I'm libertarian too, and there are way more of us that you think. In fact, i'll bet that most people don't realize it but underneath, they are. For example, if you a) want to pay less tax and b) want to be left alone to live your life in peace, then that pretty much describes most people. How is that NOT libertarian...
What does she actual support? She claims she's a "have not" is this due to income taxes or sales taxes or the crimanlly low capital gains tax? How is she being punished by the government?
"A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs, which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell numbers..... And if there are those that cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way." Ronald Reagan.
@shotsky94 <--- Look. A loser that thinks they have the answers that they do not. No response other than to insult. No logic, no sense, and no respect for others' responses. Their mantra? "Destroy with insults so that we don't have to debate with facts, lest we know we will lose."
In the age of information people are suited to know what's better for themsefves.More informed to understand what will happen if you do this or that.We are capable to distribute information and communication and tolerance well enough for us to be our own leaders without making a total caos in the process. we all want the same thing.to live in peace,progression and freedom. no matter if it is a life-convict or a nun, nor any ism. we have to understand this and act. we've had enough. TZM here
Progressives which include neocons love war. Wilson was our biggest warmongering racist liar not to mention theodore roosevelt. His sec. of navy was the warmonger franklin roosevelt.
I'm basing my definition of a libertarian on modern terms and principles. The principle of non-aggression, individual property rights - these here are incompatible with an overall state of socialism. Now, if you mean the kind of socialism that's voluntary then it could be seen as compatible with a libertarian system.
If you have any disagreements I would like for you to define your terms in depth.
The whole point of socialism in its initial inception was that it WAS voluntary and was guided by the notion that each individual should be a master of their own destiny. Then of course, THAT term was hijacked by a bunch of totalitarians who claimed to rule in the public's self-interest - something that would have been antithetical to the ideals of the 18th century socialist thinkers and activists like Robert Owen, Pierre-Joseph Prodhon and William Morris [cntd].
The whole point of socialism in its initial inception was that it WAS voluntary and was guided by the notion that each individual should be a master of their own destiny. Then of course, THAT term was hijacked by a bunch of totalitarians who claimed to rule in the public's self-interest - something that would have been antithetical to the ideals of the 18th century socialist thinkers and activists like Robert Owen, Pierre-Joseph Prodhon and William Morris [cntd].
The whole point of socialism in its initial inception was that it WAS voluntary and was guided by the notion that each individual should be a master of their own destiny. Then of course, THAT term was hijacked by a bunch of totalitarians who claimed to rule in the public's self-interest - something that would have been antithetical to the ideals of the 18th century socialist thinkers and activists like Robert Owen, Pierre-Joseph Prodhon and William Morris [cntd].
The whole point of socialism in its initial inception was that it WAS voluntary and was guided by the notion that each individual should be a master of their own destiny. Then of course, THAT term was hijacked by a bunch of totalitarians who claimed to rule in the public's self-interest - something that would have been antithetical to the ideals of the 18th century socialist thinkers and activists like Robert Owen, Pierre-Joseph Prodhon and William Morris [cntd].
@pSychOAtDawn The whole point of socialism in its initial inception was that it WAS voluntary and was guided by the notion that each individual should be a master of their own destiny. Then of course, THAT term was hijacked by a bunch of totalitarians who claimed to rule in the public's self-interest - something that would have been antithetical to the ideals of the 18th century socialist thinkers and activists like Robert Owen, Pierre-Joseph Prodhon and William Morris [cntd].
The whole point of socialism in its initial inception was that it WAS voluntary and was guided by the notion that each individual should be a master of their own destiny. Then of course, THAT term was hijacked by a bunch of totalitarians who claimed to rule in the public's self-interest - something that would have been antithetical to the ideals of the 18th century socialist thinkers and activists like Robert Owen, Pierre-Joseph Prodhon and William Morris [cntd].
The whole point of socialism in its initial inception was that it WAS voluntary and was guided by the notion that each individual should be a master of their own destiny. Then of course, THAT term was hijacked by a bunch of totalitarians who claimed to rule in the public's self-interest - something that would have been antithetical to the ideals of the 18th century socialist thinkers and activists like Robert Owen, Pierre-Joseph Prodhon and William Morris [cntd].
@pSychOAtDawn The whole point of socialism in its initial inception was that it WAS voluntary and was guided by the notion that each individual should be a master of their own destiny. Then of course, THAT term was hijacked by a bunch of totalitarians who claimed to rule in the public's self-interest - something that would have been antithetical to the ideals of the 18th century socialist thinkers and activists like Robert Owen, Pierre-Joseph Prodhon and William Morris [cntd].
@pSychOAtDawn The whole point of socialism in its initial inception was that it WAS voluntary and was guided by the notion that each individual should be a master of their own destiny. Then of course, THAT term was hijacked by a bunch of totalitarians who claimed to rule in the public's self-interest - something that would have been antithetical to the ideals of the 18th century socialist thinkers and activists like Robert Owen, Pierre-Joseph Prodhon and William Morris [cntd].
@pSychOAtDawn The whole point of socialism in its initial inception was that it WAS voluntary and was guided by the notion that each individual should be a master of their own destiny. Then of course, THAT term was hijacked by a bunch of totalitarians who claimed to rule in the public's self-interest - something that would have been antithetical to the ideals of the 18th century socialist thinkers and activists like Robert Owen, Pierre-Joseph Prodhon and William Morris [cntd].
@pSychOAtDawn The whole point of socialism in its initial inception was that it WAS voluntary and was guided by the notion that each individual should be a master of their own destiny. Then of course, THAT term was hijacked by a bunch of totalitarians who claimed to rule in the public's self-interest - something that would have been antithetical to the ideals of the 18th century socialist thinkers and activists like Robert Owen, Pierre-Joseph Prodhon and William Morris [cntd].
@pSychOAtDawn The whole point of socialism in its initial inception was that it WAS voluntary and was guided by the notion that each individual should be a master of their own destiny. Then of course, THAT term was hijacked by a bunch of totalitarians who claimed to rule in the public's self-interest - something that would have been antithetical to the ideals of the 18th century socialist thinkers and activists like Robert Owen, Pierre-Joseph Prodhon and William Morris [cntd].
@pSychOAtDawn The whole point of socialism in its initial inception was that it WAS voluntary and was guided by the notion that each individual should be a master of their own destiny. Then of course, THAT term was hijacked by a bunch of totalitarians who claimed to rule in the public's self-interest - something that would have been antithetical to the ideals of the 18th century socialist thinkers and activists like Robert Owen, Pierre-Joseph Prodhon and William Morris [cntd].
The whole point of socialism in its initial inception was that it WAS voluntary and was guided by the notion that each individual should be a master of their own destiny. Then of course, THAT term was hijacked by a bunch of totalitarians who claimed to rule in the public's self-interest - something that would have been antithetical to the ideals of the 18th century socialist thinkers and activists like Robert Owen, Pierre-Joseph Prodhon and William Morris [cntd].
@MsSexySocialist "private property that can be accumulated at the expense of others or the enviroment."
When you say this, I cannot help but wonder the methods at which this property was acquired. Are you considering trade, a virtue in capitalism, an expense on the individual? Are you implying that the nature of trade is inherently a rip off? Isn't trade a choice done mutually by two consenting parties?
@MsSexySocialist and when you say that private property is harnessed in a way that harms the environment, I ask, to what extent? There is only so much you can get away with as an individual or a business when doing damage to other individuals life and or property. This is where the state comes in to protect the "little" man, in this case the individual who is being harmed by the individual or business. I don't see a difference in our stances if you agree with the state protecting property rights
Actually I wouldn't agree with the state doing anything - it should be dissolved in favor of a decentralized system of participatory democracy (worker and consumer councils and the like).
In answer to your question, I was refering to corporations (Exxon ect) which posess vast economic power but lack any democratic accountibility to the public.
LS would differ from LC in supporting their democratization into cooperative institutions.
The problem, from a Libertarian socialist perspective, is the centralization of political and economic power in the state and corporations respectivly.
The solution would be to take actions and legislation to decentralize political power away from the state and economic power away from large-scale private ownership into the hands of institutions like mutuals, worker cooperatives and such.
The final goal would be an economy based on cooperation rather than competition.
@MsSexySocialist No, that is not "Libertarian"... anything. Notice how you use 'legislation' to take from the state and business. First, that's stealing. Second, you are promoting centralized government over state rights. I'm not even going to touch 'worker cooperatives' and 'economics based on cooperation' (not an economic model). You are not a Libertarian at all, in no form and under no loose interpretation. I won't label you, but I know I'm a Libertarian, and I know for sure, you are not.
