Just throwing this back up here because it answers the OP’s question perfectly and it is being ignored. 
I know about it now. He’s a hypocrite. So what? I couldn’t care less, since it doesn’t harm me in anyway.
Except it does. Because it’s using TARP money. Which I’m against. Because part of it was my hard-earned money.
If he didn’t take TARP money, I couldn’t care less if he dresses up in women’s clothes and rails against cross-dressing at the same time.
So what was your point again?
I see over the Hong Kong thread you rambled on about how libertarians supposedly think their philosophy will solve all problems. Therefore, if there are problems in a libertarian (or near libertarian) society, it deals the philosophy a fatal blow.
Are you bipolar, or do drugs, or something like that? I’m not asking to be mean or to Flame.
I’m asking because every so often you post something reasonably intelligent, and then the rest of the time you go off on such ridiculous tangents I can scarcely believe it’s the same person.
I would answer you but he won’t be back until tomorrow.
Perhaps not, but this is not the forum to ask such leading questions when they will clearly be seen as a backdoor attempt at an insult.
= = =
haymarketmartyr, you have already made this thread way too personal.
If you want to argue the issue, fine, but stick to the issues, not whether or not any other poster has the right or ability to post what they choose.
[ /Moderating ]
Strangely enough Rand really hated Libertarians.
Rand did address a similar question though. Could someone who was morally opposed to the govt. giving out scholarships take such a scholarship himself? Her answer was yes though I can’t remember what exactly led her to that conclusion.
Your link didn’t mention bribes.
Is it ok to use tax dollars to push a political ideology that the majority agree with, and, if so, why?
Odesio
Looks like I stepped over the line. My bad. Won’t happen again.
If I can stomach it, I will dig out my Rand. (I own several of her, um, nonfiction works and Objectivist reprints.) I’m sure she said something like we should take the money, but I am equally sure I can find supporting commentary for not taking the money. The great thing about Rand was her ability to ensure that whatever was under discussion, if it meant being self-righteous while ripping people off, it was good. I’m sure we could justify being against corruption while bribing judges. “See how bad it is! I can bribe a judge to get away with murder. Of course, it’s in my interest to do so, so you can’t really fault me…” Heh.
Which makes them huge hypocrits.
Or maybe not.
I’ve seen this sort of thing before. There is a prominent local family that foams at the mouth whenever taxation is so much as mentioned. But that attitude didn’t keep them from seeking local government assistance (IRBs, tax breaks, that sort of thing) when they built the tallest building in town.
I believe Libertariansim is essentially a selfish philosophy (a notion I’ve held since reading a Robert Ringer book way back when). They want what they want, and screw the rest of the world.
So BB&T’s behavior really isn’t hypocritical. Of course they oppose government bailouts because they oppose government spending, period; governments, through taxation, cost them money. And of course they will charge for the trough with all the other hogs for a share of the federal slop. Both behaviors are in their own self-interest, which is all that matters to them.
Really, The gummint forced $3,100,000,000.00 down BB&T’s throat? Not bloody well likely.
If the government gives out money for free, I’m going to take it. I have no problem with BB&T taking it. That is fine. The problem is the government giving out money.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
Here is a fairly relevant link.
Slee
Heh heh. This is a terrible restaurant! The food is bad and the portions small!
You just don’t see it, do you? If one believes the government has no business giving out money, ever, the principled response is never to take such money oneself. To say, in effect, that “government has no business handing out money to anyone but me” is rank hypocrisy. If one thinks a system is wrong, he has no business participating in it. If fact, such participation encourages that system. Why support something you’re against??
This sort of behavior is one reason I’m inclined to think libertarians are rather more selfish than the average bloke.
No, this is pretty typical. You need to stop letting morals and logic guide your thoughts. Take myself for example; sure, I may make 1.5 mil per year, but I still take my family to the free city run soup kitchen for every meal. I mean, It’s not like I didn’t buy that soup with my tax dollars, why not take advantage of it? It’s also really convenient for us to rail against all of the waste of our local government and how everyone in that soup kitchen is a worthless freeloader suckling my teat dry once we finish eating. When they raised property taxes last year, I sent my wife and kids to the homeless shelter 3 nights a week to make sure we weren’t getting the shaft there either.
The irony sets in when I go to work, running my soup factory that sells soup to all of the free kitchens in our state. When it gets overwhelming, I just breathe into a paper bag and repeat our mantra: “The only bottom line is my bottom line, all other hypocrisies can be rationalized away.” And then I sign my business up for tax credits for providing services to disadvantaged persons.
that is pretty funny…
This is NOT what is being said. It would be much more accurate to say “government has no business handing out money to anyone, but if they’re going to do it anyway, I’m not going to let the competition be the only one to benefit.”
I’m not necessarily sure that is the 100% best response, but it’s very different from your version.
Because it is the system we are obligated to live under.
[ul]
[li]I think the taxation system is far too byzantine and confusing, and would favor a much simpler system that eliminated all the loopholes and tax dodges. Does that mean I am therefore obligated to not take any deductions?[/li]
[li]I think that many functions of the government could better be done by private firms under contract – road maintenance, trash collection, etc. Should I therefore not drive or leave my trash out?[/li]
[li]I don’t think governments should finance pro sports stadiums. Can I still go to the game?[/li]
[li]If I could wave a magic wand, I’d get rid of mandatory government schooling. Am obligated to send my kids to private schools – and if I can’t currently afford to (because of, say, my tax burden) , am I required to change my opinions?[/li]
[li]Anarcho-capitalists (I am not one) favor private fire departments and police forces. Should they not report fires, or call the cops if they see a crime?[/li][/ul]
This sort of remark is one reason I’m inclined to think that anti-libertarians are rather more spiteful than the average bloke.
furt… what do we anti-libertarians have to be spiteful about?
You (libertarians - not you personally) have no power.
You exercise no control over anything.
You are like an eunuch in a whorehouse.
You are harmless and impotent.
People enjoy playing with you online in a cat and mouse game since nothing ever comes of it.
What is there to be spiteful about?
Dude I’m no friend of libertarianism as such but take it easy. You sound like the hysterical right wingers on call in radio shows.
You should try not to think in binary. Libertarian, formerly known as Liberal, ideas were what the US was founded upon, and obviously still hold huge sway.
Nothing, really. And yet you seem to have nothing better to do with your time than start multiple threads attacking a philosophy you describe as “harmless.”
Generally, people posting in GD do so because they have questions or ideas and they want a serious discussion of them. Is this no the case with you?
Then why the hysterical, irrational intensity of hatred toward ideas that are “harmless and impotent”? You are virtually foaming at the mouth. Or are you really afraid that we’re not to harmess and impotent after all?