Page 1 of 19 [ 303 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 19  Next

donnie_darko
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,981

15 May 2015, 7:45 pm

All the libertarians I've debated are really disdainful towards those on public assistance, even if they work, which would be many if not most of us with Asperger's syndrome. They can't fathom the idea of someone who is physically able bodied and has a high IQ as struggling with work and employment. It seems like they would rather see millions starve to death on the street than tax the rich and corporations at a higher rate than those who are living paycheck to paycheck.

I think their priorities are completely out of whack and it shows considering they will almost always elect a religious zealot conservative over a Democrat and definitely over a socialist.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,440
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

15 May 2015, 7:58 pm

I don't know...not sure they'd be willing to form a group so even if they are it seems rather insignificant since chances are they're entirely independent and thus could be found alone more often than in groups which means easier to fight I imagine.

I wouldn't trust a libertarian in a dire situation that is for sure.


_________________
We won't go back.


sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

15 May 2015, 9:36 pm

killed by dems, or killed by repubs.
I vote balancing act to which is the more closer threat, which for me and where I live is dems.
not really a good choice eitehr way :(

at least the the most part true libertarians just want to be left alone and leave others alone.



Last edited by sly279 on 15 May 2015, 9:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

RhodyStruggle
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 508

15 May 2015, 9:37 pm

I'm a libertarian socialist. So, no, not as a general rule. But the kind you're talking about? The pot-smoking Republicans? Yeah.


_________________
From start to finish I've made you feel this
Uncomfort in turn with the world you've learned
To love through this hate to live with its weight
A burden discerned in the blood you taste


KaylamiYarne
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 8 May 2015
Posts: 204

15 May 2015, 9:43 pm

sly279 wrote:
killed by dems, or killed by repubs.
I vote balancing act to which is the more closer threat, which for me and where I live is dems.
not really a good choice eitehr way :(

at least the the most part true libertarians just want to be left alone and leave others alone.


True libertarianism is that....respect others, leave us alone. The term gets misused a lot. It's about freedom, voluntary association and primacy of individual judgement.
Before bashing it completely....think of it. If everyone was free to do what they wanted, we would still have charities and organizations to help people. It would actually be easier to form an organization to help those with disabilities because we wouldn't have the government holding us back.
It's sad that people think government intervention is the only way we can receive help when we need it, when in fact the government is getting in the way of people helping each other (a woman got arrested for handing out money to poor people at her church)

I have not seen a single presidential candidate who's a true libertarian.

Edit: free to do what we wanted as long as it's not harming others.



Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

15 May 2015, 9:56 pm

KaylamiYarne wrote:
sly279 wrote:
killed by dems, or killed by repubs.
I vote balancing act to which is the more closer threat, which for me and where I live is dems.
not really a good choice eitehr way :(

at least the the most part true libertarians just want to be left alone and leave others alone.


True libertarianism is that....respect others, leave us alone. The term gets misused a lot. It's about freedom, voluntary association and primacy of individual judgement.
Before bashing it completely....think of it. If everyone was free to do what they wanted, we would still have charities and organizations to help people. It would actually be easier to form an organization to help those with disabilities because we wouldn't have the government holding us back.
It's sad that people think government intervention is the only way we can receive help when we need it, when in fact the government is getting in the way of people helping each other (a woman got arrested for handing out money to poor people at her church)

I have not seen a single presidential candidate who's a true libertarian.

Edit: free to do what we wanted as long as it's not harming others.


I agree with you on the ideal, but in practical terms we live in a world of sociopaths and it wouldn't be long before said sociopaths started subverting the one rule (not harming others). Without strong checks and balances in place they would shackle and chain us all.



KaylamiYarne
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 8 May 2015
Posts: 204

15 May 2015, 10:06 pm

Aristophanes wrote:
KaylamiYarne wrote:
sly279 wrote:
killed by dems, or killed by repubs.
I vote balancing act to which is the more closer threat, which for me and where I live is dems.
not really a good choice eitehr way :(

at least the the most part true libertarians just want to be left alone and leave others alone.


True libertarianism is that....respect others, leave us alone. The term gets misused a lot. It's about freedom, voluntary association and primacy of individual judgement.
Before bashing it completely....think of it. If everyone was free to do what they wanted, we would still have charities and organizations to help people. It would actually be easier to form an organization to help those with disabilities because we wouldn't have the government holding us back.
It's sad that people think government intervention is the only way we can receive help when we need it, when in fact the government is getting in the way of people helping each other (a woman got arrested for handing out money to poor people at her church)

I have not seen a single presidential candidate who's a true libertarian.

Edit: free to do what we wanted as long as it's not harming others.


I agree with you on the ideal, but in practical terms we live in a world of sociopaths and it wouldn't be long before said sociopaths started subverting the one rule (not harming others). Without strong checks and balances in place they would shackle and chain us all.