"you are promoting centralized government over state rights".
Really? Because in that last comment I expressed my support for abolishing centralized government; ergo: you either skipped over what I had written, or did read it and deliberatly misinterpreted it in a weak attempt at a strawman argument. 'economics based on cooperation' (not an economic model)."
I think just about everyone who labeled themselves a Libertarian in the 1800s would disagree with you.
@MsSexySocialist Honest question. How do you 'take action and legislate' without giving more power to government? The take action part is too open, but I didn't want to leave it out, but legislation requires enforcement. Worker Cooperatives, and Mutuals. Who's in charge of those? Please don't say 'the people', because 'the people' are supposedly in charge of this.
My mistake. I should have elucidated my position more.
The "action" that I would propose taking is what is called building a "Dual power" structure made up of the kinds of Libertarian democratic institutions I mentioned previously - and the formation of an expanding network of such institutions to compete with the existing corporate/statist paradigm.
By "legislation" I refered to USING the state to help foster the dual power as it grows.
@MsSexySocialist How exactly does one 'use the state' without strengthening it? What you are proposing might work because it would create a competitive environment against Duopolies (example) that exist today. Kind of Capitalist, no? How would the newly created 'Cooperative' not evolve into another massive government or corporate monopoly? Keep in mind that people are the constant. I won't even ask how this could come to pass.
"How exactly does one 'use the state' without strengthening it?"
Well, I look at it this way; every great leap forward we've made socially speaking has come about as a result of people rising up and demanding greater freedoms (the end of slavery ect.) - and sooner or later the state has been forced to give in.
While all of these movements have been primarily extra-governmental, it helped to have people on the inside of the state who gave support to the growing movement.
In response to your question about the danger of the dual power turning into a corporate monopoly, the inhearently democratic and decentralist (ie: confederal) nature of the structure would prevent it from ever being organized in a dictatorial or oligarcical fashion - as corporations are run today.
It's like our federal system of government: every unit of the whole makes its own rules and runs its own show.
The wikipedia article "Economic Democracy" explains what I mean.
You obviously aren't a libertarian or you'd know your libertarian history.
The 1st factions to self-identify with the word libertarian & apply it in an economic context were the French anarchocommunists-in particular-Joseph Dejacque(who was at the extreme end of antiproperty ideas,even by socialist standards.)
Ironically Dejacque actually anticipated Austrian School founder Carl Menger's 'subjective theory of value'.
@MsSexySocialist So, 'the sons of liberty' were actually a socialist group. Then they wrote the Constitution? Liberty is where the word Libertarian came from. Liberty L i b e r tarian. See? Liberty is the freedom of choice the freedom of oppression, and the freedom of individual will. Socialism is based on the whole society. S o c iety = S o c ialism. See? Liberty, me. Socialism, we. You have labelled yourself an oxymoron. Try the Progressives... they might claim you.
If you're too lazy to even look up the origins of the political term you use to describe yourself, I really can't help you.
To reiterate, Libertarianism refered (untill around the 1960s) to the anti-statist tradition of socialism: Mutualism, Anarcho-Collectivism, Anarcho-Communism, Syndicalism, Cooperativism ect. Research it if you don't believe me.
And btw trying to take apart words to try to "reveal what they mean" just makes you look imature.
@MsSexySocialist So, in another country, another century, and in another language we don't fit the definition? You couldn't come up with anything more relevant? As far as I could tell she was speaking in the present tense. Languages evolve, words take on new meanings, and political alliances shift. It's great that you have such a focused understanding of the origins of the word. What's 'immature' is playing the smug game of literal definitive and not even sticking to a time or place. Troll.
Actually, if you look at the context of my comment, I was responding to a youtuber who said that the term "Libertarian Socialist" was oxymoronic even given the origins of the term with regard to political classification.
Of course words take on new meanings and change through time. Classical Liberals and Anarcho-Capitalists can use the term if they like, but the fact remains that the anti-state tradition of socialism used it first.
Fuck America, it's a shit hole you dumb house nigger bitch, I can't wait for it to fall, just like Rome. America is a murderous country full of evil white people and still a lot of dumb black people still fight and die for that stinking shithole country. American cannot be saved so just accept your punishment for the wickedness your country have done since it came into existence.
A socialist libertarian?? I didnt know there was such a thing due to the fact that libertarianism implies as little government as needed where as socialism is government ownership i believe?? Like the FDA and stuff. Well first of all there are organic plants we can use for medicines and food; however, our government wants to control it? I dont get it at all so to answer your question i suppose i would have to say capitalism is the way to go.
@RenonKoral What do you meen what kind of libertarian?? People who lean a little concervative and a little liberal are the biggest idiots! 100% libertarian!
Awesome! Some common sense. The media blacks out ALL mention of Libertarians in the news. That is because all the news stations are owned by Dems and Reps who are owned and controlled by the FCC and BIG CORRUPT GOVERNMENT!!! Freedom IS an option if the sheeple will learn the left and right scale is a LIE!!! Only the Libertarian Party wants to make the PEOPLE free, peaceful and prosperous!!! Learn about the FREEDOM REVOLUTION!! VIVE LIBERTARIOS!!!
@SpecialFester Good point, but you missed one thing. The Marxists, who are becoming stronger now in our country with one of their own in the White House and who hate Capitalism so violently, can also walk up to that pile of iron and turn it into something. History shows that they regularly turn it into shackles, weapons, police batons, and prison bars.
I love black people with right wing values of common sense. They destroy the socialist fantasy that labels all black people left wingers. People can be libertarian but I wonder if that label for her is correct. People with a desire for rule of law, and freedom from enemies foriegn and domestic need a powerful police force, fire department and military. She may be to the right of an average conservative but a libertarian I think not , neither is RuPaul. Capitalism is the enemy of racism.
@KingDingaLing090 He runs as a republican so that he actually has a chance in elections. Check out his views and you will see that they are very libertarian.
@whotookmy -Conservatives are very libertarian, the Tea party is very libertarian, Im very libertarian. I know a hell of a lot about RuPaul and he is just a pussy. The difference between him and a conservative is the fact that we want to protect our nation from enemies and he ignores them or calls us the enemy. The enemies are Islamist fundamentalists who worship a pedophile & export terrorism & a sexist genocidal totalitarian theocracy all over the planet. Tolerating of them is illiberal.
@KingDingaLing090 Libertarians are non-interventionalist, unless absolutely necessary. While Ron Paul voted for the war in Afganistan, he voted against the war in Iraq. Are you saying that you think we should be the world police and declare war on any country with human rights abuses? That would mean that we would need to invade various countries in the middle east, Asia, and Africa. We do not have the resources to invade every country with islamic extremists.
@whotookmypiewtf When they are commiting mass murder/ violent conquest to spead totalitarianiism it is neccessary. Being a libertarian doesnt make you stupid. The second half of your comment doesnt make sense. I am not talking about human rights abuses in a society I am talking about 'exporting terrorism, and sexist genocidal totalitarian theocracy all over the world.'
In Iraq's case, the enemy funded terrorists, and evaded nuclear arms inspection, with capability of mass destruction.
@KingDingaLing090 So you advocate the US invasion of North Korea and Iran also? The thing is, that mentality would create a nuclear world war. What we need to do is stop getting involved with everyone elses business, and these countries will stop hating us. The muslim extremists have stated that they hate us because of our endless support for israel and its expansion into the arab world. Its not because of our freedom, that idea is a joke.
@KingDingaLing090 We can't keep giving endless support to these countries all around the world, it is creating a lot of enemies against the US, and is costing us A LOT of money. We could be so much richer as a society if it weren't for us getting involved with every foreign issue that presents itself.
@whotookmypiewtf You need to read the Koran or the history of North Korea you are a blabbering idiot with RuRaul talking points. That is why he will never win the presidency and why he will always be a fringe nut most people roll their eyes when he talks. Good discussion I learned how ignorant RuPaul fans are. Is South Korea supposed to do the same? What about Israel? O_o
Are they just getting in North Korea and Iran's "business"? LOL. You are so naive.
@KingDingaLing090 Actually you are completely wrong.Perhaps you ought to read For A New Liberty by Murray Rothbard,and you will see that even Anarcho-Capitalists,like Murray, advocate the need for fire,police,military,courts and rule of law,but all voluntary and not state controlled. I would also recommend Chaos Theory by Dr Robert Murphy if you would like to see what would happen if the laws of economics were taken to their natural conclusion.
