn't to just make a small impact on the 2008 presidential election...
Their goal is to actually take the country back. So the focus of the RP supporters is now on congressional and senate candidates. Alot of us are hoping that Jesse Ventura will enter the race.
Other than that... there is no real shot at the presidency for libretarians this year.
Also, you could be a good politician if you slowed it down a little bit....i can understand this but the dumb ass half of america couldn't....think about it
jtizz711 11 months ago
@jtizz711 Im American. I have a higher awareness and higher intelligence level than most other Americans. But i see what you mean.
GreedX23 8 months ago
This kind of discussion has been mostly silent in government over the past few years. Not since the days of Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley has this kind of intellectual call for freedom been discussed. This state of fear in government is history repeating itself. But whenever this has has happened, it never ends good for the people.
-Peace from NC
jtizz711 11 months ago
I actually liked McCain. In 2000. Before he turned to the dark side and became Darth Vader.
Madfoot713 1 year ago
It figures that McCAIN'S favorite president was Teddy Roosevelt who also was a national greatness politician.
sleedolfine15 1 year ago
I agree with this speaker but democrats are just as bad in that they want to manage the economic system (cough cough communist). Its all based on the idea and individual's bad behavior can only be redeemed through the collective. The state must act in order to fix individuals.
timbosforporn 1 year ago
When did mccain become a puppet? like 1986?
sandythebear 1 year ago
libertarian
LOLURCATS 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No I won't think about him like this, this is why CATO and Libertarians like this are a joke. Why not talk about the horrors of war J.M. stands for? Because that would unite people, so these puppets like him and CATO sell us the dividing line to 'help divide' the first rule in ruling Rome: divide the people. this guy a smoke screen for reality, don't fall for the puppets of which this guy is one. This is why libertarians fail so well.
LibertyJedi 1 year ago
We had the Depression laws about the banks, and Republicans repealed them ( Phil Grahmm of texas), then everything hits the fan, then they bail them out. Things haven't changed.
itsgoogletime 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
fuck the cato institute and all of its right wing lobbyist corporate fools.
johnneylan 2 years ago
How are they "right wing lobbyist corporate fools" if they consistently criticize the neoconservatives for killing people in third world countries, bailing out big corporate bankers, and pushing religion back into public schools?
Forlo12345 1 year ago
Anyone ever notice that when Libertarianism is discussed, there's a very intellectual quality to the discussion even with those who disagree, but when it's the standard red state vs. blue state argument it's always, "OMG! YOU ARE NAZIS!!!1111ONEONEONE"
Sugarpants78 2 years ago 45
americans are stupid, and they love to talk on youtube. not a surprise.
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
@Sugarpants78 i think its because there is mutual respect among libertarians. we may disagree on something, but we realize that the constitution gave us the right to dissagree
hellhound63 1 year ago
@hellhound63, well said. As a leftist libertarian, I am often called a commie by my fellow classmates-- I attend a fairly conservative university btw. The conservative libertarians who attend my college (eg Ron Paul types) are always willing to respectfully listen to my views though. We need to figure out a way to neuter the two dominant political parties in our country. After all, isn't this the kind of thing Madison feared so much?
sfmike20 1 year ago
@sfmike20 thats y we need to call ourselves libertarians, conservatives and... well, liberals instead of republicans, independents or democrats.
Mike11069 1 year ago
@Mike11069, exactly..... Its not like a persons complex views can be so simply described by the nomenclature Republican or Democrat. The terms libertarian, conservative, and liberal encompass a wide range of viewpoints, and facilitate academic quality discussion, rather than the meaningless platitudes spouted by today's factually challenged citizens.
sfmike20 1 year ago
@sfmike20 yea, misinformation sucks. i found that i could actually have a discussion with a friend of mine thats a liberal but at least sorta knows his stuff. of course it did end up with him calling me a capitalist pig and me calling him a commie bastard, but before that, it was preety good lol.
Mike11069 1 year ago
@Mike11069, lol.... I am not sure why people call me a commie though, as I am an anarcho syndicalist. I would recommend watching some of Chomsky's vids, if you have not already. There is also a funny bit from Monty Python and the Holy Grail on anarcho syndicalism.
sfmike20 1 year ago
@Sugarpants78 Sadly emotional appeal is stronger than logic.
TheIntJuggler 1 year ago 4
Wait until you meet a a Lefty Libertarians outside of America. They are angry that we even use the term Libertarianism.
scienceatheism 1 month ago
the problem with libertarianism is the police would be bored ok. what would they have to do with their time without bustin teenagers drinking in a forest? fight real crime? pffft. it only happens sometimes. why cant you think of others....
Fallinldols 2 years ago
I wouldn't say they'd get bored as in the ideal society they wouldn't exist. If guns are legal for everyone then the good people will far out number the bad. The only way to prosper in a true libertarian society is to be honest.
You don't even need a military, just look at the trouble England and America are having in Iraq and Afghanistan. With a country like America having 300 million people all armed, who the hell would want to invade them?
frostyuk2007 2 years ago
True but i think there would be alot more deaths here because arguements would just break out in gun play. I think guns should be legal but left at home. I live where guns aren't common and it would leave me uneased if everyone was straped with a smith and wesson.
