AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Libertarianism
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Libertarianism - Page 4

post #121 of 735
5/11/11 at 5:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

True enough, though I suspect things would get worse largely for government employees (or former government employees) and better for those in the productive sector of the economy.

That's a given.

The number of large and powerful monopolies would also increase though, at least that's what's happened in newspapers, healthcare and I'm sure lots of other things. Sometimes more doors would open for more entrepreneurs but often big businesses fight to kill off competition and only government steps in to bring about more competition.

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #122 of 735
5/11/11 at 5:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

The number of large and powerful monopolies would also increase though

Yeah...ummm...probably not. The only real way a monopoly or cartel is sustainable for any reasonable length of time is from government protection from competition.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Sometimes more doors would open for more entrepreneurs but often big businesses fight to kill off competition and only government steps in to bring about more competition.

Your claim is the complete opposite of reality.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #123 of 735
5/11/11 at 5:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I'm glad.




The "bottom of the barrel?" Are you speaking of people who are low skilled and with limited education and experience?




No it isn't.




Actually it doesn't "go without saying" at all. It is simply and simplistic assumption on your part. It assumes that employers have no real competition for labor. It also assumes that lowering wages, reducing safety, etc. actually lowers costs for employers.

So why do you want to get rid of the minimum wage?

I know there are many factors for paying certain wages, but surely you can see that if the minimum wage is abolished and the money given to parasites (ie Welfarians) is abolished there's going to be a lot more very low wage jobs?

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #124 of 735
5/11/11 at 5:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Yeah...ummm...probably not. The only real way a monopoly or cartel is sustainable for any reasonable length of time is from government protection from competition.




Your claim is the complete opposite of reality.


How do you explain that huge media group, I forget it's name, actually there are several. The government has tried to stop there monopolies. There are laws in place to stop monopolies too.

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #125 of 735
5/11/11 at 5:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

So why do you want to get rid of the minimum wage?

First, morally, it is an affront to liberty. Second, practically, it is preventing some people...particularly the lowest skilled, least experience potential worked from getting started in the work place and beginning their work life because currently their effective marginal productivity is below state mandated minimum wages. Third, practically, it is an interference between an employer and employee negotiating the appropriate mix of wage and non-wage compensation that suits their specific circumstances as they deem best, based on their values rather than someone else's values.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I know there are many factors for paying certain wages, but surely you can see that if the minimum wage is abolished and the money given to parasites is abolished there's going to be a lot more very low wage jobs?

There certainly would be a lot of those jobs. But, and here's the rub...the part many don't see, those jobs don't exist at all today. The people who would be employed in those jobs are not employed at all today at any wage.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #126 of 735
5/11/11 at 5:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

How do you explain that huge media group, I forget it's name, actually there are several. The government has tried to stop there monopolies. There are laws in place to stop monopolies too.

You need to read a bit more history about the anti-trust laws (at least in the US). These laws were created ostensibly to break up alleged monopolies but, in reality, were a tool used by less efficient and effective competitors to knock down stronger, better, more efficient competitors and to use the government and the appearance of legitimacy to do it.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #127 of 735
5/11/11 at 5:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

First, morally, it is an affront to liberty. Second, practically, it is preventing some people...particularly the lowest skilled, least experience potential worked from getting started in the work place and beginning their work life because currently their effective marginal productivity is below state mandated minimum wages. Third, practically, it is an interference between an employer and employee negotiating the appropriate mix of wage and non-wage compensation that suits their specific circumstances as they deem best, based on their values rather than someone else's values.




There certainly would be a lot of those jobs. But, and here's the rub...the part many don't see, those jobs don't exist at all today. The people who would be employed in those jobs are not employed at all today at any wage.

That's probably because the working poor are already just that, the working poor. There's certainly value to being productive though, but most people on welfare don't stay on welfare. They get jobs again. When you look at how poor people already are who work hard I can't see how lowering there wages helps, and despite what you argue that would undoubtedly happen to millions of people. Those people are more likely not to be new to the workforce either. Most of the people who currently get the minimum wage have been in the workforce for a long time already.

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #128 of 735
5/11/11 at 5:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

That's probably because the working poor are already just that, the working poor.

Huh?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

There's certainly value to being productive though

Considering it is the key to higher wages, yeah...there's value in it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

but most people on welfare don't stay on welfare. They get jobs again.

I'd love to see some facts to support this claim.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

When you look at how poor people already are who work hard I can't see how lowering there* wages helps,

I didn't claim that lowering someone's wages would help them.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

and despite what you argue that would undoubtedly happen to millions of people.

Undoubtedly according to who? You?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Those people are more likely not to be new to the workforce like you say either. Most of the people who currently get the minimum wage have been in the workforce for a long time already.