"Community advocate" "haves and have nots" these are liberal concepts. She is a liberal posing as a libertarian. Compromise? haha, she is either a liberal spoofing libertarianism or a bad actor.
Compromise always make me weary. I don't want to compromise with a Marxist to further a Marxist dismantling of the Constitution. I am NOT willing to compromise my Constitution.
She should speak more concretely, or at least more substantively. Her speech is almost meaningless. "Watch truth happen"? What? In response to LibertyandEconomics, I would say: You're right; I haven't the foggiest.
AMEN!! not religious but goddamn that was beautiful. i have a patriotic hard on. dick so hard it shoots out red white and blue. people like bro blaster piss me off.
The american dream is a lie. This woman doesn't know(or care)about what she is talking about. Please stop spitting nonsense. Rhonda Jackson... go look who you are supporting. There isn't much else i can say because the things you are saying are so disconnected from reality. Do you know why the country is in the state that it is? Of course not. thats not why you're here. The goal of the libertarian party is to distract idiots from reality while the rich go on getting richer(at the worlds expense)
and the poor gets poorer cry me a fucking river in every governmental system someone some where is getting fucking shafted. the libertarians just say let the individual live his life, independent from its government. the government should only be there to uphold the constitution and protect us from foreign and domestic threats. that is it. but everyone has an equal opportunity to be rich, middle class etc etc.. shut your whiny ass up fuck.
@scienceatheism everyone has an EQUAL opportunity to be rich, middle class, etc. (etc= poor)? Yeah, right! Take away all the jobs, we're all gonna be poor. It's happening NOW!
who are the ones who provide the jobs? not the government. there are so few government job, hard to even get a job in the government. its the private owners that provide jobs, and in this recession and with so many restrictions that they have on them, they have to cut back to be in the black, they cant even think about being in the green. but you dont think about that now do you. nooooo. you just want every company to give jobs out like candy not thinking that the companies dont have money.
@scienceatheism Oh....the poor, poor Corporate business owners...they have SOOOO many restrictions on them....the poor, poor things. Listen--if companies are doing so bad, how come CEOs get outrageous sums of money for running a company? If they cut some of that CEO bonus money and salary, they would be in the BLACK. I work three jobs in order to bring home $24,000 a year. So don't even start with your " poor corporations". I bust my ass so I have enough to live on AND save a little.
ceo's sir is different from the whole company itself. im talking about the company as a whole. CEO's most of them are money grubbing greedy bastards. im talk companies here they stay in the red. CEO's most of the time stay in the green. but to be fair everyone is greedy the CEO's just do it better then the average man.
@GloriaD5767 Remember how foolish you were when you said that in two years when those three jobs evaporate, and you now take in $0. There will be no jobs to replace them. Foolish, greedy, losers like you hated the CEO who gave you everything. The CEO can get along just fine without you. But without the CEO, you and your kids will starve.
-
Average men can't walk up to a pile of iron ore and turn it into steel. Or walk up to a hunk of steel and turn it into a car. The capitalist did it all.
@SpecialFester The CEOs can get along fine without ME because they have millions they can live on. I don't HAVE kids, simply because they are too expensive and take too much work. So instead of having kids I can't afford and asking the government to help me out, I didn't have kids. It's just me. And I don't plan on starving. What about people who DON'T depend on CEOs? There are people who have their own businesses. Ask THEM who they "depend" on. Fuck you!
@GloriaD5767 Tell us exactly it is ya do, and exactly how you could do it without the employer you work for.
-
Because I'm pretty sure you would find it quite difficult to produce anything you could exchange for the goods and services you NEED to live. You hate the employer who allows you to survive. You should have to feel what it would be like without him. You should have to feel what it's like to starve, to freeze in the cold without shelter, to be dirty. You'll take less for granted.
@SpecialFester I work three fucking jobs. I sell stuff, I teach and I write. Only one of these jobs are part of Corporate America. I don't take anything for granted anymore, which is why I don't go spending money like I used to on crap I didn't really need. Most people need to work for a living, there is no denying that. People used to rely on the barter system (and some people do for some of their stuff). What I can't stand is sympathy for CEOs making millions and worship of the rich.
how about the (have's) to things that make them have!!!! the (have not's) do things that result in them not having anything!!! and ronda...your a socialist not a libertarian.
I'm an American, America America America, Our Country, My Country, Society, AMERICA AMERICA FREEDOM RAHH RAHH RAHH.
I start listening very carefully...
You may notice FOX NEWS uses this propaganda method.
Nothing against Libertarians, Libertarianism is a branch of Classical Liberalism which focuses more on the freedom of markets than the freedom of the individual.
That's not true. There cannot be a freedom of markets if there is no freedom of individuals. A market constitutes of individuals and unlike corporatism, libertarianism does not acknowledge things as Intellectual Property and other things that would give a company power over an individuals property. Libertarianism is the ONLY ideology that focuses more on individual freedom over anything else.
She sounds more like socialist with the (haves and haves not) talk to me. libertarians don't give a fuck about bipartisanship because they know it is a compromise in statists favor. This chick is clearly with the obama-zombies not libertarians. Sorry libertarians don't talk like this.
Actually, I recommend you read Alongside Night. The idea of have and have-nots is consistent throughout the novel. It was written by an libertarian anarchist.
No logic here. And a lot of bad acting. Notice there is no actual details of what libertarians would do, just a lot of fear mongering, general patriotic sentiment. You could substitute in Why I'm a Communist or Why I'm a Conservative, etc. and this would still work because it has no detail.
I'm an African American male. I have been on the same job for 24 years and make close to 50K a year. I originally believed in the principles of libertarianism. But I have a problem when people who are better off than me claim they're not free or are among the have nots. Something's not right. Listen to this woman's argument very carefully. I'm all for less taxes and I think welfare should be abolished. But she's not free, free to do what? Some rich white guy is behind her
@johnnecron I intend on becoming balance sheet affluent. Or if not affluent, not buy a bunch of crap to give the appearance that I'm rich. Americans have been sucked into buying stuff they don't need to keep the economy going. Right now, the economy can fuck itself, because I'm about socking away some money so I don't end up in the siutation I was in 2 1/2 years ago. Everyone just needs to buy the basics and save as much as they can. Period.
Glad to see more "celebrities" speaking out about true Constitutional values rather than these liberal progressives like Sheen and Penn spouting their sheeple mentality talking points straight from the Ovomit Abomination.
cunty piece of libertarian shit, fascist cunt. The U$A is a fascist nazi nation and it's no longer a world super power, it's a toilet of filth, a sewer
@TheAmericanRifleman whats in yours, blood? Like Bush and the U$A they have blood on their fascist libertarian hands ie. Iraq war(your lastest Vietnam)
believe we should be able to sell ourselves into slavery. After all, the path to economic freedom is to sell yourself to the capitalist. I mean, its my body and its my right--the government should never get involved.
I also want to sell my black foster child into slavery--he has no soul. It doesn't matter.
Everybody says socialism and more government is the solution when we have had Marxist planks within our system since Woodrow Wilson. The progresseve income tax and a private central bank are marxist ideas. Wake up people we have never had a true free market. Socialism was invented by the elite to sucker the poor into accepting a mediocre life.
To all Anti-Libertarians- Quote:I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
@COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY The absent of coercion to pay into social welfare does not mean that people will stop helping each other. There is still private charity, to which I would rather donate than a welfare program from the state. Especially on a local level, it will lead to a positive feedback because one person has the good feeling of helping the underprivileged while the helped person is encouraged to also donate to charities to compensate for the help.
'The absent of coercion to pay into social welfare does not mean that people will stop helping each other.'
Do you think people will seriously pay charity (because they choose to) to some private welfare agency? If that were the case, why do Parliaments of (fake demcracies eg. NZ, enact legislation to compel millions of citizens to pay tax?
@COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY actually, i'm a libertarian who frequently makes bag lunches for the homeless and also hand out blankets, toys to poor children etc. people should do things to help others when they feel compelled to, not because the government tells them to, or paying into a welfare state as you put it. Why do we have homeless AMERICANS with nothing and ILLEGAL ALIENS with medical care, food, housing etc?
How patronising your bourgeois charity must appear to the poor in the good ol U$A. So now you are attacking illegal immigrants as well?
You libertarians rant about personal freedoms, but many of you are fast to descibe others (eg. on welfare) as "leeches". Thus you impose you own ideology upon them, you critisize, demean, slander, degrade, and insult them, while at the same time talking about your own "personal freedoms".
@COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY Why do commies always use bourgeois? Look CommiePhilosophy it's called NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY. Think of it as this: Would you let some random person into YOUR HOME and let them use YOUR THINGS be it electricity, food, toilet paper etc without and let them come and leave when they want? Better yet! Take the things in YOUR HOME and give it to other people they know elsewhere? Enter this country as an accountable community member with civic responsibility or GET OUT.
@migsluck1 you have no idea, what an absurd statement you made.
The bourgeois capitalists steal off workers, how? They use what's called the wage system. Cappies never pay workers for what they actually produce, instead they pay them a wage. The cappy has overheads, debts, etc to pay off and wages, however after this they are usually left with a profit, "surplus value". This profit was produced by exploited workers NOT by the cappy. The cappy is a parasite
@COMMIEPHILOSOPHY Absurd because you can't grasp my analogy on how our country is run like an everyday household? Yes, Capitalists will sometimes exploit workers. In a libertarian society we, as common working men and women, will still have the right to organize against coercive companies that will try to take advantage of us which is more than what what Communist based societies have shown us through history. Libertarianism is anti-slavery and we don't need big government like to baby us.
@BrettDunbar what they need is enforced Communism to get cunts like you under control. Your kind of mungrel is a fascist sympathizer, a republican asshole.
You fukin capitalist is raping this earth and fucking everything in sight. There are oil spills and on and on.....Yoursick self-centred greed will be your downfall you fascist Nazi Republican.
Now part you fascist arse cheeks and stick your own head up your fown arse
@jacktheputrid Wrong, HE didn't change at all, the PEOPLE changed, his AUDIENCE changed, however, he still promotes very neocon activities and it is famous figures like Palin and Beck who are perverting libertarian ideals to be as close to neo-conservatism as possible.
They are effectively giving the new libertarian movement a bad name.
"Speak on sister"?....No self-respecting black person should even consider being a Libertarian. Just look at their voting records against Civil Rights! I'm a black male, and there is NO way in hell I'd be a Libertarian....End of discussion!!!
This has been flagged as spam show
god, this is one stupid bitch
deellecee 1 month ago
Comment removed
THINKfutureShow 2 months ago
I'm libertarian too, and there are way more of us that you think. In fact, i'll bet that most people don't realize it but underneath, they are. For example, if you a) want to pay less tax and b) want to be left alone to live your life in peace, then that pretty much describes most people. How is that NOT libertarian...
THINKfutureShow 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul 2012
Ddstairclimber 3 months ago
Well said. If you want true Democracy vote Libertarian & you'll see & understand what Freedom is all about !!
exxumma 3 months ago
What does she actual support? She claims she's a "have not" is this due to income taxes or sales taxes or the crimanlly low capital gains tax? How is she being punished by the government?
AtheistDaddy 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
An educated actress Wow now I have seen it all.RON PAUL 2012
iggsta3o5 3 months ago
An educated actress Wow now I have seen it all.
iggsta3o5 3 months ago 2
Are you tired of being single Rhonda? Email me :)
ken71671 3 months ago 3
She's sexy (:
jgroves56 4 months ago in playlist More videos from coolcoolcoyote12345
"A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs, which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell numbers..... And if there are those that cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way." Ronald Reagan.
numbr1whitedude 5 months ago
@Ravengaurd6 Stupid libertard
shotsky94 6 months ago
@shotsky94 that's not really an argument.
Ravengaurd6 6 months ago
@Ravengaurd6 Fuck you!
shotsky94 6 months ago
@shotsky94 I love you too.
Ravengaurd6 6 months ago
@Ravengaurd6 Die Libertard Scum
shotsky94 6 months ago
@shotsky94 tell your mother I said hi!
Ravengaurd6 6 months ago
@shotsky94 <--- Look. A loser that thinks they have the answers that they do not. No response other than to insult. No logic, no sense, and no respect for others' responses. Their mantra? "Destroy with insults so that we don't have to debate with facts, lest we know we will lose."
tomperanteau 4 months ago in playlist More videos from coolcoolcoyote12345
Libertarians make me sick
shotsky94 6 months ago
@shotsky94 feel sick if you want to but we won't come kicking down your door because of it. We only ask that you show us the same respect.
Ravengaurd6 6 months ago
@shotsky94 you're a pretty low-quality troll.
david52875 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shotsky94
Libertarians make you sick? Then go ahead and take your medicine, because you're going to be seeing more of us in future!
AmericanPatriot2008 5 months ago
/watch?v=RxPUvQZ3rcQ
trancetunes 6 months ago
In the age of information people are suited to know what's better for themsefves.More informed to understand what will happen if you do this or that.We are capable to distribute information and communication and tolerance well enough for us to be our own leaders without making a total caos in the process. we all want the same thing.to live in peace,progression and freedom. no matter if it is a life-convict or a nun, nor any ism. we have to understand this and act. we've had enough. TZM here
mrhoustonn 7 months ago
You are very possilbly the best looking libertarian on the planet. Don't get a swelled head though, most of us are pretty gruesome looking.
pretorious700 8 months ago
God Bless this woman.
nwaustx2011 8 months ago 7
Progressives which include neocons love war. Wilson was our biggest warmongering racist liar not to mention theodore roosevelt. His sec. of navy was the warmonger franklin roosevelt.
mizzoulibertarian 8 months ago
@thirdshift47
Do you know what an oxy-moron is?
free describes the market.
The market can be free or regulated.
willdox7 9 months ago
God willing I will ever find a woman like Rhonda Jackson
mjwander1 9 months ago 2
She's definitely on the right track. And who used the term "Libertarian socialist"?
sgapplebee 9 months ago
i need a woman like this woman She is a real woman in my eyes
mjwander1 9 months ago
Libertarian socialist? That's an oxymoron.
pSychOAtDawn 9 months ago
@pSychOAtDawn
Evidently you're unaware that the political usage of the word Linertarian has its origins in anti-state socialism.
It was first used by an Anarcho-communist in 1857 and has since then refered to the anti-statist and anti-authoritarian wing of socialist thought.
The word was hijacked by a group of radicalized classical liberals in the late 1960s and early 1970s (the founding of the US libertarian party).
Thus, Libertarian Socialism = REAL Libertarianism.
MsSexySocialist 9 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
I'm basing my definition of a libertarian on modern terms and principles. The principle of non-aggression, individual property rights - these here are incompatible with an overall state of socialism. Now, if you mean the kind of socialism that's voluntary then it could be seen as compatible with a libertarian system.
If you have any disagreements I would like for you to define your terms in depth.
pSychOAtDawn 9 months ago
@pSychOAtDawn
The whole point of socialism in its initial inception was that it WAS voluntary and was guided by the notion that each individual should be a master of their own destiny. Then of course, THAT term was hijacked by a bunch of totalitarians who claimed to rule in the public's self-interest - something that would have been antithetical to the ideals of the 18th century socialist thinkers and activists like Robert Owen, Pierre-Joseph Prodhon and William Morris [cntd].
MsSexySocialist 9 months ago
@pSychOAtDawn
The whole point of socialism in its initial inception was that it WAS voluntary and was guided by the notion that each individual should be a master of their own destiny. Then of course, THAT term was hijacked by a bunch of totalitarians who claimed to rule in the public's self-interest - something that would have been antithetical to the ideals of the 18th century socialist thinkers and activists like Robert Owen, Pierre-Joseph Prodhon and William Morris [cntd].
MsSexySocialist 9 months ago
@pSychOAtDawn
The whole point of socialism in its initial inception was that it WAS voluntary and was guided by the notion that each individual should be a master of their own destiny. Then of course, THAT term was hijacked by a bunch of totalitarians who claimed to rule in the public's self-interest - something that would have been antithetical to the ideals of the 18th century socialist thinkers and activists like Robert Owen, Pierre-Joseph Prodhon and William Morris [cntd].
MsSexySocialist 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pSychOAtDawn
The whole point of socialism in its initial inception was that it WAS voluntary and was guided by the notion that each individual should be a master of their own destiny. Then of course, THAT term was hijacked by a bunch of totalitarians who claimed to rule in the public's self-interest - something that would have been antithetical to the ideals of the 18th century socialist thinkers and activists like Robert Owen, Pierre-Joseph Prodhon and William Morris [cntd].
