"Why do THEY have to be the only government? Thats monopoly. I would be able to make a better government"
"I can´t see why I can´t fly my plane at 30000 feet in the same vector as your plane. Won´t the invincible hand somehow figure that one out?"
I listened to the video (couldn't see it) but Stossel remained true to the Libertarian ideals, as far as I could tell, despite it being a comedy interview format. Go, John!
I missed that one. Do you know where there might be a viewable video for this?
(Not to belabor the point, but did you know these people are Libertarians? ... Dave Barry, Art Bell, Neal Boortz, Drew Carey, Clint Eastwood, Dennis Miller, P. J. O'Rourke, Trey Parker, Penn and Teller, Kurt Russell, Dwight Yoakam...)
Ever notice that only wealthy people are libertarians?
Dude, John Stossel is the only high-profile Libertarian (other than Howard Stern) left. If he got axed, there would be no more intelligent people on television.
Uhhh, so only libertarians are intelligent? Since when does a philosophy of ME ME ME denote intelligence?
I missed that one. Do you know where there might be a viewable video for this?
(Not to belabor the point, but did you know these people are Libertarians? ... Dave Barry, Art Bell, Neal Boortz, Drew Carey, Clint Eastwood, Dennis Miller, P. J. O'Rourke, Trey Parker, Penn and Teller, Kurt Russell, Dwight Yoakam...)
Oh well that settles it. If those people are libertarians then it MUST be hip thing to believe in.
I do like that most libertarians don't want the government to be legislating the personal lives of citizens. Or lately, that they oppose legislating the bodily functions of citizens.
But in that country, EVERYONE would have to be wealthy. There isn't any country like that.
A libertarian is akin to an anarchist, but with a less terrifying name.
That is assuming that we got everything that we wanted - the libertarian platform is unlikely to come to complete fruition due to the comprimises that politics requires, but there are a few choice pieces that would make our country better (ending the war on drugs, for example).
The differences between libertarians and anarchists:
1. Libertarians don't want to get rid of the whole government, just the parts that are useless. Anarchists want to dump the whole thing, including police and military forces that libertarians definitely want to keep around.
2. Anarchists are mainly idiots - look at all the anarchists protesting free trade and globalisation ("I'm an anarchist and I want more government intervention in trade!").
1. Libertarians don't want to get rid of the whole government, just the parts that are useless. Anarchists want to dump the whole thing, including police and military forces that libertarians definitely want to keep around.
2. Anarchists are mainly idiots - look at all the anarchists protesting free trade and globalisation ("I'm an anarchist and I want more government intervention in trade!").
point one is somewhat on track.
but point two is outrageously silly and needlessly offensive...
you seem to have never actually talked to anarchists involved with the movement against corporate/economic globalization. i can tell you they generally have something far more clever and thoughtful to say than the contents of that sarcastic quote. for-example, i have heard some open by saying they don't even agree with trade.
your implied simplification of globalization is unfortunate. there are definitely more ways to the approach it beyond the "fair trade" vs "free trade" debate. anarchists aren't so much anti-government as anti- hierarchal power structures that invariably cause suffering. as part of globalization, or rampant global capitalism, governments are often no longer the most important hierarchy affecting people and ultimately causing suffering. governments and corporations are now equal partners in crime, so to speak. they often collaborate in bringing neo-liberal policies to bear.
there is social/cultural globalization and the movement(s) you refer too generally don't touch upon this aspect very much (beyond its interplay with the economic side - e.g. homogenization of food options with global brands like coke and mcdonald's spreading everywhere). but essentially globalization is all about corporations and anarchists have every bit as much a fundamental disagreement with corporations as with governments. furthermore, although anarchists are often found among anti-corporate/economic globalization movements, be careful not to believe that they control these movements and stand for every bit of rhetoric they produce. it is a broad movement that certainly includes progressive democrats who would definitely support varieties of "government intervention" like you mention.
so the anarchists are there expressing disagreement with corporate globalization (which results in sweatshops, child labor, environmental destruction, privatization of public services like water etc) as well as national governments (G8 industrial superpowers) and increasingly powerful international governing bodies (such as the WTO) which foster it.