Again, some facts to support your claim would be welcome.

*Should be "their" not "there."

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #129 of 735
5/11/11 at 5:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

You need to read a bit more history about the anti-trust laws (at least in the US). These laws were created ostensibly to break up alleged monopolies but, in reality, were a tool used by less efficient and effective competitors to knock down stronger, better, more efficient competitors and to use the government and the appearance of legitimacy to do it.

Sounds interesting, I think I'll check that out at some point.

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #130 of 735
5/11/11 at 5:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Sounds interesting, I think I'll check that out at some point.

You should also look into how some of the major regulatory apparatus (at least in the US) has been basically a mechanism for "soft cartelization" of industries. Things like the ICC, USDA, FDA, FCC, FAA, et al. It's a concept called "regulatory capture" and it happens all the time.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #131 of 735
5/11/11 at 5:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Huh?




Considering it is the key to higher wages, yeah...there's value in it.




I'd love to see some facts to support this claim.




I didn't claim that lowering someone's wages would help them.




Undoubtedly according to who? You?




Again, some facts to support your claim would be welcome.

*Should be "their" not "there."

I know it should be "their" not "there" I just don't always remember to use "their". I pretty much wrongly assume "there" first. Bad habits die hard! I still spell "without", "withought". Often I just don't realize I've spelt it wrong.

I'll find some links for you later and post them here.

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #132 of 735
5/11/11 at 7:25pm
You guys are completely missing what's blatantly obvious.

Government run health care is working great, everywhere except the US.

Free market health care and health insurance is working well nowhere in the world.

So... Is it Government running these programs that's the problem, or is it the American way of running things to pander to the business lobby that's the problem?
Reply
Reply
post #133 of 735
5/11/11 at 7:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You guys are completely missing what's blatantly obvious.

Well I wouldn't say what you claim is "blatantly obvious".


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Government run health care is working great, everywhere

This is debatable.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Free market health care and health insurance is working well nowhere in the world.

What instances of "free market health care and health insurance" are you referring to?


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So... Is it Government running these programs that's the problem, or is it the American way of running things to pander to the business lobby that's the problem?

It might be your incorrect premises and assumptions.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #134 of 735
5/11/11 at 7:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

It seems that, from your post, you assume absent government control there would be no mechanisms whatsoever to prevent employers from paying the lowest wages, allowing unsafe work conditions to exist and "forcing" employees to work long hours. And furthermore that the employer would have total, unrestricted control and freedom to do whatever they wanted to their employees and would do exactly that.

Am I understanding you correctly?

That's absolutely how it's worked throughout history, which you seem to be completely ignorant of.

Serfdom. Feudal system. Slavery. These are all things that were able to exist because of an open market system.

When it comes between earning a dollar a day or not having food to put on the table at all, do you think the poorest of employees would voluntarily choose to starve?

Is this not force?
Reply
Reply
post #135 of 735
5/11/11 at 8:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

What instances of "free market health care and health insurance" are you referring to?

Precisely. There's a reason there aren't any, any more. There absolutely once were, and they proved to totally omit the needs of the poor.
Reply
Reply
post #136 of 735
5/11/11 at 8:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Precisely. There's a reason there aren't any, any more. There absolutely once were, and they proved to totally omit the needs of the poor.

What instances of "free market health care and health insurance" are you referring to?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #137 of 735
5/11/11 at 8:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

That's absolutely how it's worked throughout history, which you seem to be completely ignorant of.

Serfdom. Feudal system. Slavery. These are all things that were able to exist because of an open market system.

I'm not the one ignorant of history here.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #138 of 735
5/11/11 at 8:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

What instances of "free market health care and health insurance" are you referring to?

Duh. Every single health care system that ever existed prior to government involvement.

Are you saying that there was never health care before government got involved?
Reply
Reply
post #139 of 735
5/11/11 at 8:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Duh. Every single health care system that ever existed prior to government involvement.

Are you saying that there was never health care before government got involved?

Your going to hand wave on this. Got it.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #140 of 735
5/11/11 at 8:49pm
Thread Starter 
Hands, I highly recommend the PBS documentary "Good Intentions" by economist Walter E. Williams. Among other things, it touches on how minimum wage actually hurts those it claims to help. It's 30 years old, but sadly still applicable today.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #141 of 735
5/11/11 at 9:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I'm not the one ignorant of history here.

Right. Then please show me all the cases where unregulated open markets have led to improved standard of living for the lower and middle class. Thanks.
Reply
Reply
post #142 of 735
5/12/11 at 8:37am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Right. Then please show me all the cases where unregulated open markets have led to improved standard of living for the lower and middle class. Thanks.

