I’m sure you have a YouTube video to support that.
We liberals don’t disagree with libertarianism just because we are immoral, unintellgent, or otherwise defective. In some cases we disagree on basic principles. For example, you keep defining all businesses as private property. But I do not believe that a commercial establishment that invites the public to enter its premises on a walk-in basis is “private” in the same way a person’s dwelling is private. It is perfectly legitimate to place restrictions on such establishments and we have already decided that our constitutional system allows it. We have direct experience with lving in a society that doesn’t have such protections for the public and we’re not willing to sacrifice our societal gains for some theoretical notion of liberty. The libertarians’ big mistake is in forgetting that we KNOW what the world will be like if we follow their puritanism. libertarianism doesn’t represent some untested theory. It’s what the world is like before we step in to make things better. On the specific issue, Maddow was perfectly correct in trying to nail Rand Paul down on the question because if his ideological faith is so strong that he ca’t concede the point without trying to evade the question then that is a very good indication that he is a dangerous ideologue who is unfit for office.
No, corporations are NOT holy. Libertarians support fraud laws, equal justice, and enforcing contracts, and respecting individual litigation against large corporations and providing just compensation for environmental damage cause by negligence.
Liberals have stood up for big business for decades, despite rhetoric to the contrary. Simply knee jerk “more regulation” won’t solve our problems.
By the way, your example of a fire department is completely wrong. Fire departments are government. Life and death is involved. Its not like a small business or home refusing to allow blacks or mexicans in. By the way, most of these rights are about small business not the large corporations. Large corporations do what they want anyway because they buy off all the politicians.
Although if your posts here are any guide, they’re opposed to any mechanism that would enforce those laws and principles. Which is tantamount to opposing the laws - having a law on the books is pointless if the government isn’t allowed to enforce it.
I agree. I disagree with Rand Paul on this issue. I do think he needs to take this position to get elected. Its the smart choice for this election.
I don’t think he supports prayer in public schools. He supports, as do many libertarians, school choice and private schools as an option for education, as well as reduced federal involvement and more local control of education. The government has attempting to get involved in private schools and stop prayer in schools and that would be wrong. Again a violation of private property rights.
So two issues makes him not a libertarian but an “extreme right winger”? Give me a break. Libertarians can disagree on some of these issues. I respect people who are pro life. Neither of these positions should be offensive.
By the way, no one is going to touch Roe V Wade, so don’t lose any sleep over that. Abortion is simply an issue politicians throw out there to satisfy certain demographics. Non of them do anything about it when elected.
:smack: Shit. I get hassled about how people here are so smart and I shouldn’t talk down to them and you go and prove my point.
If it takes you 3-4 hours to read what I wrote and look through my links, you are not the sharpest tool in the shed.
I think this pretty much sums it up:
Brilliant. I am stunned by your profound intellect.
You have been cautioned about insulting other users in the past and you’re on the verge of going there again. Cool it.
Don’t be so sure about that. When I debate, I go at it. If you actual saw the parties I attend, you might take that back. Libertarians favor legalization of pot, after all.
I don’t think you really were. “Too libertarian, didn’t read.”? How about “Too complex, I don’t want to embarrass myself”? Wouldn’t that be a little more honest?
When a substantial portion of your argument is a list of books you’ve read – as opposed to sod ific citations from those sources that support yor argument – it is a signal that your argument is weak. Appeal to authority is a fallacy. Furthermore, the appeal is to economic theorists. Economics is the most theoretical, least tangible, of all disciplines. Remember the adage “ask three economists and you’ll get four opinions”? A person claiming expertise in economics is the last person who should be relied upon for reforms of social policy.
Your account will likely be suspended from the board if you make another post like this or your previous one.
Not sure about Rand Paul, but most libertarians oppose MANDATORY prayer in public schools, but most think the government should have no say in private school choices.
Libertarians taking things that work and breaking them. You think our public school education system works? For who?
If by taking control of education away from the Federal Government and providing local control means allowing some districts to have prayer in school, it would be worth it given how dramatically the quality of education would rise in this country.
I believe vehemently in separation of church and state. But it is issues like this that liberals use to force more government control. In totality it is working terribly for education in this country. That is the fact.