but point two is outrageously silly and needlessly offensive...
you seem to have never actually talked to anarchists involved with the movement against corporate/economic globalization. i can tell you they generally have something far more clever and thoughtful to say than the contents of that sarcastic quote. for-example, i have heard some open by saying they don't even agree with trade.
your implied simplification of globalization is unfortunate. there are definitely more ways to the approach it beyond the "fair trade" vs "free trade" debate. anarchists aren't so much anti-government as anti- hierarchal power structures that invariably cause suffering. as part of globalization, or rampant global capitalism, governments are often no longer the most important hierarchy affecting people and ultimately causing suffering. governments and corporations are now equal partners in crime, so to speak. they often collaborate in bringing neo-liberal policies to bear.
there is social/cultural globalization and the movement(s) you refer too generally don't touch upon this aspect very much (beyond its interplay with the economic side - e.g. homogenization of food options with global brands like coke and mcdonald's spreading everywhere). but essentially globalization is all about corporations and anarchists have every bit as much a fundamental disagreement with corporations as with governments. furthermore, although anarchists are often found among anti-corporate/economic globalization movements, be careful not to believe that they control these movements and stand for every bit of rhetoric they produce. it is a broad movement that certainly includes progressive democrats who would definitely support varieties of "government intervention" like you mention.
so the anarchists are there expressing disagreement with corporate globalization (which results in sweatshops, child labor, environmental destruction, privatization of public services like water etc) as well as national governments (G8 industrial superpowers) and increasingly powerful international governing bodies (such as the WTO) which foster it.
If you end all trade, you end up with the government being the only power left to fight. Also, billions would die.
If you then fight the government and win, then trade will start up again on its own, and corporations will start to grow.
I continue to have a low opinion of anarchists - the only world that would make them happy is a world that is impossible to build, and if they started to get what they wanted there would be massive death and distruction.
Comments
Originally posted by sCreeD
So... John Stossel is intelligent & being a Libertarian is a good thing?
He did a much better job than the only other libertarian to show up on the daily show (that asshole who wants to give toy guns to schoolkids).
But I was dissapointed when he appeared to support the wiretaps - not very Libertarian of him.
Originally posted by Anders
It was The Colbert Report
One of the better ones:
"Why do THEY have to be the only government? Thats monopoly. I would be able to make a better government"
"I can´t see why I can´t fly my plane at 30000 feet in the same vector as your plane. Won´t the invincible hand somehow figure that one out?"
I listened to the video (couldn't see it) but Stossel remained true to the Libertarian ideals, as far as I could tell, despite it being a comedy interview format. Go, John!
Originally posted by SpamSandwich
I missed that one. Do you know where there might be a viewable video for this?
(Not to belabor the point, but did you know these people are Libertarians? ... Dave Barry, Art Bell, Neal Boortz, Drew Carey, Clint Eastwood, Dennis Miller, P. J. O'Rourke, Trey Parker, Penn and Teller, Kurt Russell, Dwight Yoakam...)
Ever notice that only wealthy people are libertarians?
Originally posted by SpamSandwich
Dude, John Stossel is the only high-profile Libertarian (other than Howard Stern) left. If he got axed, there would be no more intelligent people on television.
Uhhh, so only libertarians are intelligent? Since when does a philosophy of ME ME ME denote intelligence?
Originally posted by SpamSandwich
I missed that one. Do you know where there might be a viewable video for this?
(Not to belabor the point, but did you know these people are Libertarians? ... Dave Barry, Art Bell, Neal Boortz, Drew Carey, Clint Eastwood, Dennis Miller, P. J. O'Rourke, Trey Parker, Penn and Teller, Kurt Russell, Dwight Yoakam...)
Oh well that settles it. If those people are libertarians then it MUST be hip thing to believe in.
I do like that most libertarians don't want the government to be legislating the personal lives of citizens. Or lately, that they oppose legislating the bodily functions of citizens.
Originally posted by melgross
Ever notice that only wealthy people are libertarians?
That is not true - more like most fameous people are rich.