MsSexySocialist 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pSychOAtDawn The whole point of socialism in its initial inception was that it WAS voluntary and was guided by the notion that each individual should be a master of their own destiny. Then of course, THAT term was hijacked by a bunch of totalitarians who claimed to rule in the public's self-interest - something that would have been antithetical to the ideals of the 18th century socialist thinkers and activists like Robert Owen, Pierre-Joseph Prodhon and William Morris [cntd].
MsSexySocialist 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pSychOAtDawn
The whole point of socialism in its initial inception was that it WAS voluntary and was guided by the notion that each individual should be a master of their own destiny. Then of course, THAT term was hijacked by a bunch of totalitarians who claimed to rule in the public's self-interest - something that would have been antithetical to the ideals of the 18th century socialist thinkers and activists like Robert Owen, Pierre-Joseph Prodhon and William Morris [cntd].
MsSexySocialist 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pSychOAtDawn
The whole point of socialism in its initial inception was that it WAS voluntary and was guided by the notion that each individual should be a master of their own destiny. Then of course, THAT term was hijacked by a bunch of totalitarians who claimed to rule in the public's self-interest - something that would have been antithetical to the ideals of the 18th century socialist thinkers and activists like Robert Owen, Pierre-Joseph Prodhon and William Morris [cntd].
MsSexySocialist 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pSychOAtDawn The whole point of socialism in its initial inception was that it WAS voluntary and was guided by the notion that each individual should be a master of their own destiny. Then of course, THAT term was hijacked by a bunch of totalitarians who claimed to rule in the public's self-interest - something that would have been antithetical to the ideals of the 18th century socialist thinkers and activists like Robert Owen, Pierre-Joseph Prodhon and William Morris [cntd].
MsSexySocialist 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pSychOAtDawn The whole point of socialism in its initial inception was that it WAS voluntary and was guided by the notion that each individual should be a master of their own destiny. Then of course, THAT term was hijacked by a bunch of totalitarians who claimed to rule in the public's self-interest - something that would have been antithetical to the ideals of the 18th century socialist thinkers and activists like Robert Owen, Pierre-Joseph Prodhon and William Morris [cntd].
MsSexySocialist 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pSychOAtDawn The whole point of socialism in its initial inception was that it WAS voluntary and was guided by the notion that each individual should be a master of their own destiny. Then of course, THAT term was hijacked by a bunch of totalitarians who claimed to rule in the public's self-interest - something that would have been antithetical to the ideals of the 18th century socialist thinkers and activists like Robert Owen, Pierre-Joseph Prodhon and William Morris [cntd].
MsSexySocialist 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pSychOAtDawn The whole point of socialism in its initial inception was that it WAS voluntary and was guided by the notion that each individual should be a master of their own destiny. Then of course, THAT term was hijacked by a bunch of totalitarians who claimed to rule in the public's self-interest - something that would have been antithetical to the ideals of the 18th century socialist thinkers and activists like Robert Owen, Pierre-Joseph Prodhon and William Morris [cntd].
MsSexySocialist 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pSychOAtDawn The whole point of socialism in its initial inception was that it WAS voluntary and was guided by the notion that each individual should be a master of their own destiny. Then of course, THAT term was hijacked by a bunch of totalitarians who claimed to rule in the public's self-interest - something that would have been antithetical to the ideals of the 18th century socialist thinkers and activists like Robert Owen, Pierre-Joseph Prodhon and William Morris [cntd].
MsSexySocialist 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pSychOAtDawn The whole point of socialism in its initial inception was that it WAS voluntary and was guided by the notion that each individual should be a master of their own destiny. Then of course, THAT term was hijacked by a bunch of totalitarians who claimed to rule in the public's self-interest - something that would have been antithetical to the ideals of the 18th century socialist thinkers and activists like Robert Owen, Pierre-Joseph Prodhon and William Morris [cntd].
MsSexySocialist 9 months ago
@pSychOAtDawn
The whole point of socialism in its initial inception was that it WAS voluntary and was guided by the notion that each individual should be a master of their own destiny. Then of course, THAT term was hijacked by a bunch of totalitarians who claimed to rule in the public's self-interest - something that would have been antithetical to the ideals of the 18th century socialist thinkers and activists like Robert Owen, Pierre-Joseph Prodhon and William Morris [cntd].
MsSexySocialist 9 months ago
@pSychOAtDawn
Libertarian socialism does uphold the non-aggression principle and supports unrestricted personal freedom with the caveat of doing no harm to others.
Where Libertarian Socialism and libertarian capitalism differ is over property rights and democracy.
LS believes in personal property but not private property that can be accumulated at the expense of others or the enviroment.
It also supports extending democratic participation into every sphere of society.
MsSexySocialist 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MsSexySocialist "private property that can be accumulated at the expense of others or the enviroment."
When you say this, I cannot help but wonder the methods at which this property was acquired. Are you considering trade, a virtue in capitalism, an expense on the individual? Are you implying that the nature of trade is inherently a rip off? Isn't trade a choice done mutually by two consenting parties?
pSychOAtDawn 9 months ago
@MsSexySocialist and when you say that private property is harnessed in a way that harms the environment, I ask, to what extent? There is only so much you can get away with as an individual or a business when doing damage to other individuals life and or property. This is where the state comes in to protect the "little" man, in this case the individual who is being harmed by the individual or business. I don't see a difference in our stances if you agree with the state protecting property rights
pSychOAtDawn 9 months ago
@pSychOAtDawn
Actually I wouldn't agree with the state doing anything - it should be dissolved in favor of a decentralized system of participatory democracy (worker and consumer councils and the like).
In answer to your question, I was refering to corporations (Exxon ect) which posess vast economic power but lack any democratic accountibility to the public.
LS would differ from LC in supporting their democratization into cooperative institutions.
MsSexySocialist 9 months ago
@pSychOAtDawn
[cntd]
The problem, from a Libertarian socialist perspective, is the centralization of political and economic power in the state and corporations respectivly.
The solution would be to take actions and legislation to decentralize political power away from the state and economic power away from large-scale private ownership into the hands of institutions like mutuals, worker cooperatives and such.
The final goal would be an economy based on cooperation rather than competition.
MsSexySocialist 9 months ago
@MsSexySocialist No, that is not "Libertarian"... anything. Notice how you use 'legislation' to take from the state and business. First, that's stealing. Second, you are promoting centralized government over state rights. I'm not even going to touch 'worker cooperatives' and 'economics based on cooperation' (not an economic model). You are not a Libertarian at all, in no form and under no loose interpretation. I won't label you, but I know I'm a Libertarian, and I know for sure, you are not.
Brajabu74 9 months ago
@Brajabu74
[cntd]
"you are promoting centralized government over state rights".
Really? Because in that last comment I expressed my support for abolishing centralized government; ergo: you either skipped over what I had written, or did read it and deliberatly misinterpreted it in a weak attempt at a strawman argument. 'economics based on cooperation' (not an economic model)."
I think just about everyone who labeled themselves a Libertarian in the 1800s would disagree with you.
MsSexySocialist 9 months ago
@MsSexySocialist Honest question. How do you 'take action and legislate' without giving more power to government? The take action part is too open, but I didn't want to leave it out, but legislation requires enforcement. Worker Cooperatives, and Mutuals. Who's in charge of those? Please don't say 'the people', because 'the people' are supposedly in charge of this.
Brajabu74 9 months ago
@Brajabu74
My mistake. I should have elucidated my position more.
The "action" that I would propose taking is what is called building a "Dual power" structure made up of the kinds of Libertarian democratic institutions I mentioned previously - and the formation of an expanding network of such institutions to compete with the existing corporate/statist paradigm.
By "legislation" I refered to USING the state to help foster the dual power as it grows.
Not strengthen the state in a any way.
MsSexySocialist 9 months ago
@MsSexySocialist How exactly does one 'use the state' without strengthening it? What you are proposing might work because it would create a competitive environment against Duopolies (example) that exist today. Kind of Capitalist, no? How would the newly created 'Cooperative' not evolve into another massive government or corporate monopoly? Keep in mind that people are the constant. I won't even ask how this could come to pass.
Brajabu74 9 months ago
@Brajabu74
"How exactly does one 'use the state' without strengthening it?"
Well, I look at it this way; every great leap forward we've made socially speaking has come about as a result of people rising up and demanding greater freedoms (the end of slavery ect.) - and sooner or later the state has been forced to give in.
While all of these movements have been primarily extra-governmental, it helped to have people on the inside of the state who gave support to the growing movement.