But isn't libertarian another word for anarchy and peace?
Fallinldols 2 years ago
Yes Libertarianism is freedom from the state and harm no other.
Think of this way. You say you believe that arguments would break out in gun play but would you really pull you gun out in front of a fully armed battalion of marines? This is the equivalent as everyone is armed not just the two people having an argument but everyone around you.
It is my belief that the good nature of humanity far out ways that of the bad and without the violence of the state we'd all be a great deal happier. :-)
frostyuk2007 2 years ago
yeah, except gangs attack each other, fully armed quite often.
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
Agreed, but you have to admit this is the society that Statism has created. If your working rather than spending all your time with your gang this should help reduce this kind of violence.
Because if you don't have a government (or limited government) then your country would be economically viable for any business to build factory's etc.
And gangs shooting each other is region specific, you really only ever see gangs in regions of high unemployment. Wouldn't you agree?
frostyuk2007 2 years ago
but in plenty of countries, reductions in state intervention have resulted in greater impoverishment/reductions in all HDI/unemployment. Moreover one could argue that countries with greater social safety nets are much less prone to street violence, one could make this comparison among oecd countries or among developing countries. case in point would be the US vs. Europe.
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
There are alternatives to government as Stefan Molyneux explains on his website freedomainradio com (he also has a channel here too if you want to check it out)
Lost of people don't like to hear this but religion is a large contributor to violence, take Somalia for example one christian Government, one muslim Government and one muslim gang all fighting for supreme rule over the country.
Yet they're all evil gangs wanting to rule their population like slaves, just like every other government.
frostyuk2007 2 years ago
violence existed before the state's arrival, and has existed since. think of gangs as fully armed battalions. they still fight.
i'm inclined to agree with one of your statements though, the violence of the state is one of the main reasons we are unhappy. unfortunately that is mostly when it is in collusion with capitalism. you can trace almost every single act of internal and external aggression by this country to the advantage of capitalist classes.
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
Yes but to think that the capitalist corporation is the entity of violence and not the state I'd disagree. Without the state, capitalism is not violent. Granted, no proof has ever existed to support this as we've always had rulers. Your local shop keeper only wants to make a living, not control your every thought and action.
If a corporation gets too powerful and the people fear this power you can buy from a different corporation but you can never change the state.
frostyuk2007 2 years ago
chevron wants to commit violence. i think one good way to test your thesis, is to see if corporate violence decreases as the state loosens controls on corporations. i think sadly, you would see that it isn't the case. pinkertons, pmcs, the response to the bhopal disaster, the effect of pig farming on the south, pcb and heavy metal contamination in the water all cause harm to people. i agree that the state can cause tremendous violence, but it often mitigates corporate violence.
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
I agree that no matter the circumstances violence will always exist. However these incidents can never relate to a Stateless Society as the State is still present. The free market would still have controls and if such an incident occurs the free market is better equipped to deal with the situation. You'd still have a court system and under free market control everyone will have access to it, not just the rich.
But we're both peeing in the wind of course, we'll never know in this society. :-)
frostyuk2007 2 years ago
frosty-
for sure, i share your skepticism of the state, particularly thinking about the violence that the state visits upon people all the time. but I am reticent to believe that capitalist entities would abstain from violence without the state. and so often you must think of how both a capitalist entity, particularly post-modern ones, and states are similar, having similar methods of security enforcement, monopoly of power, and control over their employees and citizens respectively.
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
Comment removed
frostyuk2007 2 years ago
When you use the term "capitalist classes", that leaves alot to be desired with regards to the meaning you inteded to convey. Libertarians represent the epitomy of capitalist ideaology. Corporate business (which i assume you were referring to in your comment) is an entirely different thing. Corporations grow up around the people, starve true capitalism and remove the freedom and opportunity from communities that would have existed otherwise.
NEPolice1979 2 years ago 2
but you're missing the substance of my critique. you like to avoid all the harms of capitalism by saying, that isn't true capitalism. but my argument is that when you look to oecd countries where the governments are provably less capitalist than the more economically liberalized oecd countries, businesses hurt people less, leading me to believe that "capitalist classes" and "corporate business" in a libertarian system would really harm people while also thriving economically.
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
In my opinion it's still a better alternative to the current system whereby big gov. beaurecrats entrench themselves within major corporations. The lack of actual free market fluidity is responsible for much more suffering than we'd probably see under a conservative libertarian system. Free market, liberty, prosperity, pursuit of happiness. All fantastic ideas. None of which are plausible without opportunity. Under the thumb of big government, opportunity is virtually non existant.
seanredsky 2 years ago
but seeing as it is hypothetical, i think the only way we can examine liberalization is at the margin. ie, what happens when an economy becomes more liberalized vs. less liberalized. and therefore i feel that you have to look at what happens in society when govt becomes less influential in business, lets business get away with more stuff, etc. etc. do businesses act better or worse?