That's like asking Thomas Jefferson in 1775 to show you all cases where a federal constitutional republic has lead to improved standard of living for the lower and middle class.

Free markets can only exist in a voluntary society. To my knowledge, such a society does not exist, at least on a large scale. And it cannot exist as long as aggression and coercion are considered acceptable.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #143 of 735
5/13/11 at 12:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

That's like asking Thomas Jefferson in 1775 to show you all cases where a federal constitutional republic has lead to improved standard of living for the lower and middle class.

Free markets can only exist in a voluntary society. To my knowledge, such a society does not exist, at least on a large scale. And it cannot exist as long as aggression and coercion are considered acceptable.

You know, Karl Marx used to think like that. Opposite philosophy, but exactly the same assumptions.
Reply
Reply
post #144 of 735
5/13/11 at 4:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

That's a given.

The number of large and powerful monopolies would also increase though, at least that's what's happened in newspapers, healthcare and I'm sure lots of other things. Sometimes more doors would open for more entrepreneurs but often big businesses fight to kill off competition and only government steps in to bring about more competition.

When government steps in is this not Socialism?
Reply
Reply
post #145 of 735
5/13/11 at 6:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

When government steps in is this not Socialism?

Marv, can you tell me exactly what's wrong with socialism?

And no, regulation is more authoritarian, not socialist. Government provided or subsidized services funded through taxation is socialism.
Reply
Reply
post #146 of 735
5/18/11 at 11:12am
Thread Starter 
Are the terms "free market" and "capitalism" synonymous? If so, how? If not, how are they different?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #147 of 735
5/18/11 at 11:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Are the terms "free market" and "capitalism" synonymous? If so, how? If not, how are they different?

I think both terms have a lot of baggage and mean different things to different people. This complicates a lot of discussions.

What some are referring to when they sneer "Capitalism" is really what I would refer to as "Crony Capitalism", "State Capitalism", "Corporatism" a.k.a. economic Fascism, "Corporate Socialism", etc. All of which are variations on theme from one another and all of which I personally oppose. All of which we have to one degree or another in the US.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #148 of 735
5/19/11 at 8:54am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I think both terms have a lot of baggage and mean different things to different people. This complicates a lot of discussions.

What some are referring to when they sneer "Capitalism" is really what I would refer to as "Crony Capitalism", "State Capitalism", "Corporatism" a.k.a. economic Fascism, "Corporate Socialism", etc. All of which are variations on theme from one another and all of which I personally oppose. All of which we have to one degree or another in the US.

I agree. For example, China is practicing a form of Capitalism, but it is certainly not anything like a free market.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #149 of 735
5/23/11 at 10:24am
Thread Starter 
How did the idea come about that if the the state doesn't provide certain products or services, nobody can?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #150 of 735
5/23/11 at 11:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

How did the idea come about that if the the state doesn't provide certain products or services, nobody can?

My theory is that it comes from years and years of being basically told this at the early and formative years of education...combined with, essentially, intellectual and creative laziness.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #151 of 735
5/23/11 at 12:16pm
Thread Starter 
Well yes, indoctrination in our public schools certainly contributes to it. But I'm trying to figure out when this kind of thinking became commonplace. It's quite apparent that at our nation's founding, the people didn't want government to do much more than protect our rights and property.

I do think the "only government can do it" mentality is changing.

UPS and FedEx have shown us that private businesses can indeed mail letters and packages more efficiently than government.

I would love to see more private police and fire services in action (they already exist, but we need more to encourage competition and discourage the same kind of crap we have to endure with government provided services).

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #152 of 735
5/23/11 at 2:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I would love to see more private police and fire services in action (they already exist, but we need more to encourage competition and discourage the same kind of crap we have to endure with government provided services).

I think to have a proper discussion about that idea, you need to break down what it is that these organizations currently do. Think first about whether or not the thing they're doing would really need to be done in a freer more voluntary society (e.g., "the war on drugs") and secondly break down what they do into distinctive services.

For example the police do a lot of things like traffic enforcement (this would, logically, be handled by the safety departments of private road companies on their roads.) Another example would be investigative services say surrounding theft or damage of property. These services would likely be handled by your homeowner's or car insurance company (possibly contracted out to specialists.)

For fire protection services your homeowner's insurance company might contract with a private company...or they might require you to do it before even giving you insurance.

And so on.

Actually, if you think more carefully about some of these services, they are essentially subsidies/welfare for private insurance companies! Most people don't think about them quite that way, but it is no tan unreasonable characterization.

The point is to think beyond the current structure to imagine other ways these same things might be achieved.