[cntd]
MsSexySocialist 9 months ago
@Brajabu74
[cntd]
In response to your question about the danger of the dual power turning into a corporate monopoly, the inhearently democratic and decentralist (ie: confederal) nature of the structure would prevent it from ever being organized in a dictatorial or oligarcical fashion - as corporations are run today.
It's like our federal system of government: every unit of the whole makes its own rules and runs its own show.
The wikipedia article "Economic Democracy" explains what I mean.
MsSexySocialist 9 months ago
@Brajabu74
You obviously aren't a libertarian or you'd know your libertarian history.
The 1st factions to self-identify with the word libertarian & apply it in an economic context were the French anarchocommunists-in particular-Joseph Dejacque(who was at the extreme end of antiproperty ideas,even by socialist standards.)
Ironically Dejacque actually anticipated Austrian School founder Carl Menger's 'subjective theory of value'.
I don't see where you're libertarian.
Classical liberal maybe.
thirdshift47 9 months ago
@thirdshift47
Well said.
MsSexySocialist 9 months ago
@MsSexySocialist So, 'the sons of liberty' were actually a socialist group. Then they wrote the Constitution? Liberty is where the word Libertarian came from. Liberty L i b e r tarian. See? Liberty is the freedom of choice the freedom of oppression, and the freedom of individual will. Socialism is based on the whole society. S o c iety = S o c ialism. See? Liberty, me. Socialism, we. You have labelled yourself an oxymoron. Try the Progressives... they might claim you.
Brajabu74 9 months ago
@Brajabu74
If you're too lazy to even look up the origins of the political term you use to describe yourself, I really can't help you.
To reiterate, Libertarianism refered (untill around the 1960s) to the anti-statist tradition of socialism: Mutualism, Anarcho-Collectivism, Anarcho-Communism, Syndicalism, Cooperativism ect. Research it if you don't believe me.
And btw trying to take apart words to try to "reveal what they mean" just makes you look imature.
MsSexySocialist 9 months ago
@MsSexySocialist So, in another country, another century, and in another language we don't fit the definition? You couldn't come up with anything more relevant? As far as I could tell she was speaking in the present tense. Languages evolve, words take on new meanings, and political alliances shift. It's great that you have such a focused understanding of the origins of the word. What's 'immature' is playing the smug game of literal definitive and not even sticking to a time or place. Troll.
Brajabu74 9 months ago
@Brajabu74
Actually, if you look at the context of my comment, I was responding to a youtuber who said that the term "Libertarian Socialist" was oxymoronic even given the origins of the term with regard to political classification.
Of course words take on new meanings and change through time. Classical Liberals and Anarcho-Capitalists can use the term if they like, but the fact remains that the anti-state tradition of socialism used it first.
Also, using the word Troll = serious immaturity.
MsSexySocialist 9 months ago
@pSychOAtDawn
No.
Free-Market is an oxymoron.
thirdshift47 9 months ago
So articulate and sexy!
GirlFeetSniffer4U 10 months ago
Very Intelligent woman!
stephenabm 10 months ago
Fuck America, it's a shit hole you dumb house nigger bitch, I can't wait for it to fall, just like Rome. America is a murderous country full of evil white people and still a lot of dumb black people still fight and die for that stinking shithole country. American cannot be saved so just accept your punishment for the wickedness your country have done since it came into existence.
adz09ish 10 months ago
@adz09ish You fail at trolling. Real trolls don't drop the n-bomb until at least a few comments in. The internet is disappointed in you.
JaydeeVonJ 10 months ago 16
@adz09ish cry moar.
redarmyjay 10 months ago
A socialist libertarian?? I didnt know there was such a thing due to the fact that libertarianism implies as little government as needed where as socialism is government ownership i believe?? Like the FDA and stuff. Well first of all there are organic plants we can use for medicines and food; however, our government wants to control it? I dont get it at all so to answer your question i suppose i would have to say capitalism is the way to go.
smileyg333 11 months ago
@RenonKoral What do you meen what kind of libertarian?? People who lean a little concervative and a little liberal are the biggest idiots! 100% libertarian!
smileyg333 11 months ago
How could anybody who isn't brainwashed not be a libertarian??????????????
smileyg333 11 months ago
Awesome! Some common sense. The media blacks out ALL mention of Libertarians in the news. That is because all the news stations are owned by Dems and Reps who are owned and controlled by the FCC and BIG CORRUPT GOVERNMENT!!! Freedom IS an option if the sheeple will learn the left and right scale is a LIE!!! Only the Libertarian Party wants to make the PEOPLE free, peaceful and prosperous!!! Learn about the FREEDOM REVOLUTION!! VIVE LIBERTARIOS!!!
Libertyrider 1 year ago 10
@SpecialFester Good point, but you missed one thing. The Marxists, who are becoming stronger now in our country with one of their own in the White House and who hate Capitalism so violently, can also walk up to that pile of iron and turn it into something. History shows that they regularly turn it into shackles, weapons, police batons, and prison bars.
Linguiphile 1 year ago
I love black people with right wing values of common sense. They destroy the socialist fantasy that labels all black people left wingers. People can be libertarian but I wonder if that label for her is correct. People with a desire for rule of law, and freedom from enemies foriegn and domestic need a powerful police force, fire department and military. She may be to the right of an average conservative but a libertarian I think not , neither is RuPaul. Capitalism is the enemy of racism.
KingDingaLing090 1 year ago
@KingDingaLing090 well Ron Paul is definitely closer to a libertarian than a republican, and that is with out a doubt.
whotookmypiewtf 1 year ago
@whotookmypiewtf RuPaul is a republican.
KingDingaLing090 1 year ago
@KingDingaLing090 He runs as a republican so that he actually has a chance in elections. Check out his views and you will see that they are very libertarian.
whotookmypiewtf 1 year ago
@whotookmy -Conservatives are very libertarian, the Tea party is very libertarian, Im very libertarian. I know a hell of a lot about RuPaul and he is just a pussy. The difference between him and a conservative is the fact that we want to protect our nation from enemies and he ignores them or calls us the enemy. The enemies are Islamist fundamentalists who worship a pedophile & export terrorism & a sexist genocidal totalitarian theocracy all over the planet. Tolerating of them is illiberal.
KingDingaLing090 1 year ago
@KingDingaLing090 Libertarians are non-interventionalist, unless absolutely necessary. While Ron Paul voted for the war in Afganistan, he voted against the war in Iraq. Are you saying that you think we should be the world police and declare war on any country with human rights abuses? That would mean that we would need to invade various countries in the middle east, Asia, and Africa. We do not have the resources to invade every country with islamic extremists.
whotookmypiewtf 1 year ago
@whotookmypiewtf When they are commiting mass murder/ violent conquest to spead totalitarianiism it is neccessary. Being a libertarian doesnt make you stupid. The second half of your comment doesnt make sense. I am not talking about human rights abuses in a society I am talking about 'exporting terrorism, and sexist genocidal totalitarian theocracy all over the world.'
In Iraq's case, the enemy funded terrorists, and evaded nuclear arms inspection, with capability of mass destruction.
KingDingaLing090 1 year ago
@KingDingaLing090 So you advocate the US invasion of North Korea and Iran also? The thing is, that mentality would create a nuclear world war. What we need to do is stop getting involved with everyone elses business, and these countries will stop hating us. The muslim extremists have stated that they hate us because of our endless support for israel and its expansion into the arab world. Its not because of our freedom, that idea is a joke.
whotookmypiewtf 1 year ago
@KingDingaLing090 We can't keep giving endless support to these countries all around the world, it is creating a lot of enemies against the US, and is costing us A LOT of money. We could be so much richer as a society if it weren't for us getting involved with every foreign issue that presents itself.
whotookmypiewtf 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@whotookmypiewtf You need to read the Koran or the history of North Korea you are a blabbering idiot with RuRaul talking points. That is why he will never win the presidency and why he will always be a fringe nut most people roll their eyes when he talks. Good discussion I learned how ignorant RuPaul fans are. Is South Korea supposed to do the same? What about Israel? O_o
Are they just getting in North Korea and Iran's "business"? LOL. You are so naive.
KingDingaLing090 1 year ago
@whotookmypiewtf amen.
ASacredSpirit 1 year ago
@KingDingaLing090 Actually you are completely wrong.Perhaps you ought to read For A New Liberty by Murray Rothbard,and you will see that even Anarcho-Capitalists,like Murray, advocate the need for fire,police,military,courts and rule of law,but all voluntary and not state controlled. I would also recommend Chaos Theory by Dr Robert Murphy if you would like to see what would happen if the laws of economics were taken to their natural conclusion.
dirtbagstatus 1 year ago
@dirtbagstatus Thanks for the input. I may take that advice.