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
Yes, this is libertarian idea as well. Regulation to prevent abuse of individuals, but much less regulation than current. Small government not huge beauracracy. As i read your comment, i reread it a couple times because the way you typed it lead me to believe at first that you may have been confusing Libertarian ideaology with Liberal ideaology. If so, were opposite sides of the spectrum on most issues Zang. I consider myself a conservative decentralist libertarian. Definetely not a liberal.
seanredsky 2 years ago
the way europeans use liberal and the way americans use libertarian are pretty similar. almost every regulation is under the premise that we need to prevent abuse of individuals, ie. the USDA, the EPA, ERISA, etc. etc. if you look at a lot of the fundamental positions of ppl like the cato instutute, they would destroy these parts of the government and trust the BBB to tell us when companies are doing wrong.
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
The problem is that the harm done mostly comes from government interference or assistence. Had government never been recruited by "big business", their size would have never developed to this degree thanks to open competition. It is the protection of big business by government that has allowed them to grow, and also to be protected by powerful government officials or institutions. Without government help, they would have virtually nothing to the way of actual power (other than the good kind).
tridentmovies 2 years ago
why is this true? what prevents corporations from hurting the environment, hiring children to work next to wood cutting machinery, or just setting up an abusive company town. i ask because corporations did this soon after the industrial revolution before they were regulated against this.
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
First of all, only when there is initiation of force can there be a legitimate complaint. When there is initiation of force (including fraud) any transgression should legitimately be able to be fought through the justice system. My point is, any industry that keeps conducting its business in an irresponsible manner would be competed out of existence. Government interference stopped this mechanism and allowed certain industries to thrive while covering their backs in exchange for money.
tridentmovies 2 years ago
When you read Gabriel Kolko's books you will realize that the competition of the free market was so horrible to the big industrialists that they actually asked government for regulations to throw a barrier to their competition. Politicians in return got lots of money in return for helping them achieve monopoly status.
You think they asked for regulations because they wanted to be more "humane"?
In a free market, any bad working cond. will drive workers to the competition.
tridentmovies 2 years ago
the assumption of perfect competition or even broad competition, is fraught with problems. so many industries naturally function with economies of scale. so, if there are industries, that left unregulated, are oligopolistic, what should we do in a libertarians world? moreover, insofar as libertarians acknowledge that "big business" is problematic do they favor ant-trust legislation? do you oppose consumer protection laws? do you oppose health and safety standards?
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
Anti-trust legislation has the consequence, unintended or not, of strengthening big business. Capitalism keeps businesses honest.
MooseOfReason 2 years ago
please explain how anti-trust legislation strengthens big business? if you look how often anti trust statutes are levelled against companies (and not unions) over time, as it has decreased you see a staggering increase in both individual market cap of multiple companies (in real terms) and general income inequality among citizens.
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
The problem is looking at HOW anti-trust legislation is used and who it is used against. Can you define a trust? Can you give me the strict legal definition that's applied? It doesn't exist. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act is a broad generalization that should be killed if only due to the legal principle of "Void for Vagueness".
Just like "Insider Trading", the BATFE "Machine Gun" regulations, Superfund and so much other Executive Branch bullshit since the non-delegation doctrine was killed.
Zen5012 2 years ago
The Clayton Anti-Trust Act tried to redefine and solidify some of those problems but still fell short.
So with FDR's reign, you get a proponent of Keynesian Economics, a proponent of Regulatory Legislation AND a proponent of the Unitary Executive Theory.
The growth of the Executive Power never went away. You've just given bureaucrats and politicians power to decide which companies live and which die. Guess, when you follow the money, which companies get to survive.
Murdoch and Turner......
Zen5012 2 years ago
Zangzang, Read "A Politically Incorrect Guide to Antitrust Policy" by D.T. Armentano.
MooseOfReason 2 years ago
i'm familiar with the series. summarize their most important points so we can discuss here in a more shorthand format.
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
Zang, First, why do you support antitrust legislation?
MooseOfReason 2 years ago
Comment removed
undermyvoodoo22 2 years ago
Capitalism doesn't keep big business honest, the free-market does. Capitalism is simply the private ownership of business and the means of production. The free-market is a lack of regulations like the anti-trust laws.
HeadTater 2 years ago
You are confusing the term Capitalism when you should be calling it Corporatism.
residentzombie 2 years ago
Not exactly. Capitalism is when private entities control the trade of a nation (ie they own the businesses). Corporatism is when the corporations control the entire country.
HeadTater 2 years ago
The government is pushing true free market aside with behemoth regulations and helping to create Corporatism. Small businesses cannot compete when everyone wants cheaper prices and large corporations like Wal-Mart corner the market. We can help reverse this trend, but we must pay and shop more at small businesses instead of buying 100% of our goods at Wal-Mart and explain to the American people why they need to not shop at Wal-Mart and spread their wealth around especially at small businesses.
residentzombie 2 years ago 2
I agree with your assessment of the problem, but not exactly with the solution. In a true free market, people are free to spend as they please and the best are rewarded by getting more business. If Wal-Mart can give me more, then I will shop there. If I like the experience better at corner store, I will shop there. The real way to fight Corporatism is to get the corrupt politicians who enact the biased legislation that gives Wal-Mart the unfair advantage out of office.
