Linus Van Pelt wrote:

unarmedman wrote:The problem is power - all government systems involve power, they just distribute it to different places.

Either the government has too much power, or the corporation.

This is key. I want libertarians to read this quote, or something very much like it, until they either are not libertarians anymore, or realize that they just <3 corporations that much.

I think it is false to reduce everything down to these two choices. There are many ways to go, and many ways to get there. The wipikpedia page linked in a later post has complaints from all directions, but what should I care about what the right wing, or the left wing has to say to me when I do not respect their position (tho certainly more than they respect mine, since I like to feel that my position adopts the best of both sides).

I don't love corporations, and I won't willingly accept the paternalism of a government that is fucking up, but doing the best it can. There is always going to be another Bush administration, and they are going to use all the power you give them, and take more on top of that.

People talk to libertarians the way the religious talk to atheists, and it is all a kneejerk script. Someone always brings up the roads as tho it were a clever argument, but fuck the roads. We have too many and they have poisoned everything. Because there are roads everywhere, the car is ubiquitous, the car needs oil, and we end up where we are, living our lives and killing our kids to pump sludge and pave the Earth.

I don't expect to change your minds, but I would like a little consideration that I might not be an idiot because I don't follow the right or the left.

Edit: Cleaned up text

Moderate Waffle, but I vote Not Crap.

Listen: There is no way we will ever see a total "utopian" Libertarian Society ever. There will always be a mix - there will never be a total "utopia" they way the Democrats see it, and there will never be a total "utopia" as the Republicans see it, or any other party for that matter. There will always be a compromise; a mix between the two (or more) ideals.

I don't think anyone should vote for a particular party with the hopes (or fears) that their vote will send the entire country into revolution and reform.

That being said, there are quite a few things that confuse me about Libertarians, and a lot of things I don't agree with. Obviously, we have a need for government regulation of business, welfare, a military, etc. etc. Obviously, most people can't or don't take responsibility for their own actions, and shouldn't be given ultimate freedom with the expectation that they would take responsibility for their own actions. I don't think if in the extremely unlikely chance that a Libertarian was elected president that we'd do away with these things forever.

I voted Libertarian at the last election (my first time voting), fully knowing that no one I voted for would be elected to any office, even on a local level, but if every third-party supporter figured it was no use to vote for them, then nothing will ever change, right? We'll be stuck with two equally disgusting and sickening choices like we have been for the last ~250 years.

I think there's a need for a political influence that doesn't fall into two-party partisan bickering.

I should have prefaced this message, I despise politics. I hate talking about it, I hate thinking about it, I hate reading all you fuckers arguing about it (but I still do!)- to me, its good for nothing but arguing and making people who would otherwise get along quite well really mad at each other.


But anyway, that's my $.02.

Johnny 13 wrote:

Linus Van Pelt wrote:

unarmedman wrote:The problem is power - all government systems involve power, they just distribute it to different places.

Either the government has too much power, or the corporation.

This is key. I want libertarians to read this quote, or something very much like it, until they either are not libertarians anymore, or realize that they just <3 corporations that much.

I think it is false to reduce everything down to these two choices.

This is fair (along with the rest of the stuff you said). But what are the other choices? If the country were run by Libertarians, "free market" forces would ensure that resources and power accumulate in the hands of the few, and specifically corporations. Some would say that Libertarians do run this country, and that resources and power have accumulated in the hands of corporations, and this is an exaggeration, but not much of one. The only way I can see to counteract this, if you wish to, is to come up with rules that counter the effects of "free market" forces, and come up with some kind of apparatus to enforce those rules, and what do you call those rules and that apparatus if not "government"? So that's what I mean when I say those are the two choices: government power and corporate power. So I'm asking you: what is the alternative?

I don't mean to be condescending. I know how the religious talk to atheists, and it's crap. But unlike the existence of God, this is an issue where people can have some information to back up their beliefs. Even though you disagree with what I'm saying, and you think it's wrong (and it might be wrong), you can look at my reasoning and see that I've got something (however meager) backing it up. Likewise I you. So, I think that they're very different topics, in that respect, although I see the comparison.