KingDingaLing090 1 year ago
She is amazing...an intelligent woman who thinks for herself and she is beautiful as well.
Why can't a nice guy meet a woman like this?
I only wish there were millions more like her.
countrysamurai 1 year ago
This woman is obviously a racist, right?
Questfortruth86 1 year ago 2
"Community advocate" "haves and have nots" these are liberal concepts. She is a liberal posing as a libertarian. Compromise? haha, she is either a liberal spoofing libertarianism or a bad actor.
ArtisanTony 1 year ago
@ArtisanTony Agreed.
SpecialFester 1 year ago
Compromise always make me weary. I don't want to compromise with a Marxist to further a Marxist dismantling of the Constitution. I am NOT willing to compromise my Constitution.
IPledge334 1 year ago 2
You don't have to be an American to be any of the things you mention. As a matter of fact, it's becoming harder in America every day.
pretorious700 1 year ago
She should speak more concretely, or at least more substantively. Her speech is almost meaningless. "Watch truth happen"? What? In response to LibertyandEconomics, I would say: You're right; I haven't the foggiest.
Attritive 1 year ago
Dear Rhonda:
People don't really understand what libertarian is. It needs a great spokesperson.
I believe it is the answer to a lot the countries problems. They need a touch barer to get the message out where everyone can understand it.
gospel1234 1 year ago
@gospel1234 it's "torch bearer", not "touch barer".
GloriaD5767 1 year ago
american dream, hahahahaha btw what is the american dream, because america to me just looks like a poorer larger version of the uk.
flashash2k9 1 year ago
AMEN!! not religious but goddamn that was beautiful. i have a patriotic hard on. dick so hard it shoots out red white and blue. people like bro blaster piss me off.
scienceatheism 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
After you watch this look up the Koch brothers
broblaster21 1 year ago
The american dream is a lie. This woman doesn't know(or care)about what she is talking about. Please stop spitting nonsense. Rhonda Jackson... go look who you are supporting. There isn't much else i can say because the things you are saying are so disconnected from reality. Do you know why the country is in the state that it is? Of course not. thats not why you're here. The goal of the libertarian party is to distract idiots from reality while the rich go on getting richer(at the worlds expense)
broblaster21 1 year ago
and the poor gets poorer cry me a fucking river in every governmental system someone some where is getting fucking shafted. the libertarians just say let the individual live his life, independent from its government. the government should only be there to uphold the constitution and protect us from foreign and domestic threats. that is it. but everyone has an equal opportunity to be rich, middle class etc etc.. shut your whiny ass up fuck.
scienceatheism 1 year ago
@scienceatheism everyone has an EQUAL opportunity to be rich, middle class, etc. (etc= poor)? Yeah, right! Take away all the jobs, we're all gonna be poor. It's happening NOW!
GloriaD5767 1 year ago
who are the ones who provide the jobs? not the government. there are so few government job, hard to even get a job in the government. its the private owners that provide jobs, and in this recession and with so many restrictions that they have on them, they have to cut back to be in the black, they cant even think about being in the green. but you dont think about that now do you. nooooo. you just want every company to give jobs out like candy not thinking that the companies dont have money.
scienceatheism 1 year ago
@scienceatheism Oh....the poor, poor Corporate business owners...they have SOOOO many restrictions on them....the poor, poor things. Listen--if companies are doing so bad, how come CEOs get outrageous sums of money for running a company? If they cut some of that CEO bonus money and salary, they would be in the BLACK. I work three jobs in order to bring home $24,000 a year. So don't even start with your " poor corporations". I bust my ass so I have enough to live on AND save a little.
GloriaD5767 1 year ago
ceo's sir is different from the whole company itself. im talking about the company as a whole. CEO's most of them are money grubbing greedy bastards. im talk companies here they stay in the red. CEO's most of the time stay in the green. but to be fair everyone is greedy the CEO's just do it better then the average man.
scienceatheism 1 year ago
@GloriaD5767 Remember how foolish you were when you said that in two years when those three jobs evaporate, and you now take in $0. There will be no jobs to replace them. Foolish, greedy, losers like you hated the CEO who gave you everything. The CEO can get along just fine without you. But without the CEO, you and your kids will starve.
-
Average men can't walk up to a pile of iron ore and turn it into steel. Or walk up to a hunk of steel and turn it into a car. The capitalist did it all.
SpecialFester 1 year ago
@SpecialFester The CEOs can get along fine without ME because they have millions they can live on. I don't HAVE kids, simply because they are too expensive and take too much work. So instead of having kids I can't afford and asking the government to help me out, I didn't have kids. It's just me. And I don't plan on starving. What about people who DON'T depend on CEOs? There are people who have their own businesses. Ask THEM who they "depend" on. Fuck you!
GloriaD5767 1 year ago 3
@GloriaD5767 Tell us exactly it is ya do, and exactly how you could do it without the employer you work for.
-
Because I'm pretty sure you would find it quite difficult to produce anything you could exchange for the goods and services you NEED to live. You hate the employer who allows you to survive. You should have to feel what it would be like without him. You should have to feel what it's like to starve, to freeze in the cold without shelter, to be dirty. You'll take less for granted.
SpecialFester 1 year ago
@SpecialFester I work three fucking jobs. I sell stuff, I teach and I write. Only one of these jobs are part of Corporate America. I don't take anything for granted anymore, which is why I don't go spending money like I used to on crap I didn't really need. Most people need to work for a living, there is no denying that. People used to rely on the barter system (and some people do for some of their stuff). What I can't stand is sympathy for CEOs making millions and worship of the rich.
GloriaD5767 1 year ago
how about the (have's) to things that make them have!!!! the (have not's) do things that result in them not having anything!!! and ronda...your a socialist not a libertarian.
svuhelter71 1 year ago
@svuhelter71 You don't understand what she is saying.
LibertyandEconomics 1 year ago
@LibertyandEconomics care to explain?
svuhelter71 1 year ago
not sure she really gets what libertarianism is haha
UndertakerALF 1 year ago
@Bobthefarmer5 I lol'd.
DackIsBack 1 year ago
shes hot
williamtell10 1 year ago
this is a scam
jamesryanphoto 1 year ago
I think I'm in love.
rossmcg 1 year ago 22
@rossmcg
She's not all that....
xXMiamiRedXx 1 year ago
When someone starts saying:
I'm an American, America America America, Our Country, My Country, Society, AMERICA AMERICA FREEDOM RAHH RAHH RAHH.
I start listening very carefully...
You may notice FOX NEWS uses this propaganda method.
Nothing against Libertarians, Libertarianism is a branch of Classical Liberalism which focuses more on the freedom of markets than the freedom of the individual.
DackIsBack 1 year ago
@DackIsBack
That's not true. There cannot be a freedom of markets if there is no freedom of individuals. A market constitutes of individuals and unlike corporatism, libertarianism does not acknowledge things as Intellectual Property and other things that would give a company power over an individuals property. Libertarianism is the ONLY ideology that focuses more on individual freedom over anything else.
safaridonna1 1 year ago
@safaridonna1 You don't know what Classical Liberalism is...
Go read about it plz.
DackIsBack 1 year ago
@DackIsBack How about you giving an example of how libertarianism is putting the market before individual freedom.
safaridonna1 1 year ago
She sounds more like socialist with the (haves and haves not) talk to me. libertarians don't give a fuck about bipartisanship because they know it is a compromise in statists favor. This chick is clearly with the obama-zombies not libertarians. Sorry libertarians don't talk like this.
lashkaretoiba 1 year ago
@lashkaretoiba
Actually, I recommend you read Alongside Night. The idea of have and have-nots is consistent throughout the novel. It was written by an libertarian anarchist.
Gettinghitonattheban 1 year ago
None of us has a debt unless we continue to live under the illusion of bond servant slave to the Federals and the Queen.
Cstrife234 1 year ago
Oreo
TheGoalSetter 1 year ago
a blackatarian?
greenghost2008 1 year ago
hasssss notssssss mussssst ssssssmall compromissssse and so on....
I am Libertarian too.
Terje1337 1 year ago
Awesome!!!!
IruleOverProgressive 1 year ago
No logic here. And a lot of bad acting. Notice there is no actual details of what libertarians would do, just a lot of fear mongering, general patriotic sentiment. You could substitute in Why I'm a Communist or Why I'm a Conservative, etc. and this would still work because it has no detail.