HeadTater 2 years ago
@residentzombie But people have no reason to purchase their goods from non corporate entities. It's cheaper, so they'll buy it. Simple as that.
WecksyRex 1 year ago
Capitalism is when the means of production are privatly owned.
TheProgressistViewer 1 year ago 3
The problem is fraud laws are never enforced. It seems like instead of punishing business we help them and start to run them. That is the WRONG thing to do. Not only that, if the government took away the stupid laws and regulations that prevented people from starting businesses we might have twice the amount of business that we have now, meaning more employment and more competition.
PairoftheSocks 2 years ago
In a free market, the multitude of competition would be such that businesses would be forced to comply to consumer demand. If so many people were worried about hazards, pollution etc. the variety of choice would force industry to improve.
What you see now is "symbolic politics" where politicians pretend to worry about the people but actually say one thing, do the other, and only keep promises made to the lobbyists that lined their pockets. Lobbyists from big business.
It's called corporatism.
tridentmovies 2 years ago
corporatism is a bad thing we agree. but look at markets where there is less government interference with commerce and look at markets where there is more. we could use those differences to see if reducing restraints on business always increases competition and is socially beneficial.
ZANGZANGDANZ 2 years ago
fallinidols. Its got to be better than the patriot act. trust me when the goverment claims they can look into your personal life (internet, what books you get at the library, tap your phone) without a search warrent it wont be long till you get to go to prision as well. When the goverment sets up a head shop as a front so they can bust Tommy Chong for selling a bong thats pretty sad. Why is it that you can have alcohol legal, yet not have pot ( vertiauly no fatel accedints) illegal?
williamiwu 2 years ago
yeah dude its a classic case of your government knows best. that fact alone should get anyone to question there gov and see through there lies.just fighting blindly to see to there means of greed and conflict there own laws. theres no such thing as law only personal morals.
Fallinldols 2 years ago
Libertarian power!
Is there any real support for libertarianism in USA?
Here in Poland we have just one clasically liberal party, they are supported by +/- 2% of citizen.
Libertarian87R 2 years ago 3
...the problems with the Corportocracy is that we let it happen. We allow all of these regulations to pass without question which funnel money to the top. "They" are only doing to us what we allow them to do. Unfortunately, people don't want responsibilty. There is the desire to be slaves. They'll vote against their rights for the illusion of security. I hate to say it but religion conditions us for this. We WANT to believe in the benevolent dictator. I'd rather be free.
Humanist555 2 years ago
It all comes down to this. The majority of people in America seem to believe that there is some magical wizard, hiding in a cave somewhere, who is going to fix all of our problems. But, the fact is, there is no wizard. It's just us. All of our problems have to be fixed by us. "For the people, BY the people". It's OUR responsibility.
TheGoIsWin21 2 years ago
We can also vote w/our dollars. If you know that the price of object X has lobby money built right into it, then don't buy that product. It's so much easier to just use the big stick of government rather than own up to our own resposibility. You might not win but at least you can sleep at night knowing you did what you can do at the individual level. APATHY is the American people's biggest enemy. When 90% of the people I talk to say "I don't care about politics" that tells me why we have...
Humanist555 2 years ago
Glad to see libertarians slamming the GOP. I'm not a lib, but I have a lot of pity for them (even if I think their thinking on political economy is a little crazy). I can't think of any other political group that basically gets raped by the large party (GOP) that is supposed to support its platform. Even the environmentalists had Al Gore! There will never be a truly Libertarian candidate. I'm afraid the movement is doomed to being fringe.
zombiesoiree 2 years ago
I suppose governments just don't feel the need to limit their own power. It takes public pressure and greater political engagement to bring about change in that direction.
SharpesAccomplice 2 years ago
I doubt that will happen. Americans are fundamentally conservative. Look what happens every time someone tries to privatize social security. Oh sure, it's fine when we're picking on welfare recipients, but don't touch entitlements. As sad as it makes the Lib, Americans do want some forms of big government. They'd see losing it as a return to pre-New Deal Depression Era misery, right or wrong.
zombiesoiree 2 years ago
This is all well and good, but this guy does not tell us anything in this clip about why smaller government is better.
snapcase55 2 years ago
Republicans suck just as much Democrats. Don't let them brain-wash you.
We, Libertarians, need to step up on not just the economic issues, but on our personal liberty as well. The Republicans don't seem to have a problem banning gay marriage and establishing public prayer.
Personally, I'd sell out to the 17th Amendment faster than having my Bill of Rights shredded. Come on people, Viva La Revolucion!
TheAdamTheory 2 years ago 7
As a Anarchist/Libertarian Socialist, I have my own critiques of "Libertarianism" in America, mainly the fact that they have this silly notion that they can obtain a free market with a state or that the state is even a legitimate organization to begin with.
I think it's a little hypocritical how most "Libertarians" will attack the state and recognize the private tyranny of corporatism plaguing America yet they still cling onto their constitution. Wake up, it's just a piece of paper.
Father0Blivion 2 years ago
Thats the problem with statists, they see the Constitution as just a piece of paper. We see it as a living document. Sounds like nonsense, but it keeps our rights. Of course I cling to it. The government has been stepping all over it for years.