I understand your concern, but libertarianism doesn't mean "everyone do what they want"...it is when law protects liberty and equal rights of others. The moment sociopaths start overthrowing the "don't harm others" rule, it will no longer be libertarianism, but anarchy.



pezar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2008
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,432

16 May 2015, 12:08 am

KaylamiYarne wrote:
sly279 wrote:
killed by dems, or killed by repubs.
I vote balancing act to which is the more closer threat, which for me and where I live is dems.
not really a good choice eitehr way :(

at least the the most part true libertarians just want to be left alone and leave others alone.


True libertarianism is that....respect others, leave us alone. The term gets misused a lot. It's about freedom, voluntary association and primacy of individual judgement.
Before bashing it completely....think of it. If everyone was free to do what they wanted, we would still have charities and organizations to help people. It would actually be easier to form an organization to help those with disabilities because we wouldn't have the government holding us back.
It's sad that people think government intervention is the only way we can receive help when we need it, when in fact the government is getting in the way of people helping each other (a woman got arrested for handing out money to poor people at her church)

I have not seen a single presidential candidate who's a true libertarian.

Edit: free to do what we wanted as long as it's not harming others.


Ron Paul came the closest to a real libertarian in the race for the WH that we'll ever be likely to see. I tend to think in terms of your type of libertarianism being "anarchism", but it's pretty much the same thing. Thomas Jefferson would probably be considered a libertarian today-he supported self-reliance and opposed the first USA central bank, Hamilton's Bank of the United States.

As for the rest of your post, I have seen the cops arrest people for handing out stale bagels to homeless people in parks. It was around 1995 and Food Not Bombs would hand out those bagels and some icky rice soup stuff to homeless people in UN Plaza in San Francisco. I used to go down there and munch on the bagels (couldn't bring myself to eat the soup) and watch the homeless get their only real meal of their day. The SFPD would come around and chase off the homeless and stuff the FNB activists into vans. One time the FNB people got charged with "illegal use of a milk crate" (it held the soup). I mean, really. :roll: :roll:



Magneto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,086
Location: Blighty

16 May 2015, 5:49 am

Aristophanes wrote:
KaylamiYarne wrote:
sly279 wrote:
killed by dems, or killed by repubs.
I vote balancing act to which is the more closer threat, which for me and where I live is dems.
not really a good choice eitehr way :(

at least the the most part true libertarians just want to be left alone and leave others alone.


True libertarianism is that....respect others, leave us alone. The term gets misused a lot. It's about freedom, voluntary association and primacy of individual judgement.
Before bashing it completely....think of it. If everyone was free to do what they wanted, we would still have charities and organizations to help people. It would actually be easier to form an organization to help those with disabilities because we wouldn't have the government holding us back.
It's sad that people think government intervention is the only way we can receive help when we need it, when in fact the government is getting in the way of people helping each other (a woman got arrested for handing out money to poor people at her church)

I have not seen a single presidential candidate who's a true libertarian.

Edit: free to do what we wanted as long as it's not harming others.


I agree with you on the ideal, but in practical terms we live in a world of sociopaths and it wouldn't be long before said sociopaths started subverting the one rule (not harming others). Without strong checks and balances in place they would shackle and chain us all.

Do you seriously think creating positions of power for said sociopaths to seat themselves in would result in an improvement?



Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

16 May 2015, 9:21 am

Magneto wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
KaylamiYarne wrote:
sly279 wrote:
killed by dems, or killed by repubs.
I vote balancing act to which is the more closer threat, which for me and where I live is dems.
not really a good choice eitehr way :(

at least the the most part true libertarians just want to be left alone and leave others alone.


True libertarianism is that....respect others, leave us alone. The term gets misused a lot. It's about freedom, voluntary association and primacy of individual judgement.
Before bashing it completely....think of it. If everyone was free to do what they wanted, we would still have charities and organizations to help people. It would actually be easier to form an organization to help those with disabilities because we wouldn't have the government holding us back.
It's sad that people think government intervention is the only way we can receive help when we need it, when in fact the government is getting in the way of people helping each other (a woman got arrested for handing out money to poor people at her church)

I have not seen a single presidential candidate who's a true libertarian.

Edit: free to do what we wanted as long as it's not harming others.


I agree with you on the ideal, but in practical terms we live in a world of sociopaths and it wouldn't be long before said sociopaths started subverting the one rule (not harming others). Without strong checks and balances in place they would shackle and chain us all.

Do you seriously think creating positions of power for said sociopaths to seat themselves in would result in an improvement?

You bet. The larger the organization the more inclusion there is which bogs down the directions of any one individual or group to drive the organization. The more immense the bloat of power the less agile it becomes at actually being able to use it.



Magneto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,086
Location: Blighty

16 May 2015, 10:03 am

However, the more bureaucratic it gets, the more opportunities there are for a Compliance Officer from the Bureau of Compliance Office to wreck someones life, and the harder it is for that person to get recourse for it. So bigger organisations reduce the possibility of someone gaining overall control, but at the price of creating lots of niches for petty kingdoms.