As far as roads go: you believe we have too many roads, and you might be right. But under a libertarian system, we would have exactly the right number of roads -- for the companies who build them. For you, for me, would we have enough roads? Would we have far too many? Could we afford to use them? And again, if this is a false dichotomy I construct, what is the third choice?

I don't think you're an idiot, and I didn't mean to imply so. I just meant that, in my opinion, the libertarian position is, either consciously or unconsciously, pro-corporations-running-things.

I find this notion that big business would necessarily take over and that a libertarian system would definitively favour big business to be an assumption that isn't really fair.

I'm not denying that a significant portion of the libertarian party are in the party because of their desire to see corporations gain more power, but this is not universal aspect of liberatarianism. (One of the obnoxious things about the "the party" is that they're only one step up from the Reform party as far as a defined platform. A product of their political design or that they're a relatively new party... who knows).

It's not contradictory to acknowledge the differences between humans and the the things humans make.

A house does not have the same rights as a person. In fact, a house has no rights. There is no reason why corporations power could be severly limited while personal freedom and responsibility is allowed to flourish.

I think the key points are you can boot a politician out ever few years if he pisses you off, but a corporate captain? And the "vote your with your money" line means "more money, more votes".

There you go, why libertarian policies are dumb in two easy steps.

Tom wrote:A house does not have the same rights as a person. In fact, a house has no rights. There is no reason why corporations power could be severly limited while personal freedom and responsibility is allowed to flourish.

So, you're saying that a libertarian might be in favor of government power which puts restrictions on the economic rights of corporations? You just blew my mind? I don't consider the system you seem to be describing to be be a "libertarian" system at all. It seems much closer to a "liberal" (not liberal in the classical sense, but in the 20th-21st century American sense) system. Are you maybe, without realizing it, a liberal, Tom?

Tom wrote:Maybe I'm being overly idealistic

Yes.

I'm a 'big believer in human potential,' Tom, but I also think we are base creatures interested mostly in ourselves. That's why we have government, and that's one of the reasons we don't live in a free country after all.

Montana is essentially little-l libertarian. As I have said before, I think the overriding ethos of Montana is 'Do as you wish, as long as I don't have to see it or hear about it or have you cross my land to do it.'

I think a few of the less populated states are like this.

tmidgett wrote:Montana is essentially little-l libertarian. As I have said before, I think the overriding ethos of Montana is 'Do as you wish, as long as I don't have to see it or hear about it or have you cross my land to do it.'

I think a few of the less populated states are like this.

Arizona is like this, or used to be.

Linus Van Pelt wrote:

Tom wrote:A house does not have the same rights as a person. In fact, a house has no rights. There is no reason why corporations power could be severly limited while personal freedom and responsibility is allowed to flourish.

So, you're saying that a libertarian might be in favor of government power which puts restrictions on the economic rights of corporations? You just blew my mind? I don't consider the system you seem to be describing to be be a "libertarian" system at all. It seems much closer to a "liberal" (not liberal in the classical sense, but in the 20th-21st century American sense) system. Are you maybe, without realizing it, a liberal, Tom?

I think that humans should be governed by human laws that are extremely permissive and non-invasive and non-human things should have a different set of laws to be governed that offer less freedom and more invasion.

If this makes me a liberal, then I'm a liberal. I prefer gravitationalist myself, but thats just me.

tmidgett wrote:

Tom wrote:Maybe I'm being overly idealistic

Yes.

I'm a 'big believer in human potential,' Tom, but I also think we are base creatures interested mostly in ourselves. That's why we have government, and that's one of the reasons we don't live in a free country after all.

Ok, if we are base creatures interested mostly in ourselves, then why are you interested in helping others? Is that the non-mostly part?
(This post could be construed as assholish. It's not meant to be, I just don't know how else to phrase it).