I wish Anarchy would work honestly, so in a sense I am an anarchist in thought, but I when I think in terms of government, I cling to minarchy. I agree with you on corporatism, but is one of the downsides to capitalism. I'm thinking of solutions
TheAdamTheory 2 years ago
to corporate tyranny through libertarianism. Its a hard thing to take a side with, but I prefer corporations that can just not hire me, to states that can take anything from me.
TheAdamTheory 2 years ago
Corporations are creations of the state, they're given limited liability protection by the government so the share holders only lose whatever money they've invested into the company. Of course, as with everything the state does, this only hurts the tax payer at the end of the day.
Father0Blivion 2 years ago
That's the thing, it's not a living document and it doesn't secure any rights.If any one person chose to disregard it and see it as illegitimate, then it's useless. It only holds whatever value you ascribe to it. This is why it's been abused or ignored, at the end of the day it's an illegitimate document to those in the ruling class.
However, the ruling class in and of themselves are just as illegitimate as the constitution itself. None of them can justify their own authority.
Father0Blivion 2 years ago
A good analogy to your analysis of the constitution is the value of a monetary system. A dollar is only worth something because people believe it's worth something
DCuzz14 2 years ago 2
lol @ private pursuit of happiness- sorry, that just sounds bad.
AcidTrout 3 years ago
Acidtrout,
great name, by the way. The private pursuit of happiness "just sounds bad"? Why? You don't like the founding documents that underscore this philosophy? Are you a Marxist or fascist of some sorts? What's wrong with individuals pursuing their own happiness?
dheller2 3 years ago
thanx
LOL, no, it was just stupid middle-schoolish humor.
AcidTrout 3 years ago
McCain's other bailout scam came to be known as the Keating Five Scandal.
McCain should have gone to prison for a long time for his part in it.
Charles Keating paid about $1.3 million to various U.S. Senators including Senator John McCain
to help him resist regulators intent on protecting the people whose money Keating was embezzling.
The regulators backed off to disastrous consequences.
McCain was fortunate to have enough clout to stay out of prison.
johnnybandmember 3 years ago
actually McCain was proven innocent in the Keating Five Scandal. The Democrates who ran the investigation say he had nothing to do with the scandal. But go ahead and keep grasping at straws.
jshancock 3 years ago
Not exactly.
He was reprimanded for his actions in the scandal, but they decided he just "didnt understand the situation", so they didnt do any consequential punishment.
Regardless, he was proven to have been involved with keating.
flamablesteve 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I pretty much have to vote for John McCain. I'd rather have George Bush 3 than Karl Marx 2.
Leatherbubba 3 years ago
I'd rather have George Bush 3 than karl Marx 2 as well but I'd also be a lot happier putting up with Karl Marx 2 for just 4 years so people really understand just how bad it is and then make a radical shift in ideology in 2012 and go with somone who actually believes in small government. I'm voting Bob Barr and yes I know he won't win but the long term effects outweigh what will happen if there is NO party running on a small government platform for a lot longer than 4 years.
RedLava78 3 years ago
It's time for Republicans to go sit in a corner for a term or two. They will have time to purge themselves of these neocon fanatics and those closer to Ron Paul will inherit the Party. Ron Paul and Barack Obama, two men of integrity and conviction, could have a real debate about America's future. McCain is a pathetic joke.
fireflyrufust 3 years ago 8
All we need to do is read the constitution. Thats the book we need to follow. I swore to uphold the constitution. Everyone in the military did. Yet so many bills are passed without anyone doing anyhting. The Patriot Act? what the fuck. This nation is turning over to fascism at a very rapid rate and evryone blows it off like its not happening. Anyone who believes in freedom and civil liberities needs to wake the fuck up. We have become a nation of "dumbed down" naive fools
drunkenboxer1985 3 years ago 41
aint that the truth. Semper Fi
Elasaltaculos 3 years ago 4
@drunkenboxer1985 the irony is, public education is doing a great deal of the dumbing down. and these dumb people with genuine concerns tend to 'remedy' public education with more gov intervention. and then you have 'social lib's, (an oxymoron, really) and lefty's that seem to be allergic to economics... sigh, it's frustrating being a libertarian.
TheAttackRat 1 year ago 4
@drunkenboxer1985 on the contrary my brother, anyone who believes and GRASPS the concepts of freedom and civil liberty are already aware of the government's current authoritarian excursions. People like you and I, the ones who are aware of this, are the minority of the country, and it is we that breed a revolutionary period. The way to do this is to raise awareness among the majority of the people. Once that is done, the revolution (or reform) will be prevalent and perfectly possible.
LightofJah81 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
unconvincing, bad speaker...
Savorist 3 years ago
Ron Paul can still be president!
google dvds4delegates
google campaign for liberty
legalizeliberty 3 years ago
How so? I wanted it to happen, i voted for him, but it seems like giving him the delegates would be stealing an election.
elfred1980 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Libertarians are just ashamed-republicans-in-hiding with an extra dose of greed thrown into the mix.
