This…
and this…
and this.
Good idea, but hardly unique.
National suicide.
Really stupid idea, would result in economic disaster. The gold standard was given up because it wasn’t working. And money “backed by gold” is no safer, no more real and no less based on trust of the government than fiat money. After all, you are trusting the government to guard that gold and cough it up when asked. And on top of that there isn’t enough gold.
Which would result in mass death and general devastation as every corporation, every irresponsible individual ran wild. Defrauding, poisoning, looting, polluting, and in general screwing up the country.
Good idea. But that doesn’t make up for all the other incredibly bad ideas.
In other words, the law of the jungle. Crush, loot, enslave, despoil. Or, they are naive enough to think that isn’t what will happen if the civilizing restraint of government is removed.
No, there isn’t. Certainly it could use reform; but without an organization willing and able to make people pay what they owe the country will collapse.
A vote for poverty; an example of the libertarian hatred of the common people, and especially the poor. Even when they themselves are in one of those groups; they are convinced of their own special, superior nature.
Those “unwanted government regulations” include provisions against selling useless, dangerous and contaminated drugs. You’re right, quacks and scam artists don’t want those regulations.
And Ron Paul is also against requiring childhood vaccination, which would allow the mass return of debilitating, sometimes permanently injuring and fatal preventable diseases. A “decide if you want to give your kids the shots” policy would make antivaxers happy, but is not so great for those kids and the rest of society.
But that’s essential to the Libertarian philosophy - “I got mine, the rest of you go screw.”
Does any political philosophy love the poor? The Libertarians want them to starve, the Conservatives want them either in prison or the military (their welfare force), the Socialists want them addicted to welfare and other non-military dole programs, and the Communists always need warm bodies in the salt mines and government plantations.
That’s a problem just with libertarians?
I mean, this whole thread amounts to “Let’s laugh at a cartoon that isn’t all that funny.” You could create an equally unfunny cartoon of 24 straw man Democrats, or Muslims, or conservatives, or football fans, or G20 protestors, or Baptists, or any other group. I realize BG lives for starting threads about straw man political targets, but what did that cartoon teach anyone?
I’m sorry, but if you support restricting drugs, prostitution or gun rights you aren’t a left-libertarian or right-libertarian, you just aren’t a Libertarian. You might agree with Rand Paul on his (bizarre) ideas about changing monetary system, but that would make you a Monetary Reformist (or more correctly a Monetary Regressive).
Surely foundation principle of Libertarianism is the idea of individual freedom over-riding everything, including common sense in most cases. As soon as you contemplate changing that you stop being Libertarian and you move into the real world of politics based on compromise rather than pure ideology.
Someone on my livejournal friends list posted a link to that cartoon recently, then quickly took it down after people in comments bitched about malware coming from the site; I have not explored the situation in more detail than that, but be warned.
ETA: clearly, we need stronger government oversight of anti-malware measures taken by people who post funny cartoons.
Drakaism loves the poor. Very intimately, in many cases.
Yes and no. What it really comes down to, in my always-correct opinion, is that they think government is the ONLY source of problems. Therefore, eliminating government will solve all problems.
Which is, of course, bullshit. There wouldn’t be an FDA if food companies could be relied upon to manage their own food safety. And they won’t do that because the one company that doesn’t would be the most profitable.
Or, to give an even more pertinent example, an eye doctor who doesn’t feel like taking the tests to join the current organization can go ahead and start his own clearly-bullshit organization. After all, it’s the patients’ fault for not researching the different organizations who hand out certifications!
-Joe
Since this is the Pit, I can call you a souldead humorless lump of shlubbery.
But I won’t.
Ditto for abortion. Saying that the government should have no right to interfere with businesses to prevent pollution but should have every right to interfere with women’s bodies to prevent abortion is not libertarian - it’s just bad logic.
Unborn children = life is sacred!!! Women should sacrifice their liberty for them.
Born children = Don’t expect me to hurt my bottom line by keeping the water clean
But then probably 99% of the libertarians I’ve talked to have been men. Women in America in the 21st century enjoy unprecedented levels of freedom and autonomy - and it’s entirely because our government stands up for us. It’s still imperfect but it’s easily the best women have ever had it. It could go away in a generation if the government let it go.
ETA - meant to follow Baboonza but too slow. Damn the government for slowing down my typing!!
I could see all drugs being legal, provided that people who used them payed the full price for what they do while high. “I was high”, far from being considered exculpatory, would be considered an aggravating factor in judging people who’ve done seriously fucked-up things. Absolute freedom = absolute responsibility.
This has been debated up the wazoo numerous times on this board, but to reiterate in brief, the claim that banning guns would solve the USA’s violence problem is disputable. More to the point, a government with the authority and power to ban guns and hold a monopoly on armed force would be the antithesis of libertarianism.
You are aware that the vast majority of libertarians are pro-choice, right? :dubious:
-
I have not spoken to the vast majority of libertarians. I said that the vast majority of libertarians to whom I -have- spoken have been men.
-
Nonetheless, there is a genuine subset of libertarians who are clearly anti-choice, including the Pauls and their political supporters. My post was largely intended to rebut Captain Midnight’s assertion that there was nothing to disagree with in Ron Paul’s positions.
-
It’s not sufficient to eliminate the bad logic to just handwave away the anti-libertarianism…ness, with the words , ‘well, some libertarians believe life starts at conception’ as if that was adequate excuse for governmental control, given that Paul & the Captain both want to abolish governemental control in other areas where children’s lives are at risk.
-
All that said, it wouldn’t surprise me if the libertarians who are anti-choice were mostly republicans at heart. Lately I’ve come to the conclusion that ‘libertarian’ and ‘fiscal conservative’ are just labels which some repubs have adopted to try to distinguish themselves from the batshit wing without having to repudiate the republican party altogether.
That’s the system we have now, except the “drugs being legal” part.
I can’t believe no one, especiall the OP, has yet posted a
PERMANENT LINK TO THE CARTOON.
Seriously.
Per the site itself, the malware has been found and removed.
The free market works!
I couldn’t figure out how to do that. I clicked the “Share This” button and saw a bunch of icons for Twitter, etc. – I’m kind of a technotard WRT Twitter, etc. How did you do it?
It’s worse than that. Most Yanks are broadly liberal, but “Liberals” have ruined the term.
Edit: Cartoon made me laugh. Good find BG. 
The title of the article itself contains the link. Pretty standard for blog-type sites.