In the end there might still be a public police (or fire) department, but it might be scaled back to only those services that are public goods.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #153 of 735
5/24/11 at 3:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Hands, I highly recommend the PBS documentary "Good Intentions" by economist Walter E. Williams. Among other things, it touches on how minimum wage actually hurts those it claims to help. It's 30 years old, but sadly still applicable today.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

Finaly watched these last night.

The minimum wage has gone down over the last 30 years in real terms. States that have raised their minimum wage have not seen a rise in unemoyment as a result.

Interesting though about the taxis. I wonder where things stand now?

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #154 of 735
5/24/11 at 5:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

The minimum wage has gone down over the last 30 years in real terms. States that have raised their minimum wage have not seen a rise in unemoyment as a result.

Be careful here.

It isn't that overall unemployment necessarily will go up...but rather unemployment among those whose wage rate have now been outlawed. Furthermore unemployment would only go up there if the statutory minimum was raised above the prevailing market wage rate.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #155 of 735
5/25/11 at 11:22am
Thread Starter 
I think it was tonton that suggested if I don't like the way things are going in the U.S. I can leave. (Please correct me if I'm wrong, ton.)

This argument is a beloved staple of many people from all over the political spectrum - usually when defending government intervention in one aspect of our lives or another.

I came across this blog post on that argument that I wholeheartedly agree with:

Quote:
"If You Don't Like It, You Can Leave"

Possibly the most disturbing statement to me is if you dont like it, you can leave. Its a thoughtless justification for crimes against humanity under the implication that since the majority or the law deems something okay something must be okay.

Honestly though, when you ask the senders of this message if it was proper for anti-Civil Rights groups to tell activists to leave rather than work to reform, they commonly say it wasnt. Then when you point out their statement is a lousy justification for obstructions of rights, just as the anti-Civil Rights groups statement was a lousy justification for obstructions of rights, they commonly rethink their pathetic statement.

Its like: If you dont like being stolen from then move; if you dont like work-brigades then move; if you dont like concentration camps then move; if you dont like unfounded incarceration then move; if you want your rights to be observed then move somewhere theyll be acknowledged. So, the obstruction of rights within an arbitrary border is OKAY because a law deems it okay.
In trying to understand Ive come to the conclusion that the users of such a phrase accept the idea that the criminal has legitimate authority over the victim simply because the victim is in the criminals territory? The problem with this is that it validates all abuses on the property owners property by the owner.

This should not be viewed as legitimate ever. Just because people live in a certain region doesnt mean they are subject to the capricious ruling of someone else who doesnt acknowledge their Natural Rights.

Theres no way in hell someone can rationally defend a If you dont like it, you can leave-stance given to the Jews in Nazi Germany, to the Blacks in the United States, to the Natives in the United States. And yet, they try to use that same rationale for us simply by stating well you can leave the country. But no, you cannot just leave the country.

And even if you could just leave the country, so could have the Civil Rights activists. Yet youre okay with them fighting for their views on what their rights were on this soil?

If I dont want you to permit the obstruction of my rights, Im going to fight to procure my rights from prosecution. Im not just going to up and leave, allowing for others rights to continue to be prosecuted simply because they feel powerless due to you oppressing them. No, thats not right or just.

If you dont like it, you can leave; if you use that saying, you disgust me.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #156 of 735
5/25/11 at 11:41am
Thanks for posting jazzguru!

I'm pretty sure tonton (and probably a couple others here) have said the same thing to me.

It's a fairly common response by folks who a) find your/my ideas "crazy", "ridiculous" or "impractical"...or they just don't agree with them, and b) have run out of any logical counter-arguments.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #157 of 735
5/26/11 at 10:07pm
You know, it's when you start comparing 30% taxation and government health care to fucking concentration camps and genocide that it's become abundantly clear that you've lost the plot and are completely worthless as a human being. Grow the fuck up.
Reply
Reply
post #158 of 735
5/27/11 at 6:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You know, it's when you start comparing 30% taxation and government health care to fucking concentration camps and genocide that it's become abundantly clear that you've lost the plot and are completely worthless as a human being. Grow the fuck up.

Where did you see that? Who? When?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #159 of 735
5/27/11 at 8:49am
Thread Starter 
No need for personal attacks, tonton.

Those things you mentioned - concentration camps and genocide - how did they come to pass?

Were they creations of a free society? The free market? Business? Libertarianism?

Or were they carried out by authoritarian, oppressive GOVERNMENT?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #160 of 735
5/27/11 at 2:59pm
I'm deeply offended, doubly offended by the attempts to defend yourselves, and we're done. You have convinced me thoroughly that Libertarianism is rooted in a mental disease that causes people to lose all empathy. If you can't see the comparison I referred to in the above blog post, then in addition to being amoral, you're clearly retarded as well.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Libertarianism