Do us all a favor and shut the fuck up & go hide in your US Flag jammies & suck on your independent thumb while dreaming of fiscal responsibility while we set to work fixing all the damage that your fiscal responsibility nutjob ideology about has done to turn our country into a Hellish mess of uncared for sick children, ruined airlines & public transit systems, dead factories & falling bridges.
mhirtes12 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sick Commie cocksucker.
harry4611 3 years ago
That's MISTER Sick Commie Cocksucker to you, goon.
mhirtes12 3 years ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
Don't feed the troll.
jbd75274 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Bob Barr - The perfect idiot to represent one of the kookiest of political ideas.
mhirtes12 3 years ago
yea personal responsibility, thats crazy.
spawk1993 3 years ago 4
Both McCain and Obama would pass so many aweful laws through the Democratic congress that it makes me nautous. I'm voting for Barr so at least I'll have made my desires public.
DCUPtoejuice 3 years ago
barr sucks.
write-in ron paul
rappoltpierre 3 years ago
negative. But a vote for either Barr or Paul is the only way to avoid wasting your vote this year.
DCUPtoejuice 3 years ago 2
well Paul is lightyears better than Barr
rappoltpierre 3 years ago 2
I consider Paul the guide and people like Barr, the Generals of the Revolution. Living up to Paul's ideals is like living up to Jefferson's vision, it orients your ship, but you need to make difficult compromises and get dirty to be an effective leader.
DCUPtoejuice 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
then write-in Ron Paul.
rappoltpierre 3 years ago
I'd rather have a Barr-Paul ticket..sure, they may have been Republicans (Paul still is Republican), but they're concerned about the direction of their party. The social issues have driven the party further and further to the radical right.
gameshowguy2000 3 years ago 2
I agree with you but wouldn't call it the "radical right". I'd go with "the new big government right" or "neocon" for short. I'm hoping Barr gets a nice piece of the vote and they blame him for the republicans losing badly. Maybe just maybe (though I doubt it) the neocons will realize that they're not going to win if they want to be a pro-big government party.
RedLava78 3 years ago
And David Ruprecht (who himself is a Libertarian) has said that Libertarians support lower taxes and smaller government (and they're walking the walk, unlike the Republicans, who are only talking the talk; they claim they support lower taxes and smaller government, but fail to deliver).
gameshowguy2000 3 years ago
John McCain said on his website that he would at least leave the abortion issue up to the states. Bob Barr said he was "pro-life" and DOES NOT DISCUSS his position on abortion on his website. John McCain is more open than Barr. Abortion would still be legal in blue states under John McCain. Please vote for McCain. McCain will not raise taxes like Obama.
DoctorMurky 3 years ago
DOCTORMURKY is WRONG. Barr specifically said that he is for states rights on the abortion issue.
DCUPtoejuice 3 years ago 2
Please tell us where we can find Bob Barr saying or writing that because I couldn't find it on his website. On Glenn Beck's show, he made no indication that that was his position. He pandered to the Pro-lifers and said something retarded about abortion being an "act of aggression". He is, at the very least, guilty of lying by omission.
DoctorMurky 3 years ago
rigght. actually, i can't back that up. I tried to find it, perhaps I confused his marriage position with the abortion issue. Nevertheless, it is clear he is pro-life and would support removal of Roe v. Wade and allowing states to make their own law. This doesn't mean he wouldn't advocate all states putting anti-abortion laws on the books.
DCUPtoejuice 3 years ago 2
Bob Barr supports states rights over the national federal rights. McCain believes in and ultra control of the President. He if he was President would raise taxes. If you don't believe in this look up 'The Real McCain'. A great video by bravenewfilms. A true republican will never support McCain
wadebishop 3 years ago
McBama can suck my balls.
DCUPtoejuice 3 years ago
To DCU: lol. I hate McCain but I wouldn't want that old man near my balls. The old pervert may like them way too much!
wadebishop 3 years ago
I checked Barr's site, he's leaving the Marriage and Abortion issues up to the state. He himself was a former Republican that was author of the DOMA, and now he's realized his party has gone in the wrong direction.
gameshowguy2000 3 years ago 5
30 years from now, after Barack Obama gets elected, how will you explain to your children that you allowed the Supreme Court to be packed by people who destroyed the 2nd Amendment and the right to private property.
"Well son, John McCain wasn't Conservative enough for me."
Folks, this November, let's vote for McCain, vomit together after we do and regroup to try again.
Advocate1234 3 years ago
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*runs around house cradling guns*
ls1z28chris 3 years ago
My friend started a Libertarian rock band called "The Libertarians." Cool sound and I agree with their political views.
acidtones1 3 years ago
They sound like 80's punk like Black Flag or Dead Kennedys or something.
acidtones1 3 years ago
rabid patriotism in unamerican
rios9000 3 years ago 2
I want to "express" myself by giving money to a judge. What's wrong with that?
Attila226 3 years ago
Mr. Welch is an enormous improvement over Nick Gillespie, who is nothing more than a big-mouthed nihilist.
Achilles222 3 years ago
There is no substantive difference between hillary obama and mccain.