Any true education reform starts with local control, school choice through vouchers, breaking up the teachers union, and allowing the freedom to teach a variety of topics unburdened by governmental interference.
Okay, liberal demonize business and capitalism because it is all about seeking maximum profit, right? Why on earth would any of these companies who apparently care so much about profits purposely limit its paying customers? What sense would that make? Plus, there would be a massive backlash.
You suggest you are living in the real world? Nonsense. In the real world non of these companies would dare purposefully limit their customer base. It would be suicide.
I’m not demanding. This is called “Great Debates”, however. For those who wish to engage in debate. I know a lot just meet here to discuss life, and general topics in a non intellectual way. Fine, I understand that. But some may wish to debate these topics. It’s really not that much. Two posts and seven youtube videos. That is all. It shouldn’t be that intimidating.
Exactly. I think this is absolutely true. There is tons of room for common ground. That is why I hate this fake Left-Right paradigm that people get sucked into. It is destructive. Many of us have many common objectives and goals for society, but we are made to fight with each other endlessly.
Absolutely. It is outrageous. But don’t you see how your right to not have your property taken over by a corporation is the same right that another private property owner has to discriminate? We need to be consistent. Like I said, people either own their property, or the government owns it.
No. That’s a false dichotomy. People have certain types of rights in their property, defined and restricted in certain ways depending on what type of property it is, but not unlimited rights. It’s unnecessary and unworkable to insist on defining property rights as “absolute, unlimited, exclusive control over all aspects of anything that’s my property”.
For instance, you might not have the right to kill an endangered species animal or plant on your property, or to bury a certain type of waste on your property. Similarly, when your property is a business that serves as a place of public accommodation, you don’t have the right to discriminate against certain classes of customers.
There’s nothing fundamentally inconsistent about saying that the right to own your property without risk of eminent-domain seizure by a corporation for commercial purposes is not the same thing as the right to discriminate against black people in your business. Libertarians who try to argue that that sort of distinction is an unacceptable inconsistency are merely talking to themselves.
All you mean is that you want other people to start agreeing with you. You’re not interested in modifying any of your own views to find common ground with them.
Local businesses and local governments are not to be trusted? Its not a matter of trust. Its a matter of liberty. You are implying that local government, more answerable to the people, can’t be trusted but Federal Government, overrun by special interests and lobbyists, answerable to offshore bankers should be more trusted. Don’t you see how ridiculous that is?
We built this entire nation on libertarian principles. Just look around in society. Anything that works well for consumers is run by free market principles. Are you upset that you can’t get a cell phone at a decent price? Or a computer? Or a television? Of course not. Things that are run by governments and bureaucracies are in shambles. Public Schools, The DMV, Welfare programs, etc.
You know, Walter Williams, well known libertarian and black man, grew up very poor. He said we should take a look at the poorest neighborhoods in the country. What do you see? Failing school systems, police misconduct, jails and welfare offices. But you see some nice clothes on people, a few nice cars, everyone has a television, people are able to get some decent food. Basically through Free Markets and competition basic luxuries and some nice products make it to even the poorest communities. But the government controlled industry and bureaucracies are the worst in the nation, failing everyone. Even the poorest communities in this country are nothing like in other countries with Socialism, Communism and authoritarian governments that destroy wealth.
Look around you, look at the problems we face. America is no longer number one. Libertarian philosophy propelled us into becoming the shining beacon of the world, and our abandoning it has led to our downfall.
Have some faith in liberty. What if we cleaned the slate, balanced the budget and returned to a literal interpretation of the Constitution, small federal government and states rights? Then we decided if we wanted more federal control, more welfare, more warfare. My guess is no.
I appreciate that. Boycotts and picket demonstrations were commonplace during the Civil Rights movement. The Don Imus fiasco shows just how people react to racist speech. Imagine how people would react to racist activity. We have moved past the era where people would put up with that kind of behavior. It isn’t the law that is preventing business from discriminating, it is the peoples willingness to put up with it.
I think property rights are one of our most basic rights and like I’ve said, we need to protect rights in their entirety. My problem is not government telling business they have to serve black people, it is government asserting that same authority for confiscation through imminent domain, or telling you what you can do to your own property. People either own their property or the government does.
And health insurance… No, wait, that’s the free market. You had me going until then.
Why do you hate our troops?