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
She should have made it sound less rehersed. It sounded ultra phony.
AutumnAlmonds 1 year ago
I'm an African American male. I have been on the same job for 24 years and make close to 50K a year. I originally believed in the principles of libertarianism. But I have a problem when people who are better off than me claim they're not free or are among the have nots. Something's not right. Listen to this woman's argument very carefully. I'm all for less taxes and I think welfare should be abolished. But she's not free, free to do what? Some rich white guy is behind her
mikaeel6 1 year ago
@mikaeel6 we have what is called the ia's and ba's
income afluents and Balance sheet affluents.
one spends all his money on junk to look like he is rich and owes for everything.
the balance sheet afluent has money in the bank and low credit or no credit.
he pays with cash.
which one do you think has the most freedom?
johnnecron 1 year ago 5
@johnnecron I'd say they both have more freedom than everybody else
RondoRaven 1 year ago
@johnnecron I intend on becoming balance sheet affluent. Or if not affluent, not buy a bunch of crap to give the appearance that I'm rich. Americans have been sucked into buying stuff they don't need to keep the economy going. Right now, the economy can fuck itself, because I'm about socking away some money so I don't end up in the siutation I was in 2 1/2 years ago. Everyone just needs to buy the basics and save as much as they can. Period.
GloriaD5767 1 year ago
Glad to see more "celebrities" speaking out about true Constitutional values rather than these liberal progressives like Sheen and Penn spouting their sheeple mentality talking points straight from the Ovomit Abomination.
sensfaninohio 1 year ago
@sensfaninohio - Not just a celebrity, but one of African ethnicity, which while not unheard of is still quite uncommon.
thespeez 1 year ago
this vid is utter garbage and propanganda made for complete pseudo-libertarians morons
TheNationalistParty 1 year ago
cunty piece of libertarian shit, fascist cunt. The U$A is a fascist nazi nation and it's no longer a world super power, it's a toilet of filth, a sewer
TheNationalistParty 1 year ago
@TheNationalistParty
Whenever you bump somebody’s bucket, whatever splashes out is what they’re full of.
We can clearly see what's in yours now.
TheAmericanRifleman 1 year ago
@TheAmericanRifleman whats in yours, blood? Like Bush and the U$A they have blood on their fascist libertarian hands ie. Iraq war(your lastest Vietnam)
TheNationalistParty 1 year ago
@TheAmericanRifleman :) That-was-awesome!
tiecuando 1 year ago
nice!! Thank you! :o)
kellann55 1 year ago
believe we should be able to sell ourselves into slavery. After all, the path to economic freedom is to sell yourself to the capitalist. I mean, its my body and its my right--the government should never get involved.
I also want to sell my black foster child into slavery--he has no soul. It doesn't matter.
DrLiberal23 1 year ago
Everybody says socialism and more government is the solution when we have had Marxist planks within our system since Woodrow Wilson. The progresseve income tax and a private central bank are marxist ideas. Wake up people we have never had a true free market. Socialism was invented by the elite to sucker the poor into accepting a mediocre life.
jneil2007 1 year ago
To all Anti-Libertarians- Quote:I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
TheGreatYuffie 1 year ago
Libertarianism is bullshit.
hawanja 1 year ago
libertarianism is a dangerous self-centred ideology. It encompasses the right NOT to be compelled (eg. by legislation) to help others.
Thus it preaches negative rights. the right not to pay into a welfare state, the right to ignore the plight of the poor, sick, and homeless.
This is the truely ugly face of libertarianisn-the personification of fascist individualism
COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY 1 year ago
@COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY The absent of coercion to pay into social welfare does not mean that people will stop helping each other. There is still private charity, to which I would rather donate than a welfare program from the state. Especially on a local level, it will lead to a positive feedback because one person has the good feeling of helping the underprivileged while the helped person is encouraged to also donate to charities to compensate for the help.
TheEntentrainer 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheEntentrainer yea, i have thought about what you claim:
'The absent of coercion to pay into social welfare does not mean that people will stop helping each other.'
Do you think people will seriously pay charity (because they choose to) to some private welfare agency? If that were the case, why do Parliaments of (fake demcracies eg. NZ, enact legislation to compel millions of citizens to pay tax?
COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY 1 year ago
@COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY actually, i'm a libertarian who frequently makes bag lunches for the homeless and also hand out blankets, toys to poor children etc. people should do things to help others when they feel compelled to, not because the government tells them to, or paying into a welfare state as you put it. Why do we have homeless AMERICANS with nothing and ILLEGAL ALIENS with medical care, food, housing etc?
LolaOrozco 1 year ago
@LolaOrozco
"when they feel compelled to"
How patronising your bourgeois charity must appear to the poor in the good ol U$A. So now you are attacking illegal immigrants as well?
You libertarians rant about personal freedoms, but many of you are fast to descibe others (eg. on welfare) as "leeches". Thus you impose you own ideology upon them, you critisize, demean, slander, degrade, and insult them, while at the same time talking about your own "personal freedoms".
COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY 1 year ago
@COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY Why do commies always use bourgeois? Look CommiePhilosophy it's called NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY. Think of it as this: Would you let some random person into YOUR HOME and let them use YOUR THINGS be it electricity, food, toilet paper etc without and let them come and leave when they want? Better yet! Take the things in YOUR HOME and give it to other people they know elsewhere? Enter this country as an accountable community member with civic responsibility or GET OUT.
migsluck1 1 year ago
@migsluck1 you have no idea, what an absurd statement you made.
The bourgeois capitalists steal off workers, how? They use what's called the wage system. Cappies never pay workers for what they actually produce, instead they pay them a wage. The cappy has overheads, debts, etc to pay off and wages, however after this they are usually left with a profit, "surplus value". This profit was produced by exploited workers NOT by the cappy. The cappy is a parasite
COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY 1 year ago
@COMMIEPHILOSOPHY Absurd because you can't grasp my analogy on how our country is run like an everyday household? Yes, Capitalists will sometimes exploit workers. In a libertarian society we, as common working men and women, will still have the right to organize against coercive companies that will try to take advantage of us which is more than what what Communist based societies have shown us through history. Libertarianism is anti-slavery and we don't need big government like to baby us.
migsluck1 1 year ago
@migsluck1
Capitalism doesn't exploit anyone.
Deal with it.
BrettDunbar 1 year ago 2
@BrettDunbar what they need is enforced Communism to get cunts like you under control. Your kind of mungrel is a fascist sympathizer, a republican asshole.
You fukin capitalist is raping this earth and fucking everything in sight. There are oil spills and on and on.....Yoursick self-centred greed will be your downfall you fascist Nazi Republican.
Now part you fascist arse cheeks and stick your own head up your fown arse
TheNationalistParty 1 year ago
@TheNationalistParty HAHAHAHHAHAHHA YOU MAD??
LOLOL
You people deserve the death penalty for creating more poverty in the world and killing people. I'm so glad the soviet union was destroyed.
Communists and nazis are the same fucking thing. You people are destroying humanity.
FREEDOM WILL NEVER DIE!! GO CAPITALISM!!
Deal with it you sick fuck.
BrettDunbar 1 year ago 2
@BrettDunbar you fukin dumb cunt. You are a fukin low life cunt and you name "Brett" lol, its so you right? You are a such a prat lol
TheNationalistParty 1 year ago
@BrettDunbar
Wasn't really my point. If anything I was defending capitalism.
migsluck1 1 year ago
@jacktheputrid Wrong, HE didn't change at all, the PEOPLE changed, his AUDIENCE changed, however, he still promotes very neocon activities and it is famous figures like Palin and Beck who are perverting libertarian ideals to be as close to neo-conservatism as possible.
They are effectively giving the new libertarian movement a bad name.
s0beit 1 year ago
thumbs up
MeAreTrees 1 year ago
Yeah... because Libertarianism doesn't benefit the "Haves". Absolute crock of shit.
policestory 1 year ago
"Speak on sister"?....No self-respecting black person should even consider being a Libertarian. Just look at their voting records against Civil Rights! I'm a black male, and there is NO way in hell I'd be a Libertarian....End of discussion!!!
SarahPalinLies 1 year ago
@SarahPalinLies Define "civil rights" and also inform me when Libertarians were ever in power.
P.S. Republicans are not Libertarians.
s0beit 1 year ago 2
@SarahPalinLies P.S.S. Sarah Palin is not a Libertarian, and