Vote libertarian in 2008
cowbot2 3 years ago
so which guy is more libertarian mccain or obama, or i guess hallary to why not.
heroftheday34 3 years ago
Well one is proposing a 39 percent income tax and many other higher taxes such as the estate tax and the other is not. Do you really have to ask that?
suds101 3 years ago
This is typical Republican lying idiocy. Do you really believe that the unimaginable deficits piled up under the Republicans don't cost us? The dollar is in a free fall, the Social Security fund has been raided of trillions of dollars, and one day the government will default on interest payments on the debt. Fuck your 39 percent income tax.
baddave62 3 years ago
Some not-well-known Libertarian Party platform planks (since hidden by the rewrite of 2006)--
"We call for the repeal of the guarantees of tax-funded, government-provided education..."
"The Nuclear Regulatory Commission should be abolished."
"Consumer demand rather than legislative mandate should drive consumer safety and protection."
"We oppose all government welfare, relief projects and "aid to the poor" programs."
Lol... the symbol of the LP should be an Ivory Tower.
Diskatopia777 3 years ago
not all libertarians are members of the LP.
and if the "ivory tower" is a symbol of anything, it is the modern-day Left.
lakeviewviking 3 years ago
Yes, so? Privatizing education would benefit families, students, and the general public immensely given the track record of public education since the 1970's. Welfare programs simply transfer wealth from the rightful owners of property to people who are well-connected with those in power. Private charity has a record of being more effective meeting the needs of the deserving poor. Strict liability would be a more efficient and fairer way to manage the benefits and risks of nuclear power.
Achilles222 3 years ago
Not "privatizing education"--- doing away with education for all who can't afford $4000 or more a year per child. The result being an uneducated thirdworld USA. Welfare acts as a safety net and keeps the crime rate lower than it would be without it, at a benefit to all who earn in a society.
Diskatopia 3 years ago
Strict liability won't help after a major catastrophe-- this isn't about efficiency or managing risks, with after-disaster payouts to parties injured (as if the company at fault for a large disaster wouldn't just bankrupt), this is about getting as close to 0% chance as possible of any disaster happening*-- not any amount of risk for a large disaster is truly "acceptable."
*For efficiency AND lowering risk to as close to 0% as possible, smart power suppliers will go with pebble reactors.
Diskatopia 3 years ago
There are trade-offs. I do agree though that sometimes regulation is necessary. The issue though is to find solutions where we can minimize regulation. The Soviets had lots of government regulation and were environmental disasters, so the answer is not necessarily more government.
Achilles222 3 years ago
Solutions can be found now, where needed-- the pre-2006 LP plank(s), however, called for throwing out all regualtion and essentailly letting nature take it's course-- with greed being what it is, that course would be disastrous.
The Soviets, at Chernobyl, did NOT have independent agency oversight, and that led to the biggest nuclear plant disaster yet seen.
Many of the "regulations" people cry about are protecting the common man from corporate socialism-- I for one am thankful for them.
Diskatopia777 3 years ago
There are different kinds of libertarians with various degrees of opposition to state action. Many in the LP are much more extreme than, say, Chicago School libertarians. I agree that the state can play some role in some of the issues you raise.
Achilles222 3 years ago
How do you mean? To me corporate takeover happens more when regulations come in and knock out the small business owner lower competition. The truth is a free market reduces corporate socialism! Upton Sinclair is just one of many examples. The man writes a book trying to expose the dangerous conditions people worked in(even though people in China would die to work in a place like it). What happened? The corporations pushed through legislation that put pressure on small competitors. It's a scam!
shanklinmike 3 years ago
The quickest way to get to corporate socialism is the course we are on right now! Once the government and big business start working together(happens more and more everyday) equilibrium markets will vanish and so will our prosperity. Maintaining a free society with minimal federal D.C. beauracracy is important to keeping out the socialist controllers. Regulations should happen on a state level if anything, not a centralized national system.
shanklinmike 3 years ago
Do you want the same people who run Homeland Security, the Pentagon, and our horrible veterans (government run) hospitals taking over our technological healthcare system and creating a national agency of health? Government monopoly doesn't work but as long as regulations continue to increase in the medical field......prices will rise, shortages will increase, quality will decline, and healthcare as we know it will continue to slowly diminish!
shanklinmike 3 years ago
Government doesn't need to own industry, regulation is in itself coercive control. The more regulation the better for the state and the worse for the people! Please check out this video! video(dot)google(dot)com/videoplay?docid=6732659166933078950
shanklinmike 3 years ago
Vouchers could be used to provide people with money for private school. And they could use it to pay for schooling, if it costs more they pay the difference, if it costs less then it could be saved.
Also keep in mind that privatizing it would mean that SOMEONE would start up a low-cost school, creating competition and this would help keep costs low.
stealthswimmer 3 years ago
No, the pre-2007 platform was about totally doing away with free public education for the masses, vouchers are not part of the ivory tower insanity in that platform, and again, expecting the lower middle class and poor to be able to afford private school, even if the average fees magically dropped 30% (avg. $5500 for elem. school in my area, $10,000 or more for HS) is ridiculous. It would turn the US into a 3rdworld nation of uneducated masses- Soylent Green & Rollerball, the LP future).