It's also expensive to oppress people, when you're forced to pay for it yourself, and when they have no belief that they are obliged to do what you say. This notion that in a free market sociopaths would take over is not borne out by evidence.



pcuser
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2014
Age: 73
Gender: Male
Posts: 913

16 May 2015, 11:33 am

KaylamiYarne wrote:
sly279 wrote:
killed by dems, or killed by repubs.
I vote balancing act to which is the more closer threat, which for me and where I live is dems.
not really a good choice eitehr way :(

at least the the most part true libertarians just want to be left alone and leave others alone.


True libertarianism is that....respect others, leave us alone. The term gets misused a lot. It's about freedom, voluntary association and primacy of individual judgement.
Before bashing it completely....think of it. If everyone was free to do what they wanted, we would still have charities and organizations to help people. It would actually be easier to form an organization to help those with disabilities because we wouldn't have the government holding us back.
It's sad that people think government intervention is the only way we can receive help when we need it, when in fact the government is getting in the way of people helping each other (a woman got arrested for handing out money to poor people at her church)

I have not seen a single presidential candidate who's a true libertarian.

Edit: free to do what we wanted as long as it's not harming others.

It's actually closer to Ayn Rand. Think no middle class ever and true unregulated capitalism. Thus, monopolies would rule the day...



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,440
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

16 May 2015, 12:00 pm

sly279 wrote:
killed by dems, or killed by repubs.
I vote balancing act to which is the more closer threat, which for me and where I live is dems.
not really a good choice eitehr way :(

at least the the most part true libertarians just want to be left alone and leave others alone.



It seems leave others alone, unless those others are on any government assistance or not 'sinking' like they ought to if they aren't swimming all on their own. Unless that is just the more vocal libertarians...


_________________
We won't go back.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,440
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

16 May 2015, 12:07 pm

KaylamiYarne wrote:
sly279 wrote:
killed by dems, or killed by repubs.
I vote balancing act to which is the more closer threat, which for me and where I live is dems.
not really a good choice eitehr way :(

at least the the most part true libertarians just want to be left alone and leave others alone.


True libertarianism is that....respect others, leave us alone. The term gets misused a lot. It's about freedom, voluntary association and primacy of individual judgement.
Before bashing it completely....think of it. If everyone was free to do what they wanted, we would still have charities and organizations to help people. It would actually be easier to form an organization to help those with disabilities because we wouldn't have the government holding us back.
It's sad that people think government intervention is the only way we can receive help when we need it, when in fact the government is getting in the way of people helping each other (a woman got arrested for handing out money to poor people at her church)

I have not seen a single presidential candidate who's a true libertarian.

Edit: free to do what we wanted as long as it's not harming others.


If I had faith that voluntary Charity alone could replace the entire current safety social network...and even do a better job, then I might be quicker to dismiss government assistance as entirely useless and unnecessary. But in the current system/society I don't see that as very realistic and I still need to eat and have money to cover basic expenses and have access to medical care...somehow I do not think the voluntary charity in my area could cover all that, especially for any ongoing length of time. Ideally a society in which Charity effectively addressed poverty where government assistance is not needed would be great....I am just not convinced we have such a society, thus taking away the social safety network I think would do more harm than good currently at least. As is with charity and government assistance poverty is still a major problem...taking one of those away does not seem like a valid solution.

Government intervention is not the only way to address poverty....but I feel the government does have a duty to its citizens. So it cannot very well ignore it and leave it up to private organizations who happen to have a kind heart at the moment...not to say the current social safety network couldn't used vast improvements but getting rid of it entirely which seems to be what libertarian-ism aims for is not really something I can support.


_________________
We won't go back.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

16 May 2015, 12:24 pm

Libertarians who have posted here on WP (who I have since refused to talk to anymore) have promoted the ideal of government leaving people alone, to the extent of calling desegregation of private business equally wrong as racism. Well, the fact of the matter is, sometimes - plenty of times, in fact - government has to shake things up for the good of the stepped on, the poor, the despised. Leave people alone when there is a wrong, and that wrong is never righted.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Fogman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,986
Location: Frå Nord Dakota til Vermont

16 May 2015, 12:34 pm

My main problem with public assistance is that public assistance is, at least in the government sense a system designed to spend lots of money to keep an army of social workers and caseworkers employed without truly helping people on public assistance to move off of public assistance into a workplace environment.

Sure, public assistance may provide shelter and housing, but that's basically a dead end that keeps caseworkers employed, and gives what amounts to a government subsidy to landlords who quite often are 'slumlords', without providing public assistance recipients with a means of moving beyond public assistance into something that will allow the recipients to benefit for themselves. --This is why I hate public assistance as it is, and why I think it needs a radical overhaul.


_________________
When There's No There to get to, I'm so There!