Diskatopia777 3 years ago
Even without vouchers, it would NOT results in what you're talking about. SOMEone would come along and make a low-cost school because they KNOW that a lot of people would send their kids there and they'd make money from all those people signing up their kids there. SO it still would bring prices down and create competition so long as NO school was given disadvantages by the government but also no benefits from government either.
stealthswimmer 3 years ago
Exactly how much per child do you think the poor can afford? Tell the woman with 3 kids making $20K a year that she will have to pay $3000 a year each for school and watch her laugh. They would be on the streets-- hello, crime rate increase.
You are falling for the false idea that "business" can always manage everything in society better than "government," and that is not true. That idea drags the few good ideas of the LP down -- the profit motive is NOT always what is best for society.
Diskatopia777 3 years ago
Of course the LP platform pre-2006 also had a plank to do awway with all labor laws, including child labor laws, so I guess all those poor and lower middle class elementary-school-aged kids would at least be able to get work at local factories-- how cute it would be to see little six-year-olds sewing soccer balls for $2 an hour-- heck, maybe we can even get them in the military! The dream world of "Metropolis" would be just around the corner for the uber-wealthy, huzzah!
Diskatopia777 3 years ago
Well, most families who currently send their children to private schools are middle middle class and working class. They are not rich. There are private scholarships and other arrangements for the poor. Parochial schools welcome low income students. As for welfare, people got along without social services for most of the history of the U.S. as poverty rates declined. The decline in poverty stopped and reversed AFTER the Great Society.
Achilles222 3 years ago
If public education ended tomorrow there would be nowhere near enough "private scholarships and other arrangements" for the poor and middle classes who couldn't afford private school even if tuition was 30% less than now.
Parochial schools lower their tuition with tithe money-- which is not going to triple overnight so they can accept extra students who can afford very little.
All of society benefits from an educated populace. Annual cost per citizen for public education-- about $150.
Diskatopia777 3 years ago
Didn't McCain-Feingold cause higher spending in elections? Even a retard like Bill Maher saw that.
braddockakalatis 3 years ago
Can I be a libertarian and a racist?
Why can't I view myself as this.
pierre23ca 3 years ago
aahhh probably not.
greenghost2008 3 years ago
A vote for McCain is a vote for a resurgent shift from neo-con to neo-lib. The same goes for the Dems. We are all doomed unless we vote for Ron Paul and heed the advice of the Cato Institute. Liberty=Property,Consent,Contract and Privacy.
DeathOrLiberty 4 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
yeah. vote for ron paul. he'll win. retard.
hiimbrady 3 years ago
Ive never heard an inspired or intelligent speech at the Cato Institute, and its not for lack of trying.
4ourthofjuly 3 years ago
I am voting for RP no matter what. Protest Vote.
FarangBalls 3 years ago 6
what a long drawn out commentary to tell us something simple: that McCain is a mainstream republican who protects concentrated govt power - on top of wasting our time with pseudo intellectual chatter; Welch doesn't give a decent analysis and tries to paint McCain as anti-corporate when it's clear that he's like all "moderate" Rep and Dem politicians (which is about 90% of the Senate), totally supportive of a big corporate and big gov agenda, and this combination is the reason the media loves him
fverona 4 years ago
no, its a valuable analysis and you should think about it, mccain shows typical patterns of behaviour of dictators, the concern with small issues, an exaggerated believe in military and nation and sacrifice of the individual for the greater good, this guy is dangerous, dont underestimate the gravitas such personalities can develop!
random0815 3 years ago
well, when you put it that way, maybe that is some useful information that can be gleaned out of the presentation, but I still think the more significant effort of the speaker is to paint McCain as some kind of rebel willing to confront established powers, and I think that part is not true
fverona 3 years ago
The speaker is author of the book McCain: Myth of a Maverick. He wasnt trying to portray him as you suggest. Maybe you should watch again.
Bob Barr anounced today that he will run for Prez on the Libertarian ticket. i wonder if that will hurt McCain or Obama more?
donballz 3 years ago
John McCain is stupid and an asshole
nyalcin07 4 years ago 3
McCain believes in "Everything in the State, Nothing Outside the State, Nothing Against The State."
DeAnte85 4 years ago 12
I have more respect for McCain then the rest of the "mainstream" cannidates, but I'm still voting Ron Paul, even if I have to write him in.
lakeviewviking 4 years ago 8
I am voting for him no matter what. I hope he runs third party.
FarangBalls 4 years ago
Even if he doesn't, which I hope he does, you can still vote for the Libertarian party. If all Ron Paul supporters did that, they'd get a decent percentage to be sure. Even if they didn't win, you could at least feel good about your vote.
Spazman173 3 years ago 2
it's possible that we could but Ron Paul supporters objective isn't to just make a small impact on the 2008 presidential election...
Their goal is to actually take the country back. So the focus of the RP supporters is now on congressional and senate candidates. Alot of us are hoping that Jesse Ventura will enter the race.
Other than that... there is no real shot at the presidency for libretarians this year.
Enjoy 4-8 more years of fascism :-(
Claytrainor 3 years ago
Well it is true that this election on its own won't be the big change we've been looking for, but we can still send a message with it.
Spazman173 3 years ago
Really thought-provoking.
calchexas 4 years ago 2