But libertarian governments only make sense in wealthy countries.
Originally posted by e1618978
That is not true - more like most fameous people are rich.
But libertarian governments only make sense in wealthy countries.
There is a great deal of equivalence there.
But in that country, EVERYONE would have to be wealthy. There isn't any country like that.
A libertarian is akin to an anarchist, but with a less terrifying name.
Originally posted by ThinkExpensive
Now what exactly do they mean by 'actual video ipod.' From what i've seen, the current iPods play video quite well.
HAH Welcome to 1995 in your pocket, with resolution like that it is a wonder any one has bought any more than 2 shows out of the itunes vid store.
Originally posted by melgross
There is a great deal of equivalence there.
But in that country, EVERYONE would have to be wealthy. There isn't any country like that.
A libertarian is akin to an anarchist, but with a less terrifying name.
That is assuming that we got everything that we wanted - the libertarian platform is unlikely to come to complete fruition due to the comprimises that politics requires, but there are a few choice pieces that would make our country better (ending the war on drugs, for example).
The differences between libertarians and anarchists:
1. Libertarians don't want to get rid of the whole government, just the parts that are useless. Anarchists want to dump the whole thing, including police and military forces that libertarians definitely want to keep around.
2. Anarchists are mainly idiots - look at all the anarchists protesting free trade and globalisation ("I'm an anarchist and I want more government intervention in trade!").
Originally posted by melgross
Ever notice that only wealthy people are libertarians?
I'm not wealthy, but then I'm not on TV
Originally posted by e1618978
1. Libertarians don't want to get rid of the whole government, just the parts that are useless. Anarchists want to dump the whole thing, including police and military forces that libertarians definitely want to keep around.
2. Anarchists are mainly idiots - look at all the anarchists protesting free trade and globalisation ("I'm an anarchist and I want more government intervention in trade!").
point one is somewhat on track.
but point two is outrageously silly and needlessly offensive...
you seem to have never actually talked to anarchists involved with the movement against corporate/economic globalization. i can tell you they generally have something far more clever and thoughtful to say than the contents of that sarcastic quote. for-example, i have heard some open by saying they don't even agree with trade.
your implied simplification of globalization is unfortunate. there are definitely more ways to the approach it beyond the "fair trade" vs "free trade" debate. anarchists aren't so much anti-government as anti- hierarchal power structures that invariably cause suffering. as part of globalization, or rampant global capitalism, governments are often no longer the most important hierarchy affecting people and ultimately causing suffering. governments and corporations are now equal partners in crime, so to speak. they often collaborate in bringing neo-liberal policies to bear.
there is social/cultural globalization and the movement(s) you refer too generally don't touch upon this aspect very much (beyond its interplay with the economic side - e.g. homogenization of food options with global brands like coke and mcdonald's spreading everywhere). but essentially globalization is all about corporations and anarchists have every bit as much a fundamental disagreement with corporations as with governments. furthermore, although anarchists are often found among anti-corporate/economic globalization movements, be careful not to believe that they control these movements and stand for every bit of rhetoric they produce. it is a broad movement that certainly includes progressive democrats who would definitely support varieties of "government intervention" like you mention.
so the anarchists are there expressing disagreement with corporate globalization (which results in sweatshops, child labor, environmental destruction, privatization of public services like water etc) as well as national governments (G8 industrial superpowers) and increasingly powerful international governing bodies (such as the WTO) which foster it.
Originally posted by nathan22t
point one is somewhat on track.
but point two is outrageously silly and needlessly offensive...
you seem to have never actually talked to anarchists involved with the movement against corporate/economic globalization. i can tell you they generally have something far more clever and thoughtful to say than the contents of that sarcastic quote. for-example, i have heard some open by saying they don't even agree with trade.
your implied simplification of globalization is unfortunate. there are definitely more ways to the approach it beyond the "fair trade" vs "free trade" debate. anarchists aren't so much anti-government as anti- hierarchal power structures that invariably cause suffering. as part of globalization, or rampant global capitalism, governments are often no longer the most important hierarchy affecting people and ultimately causing suffering. governments and corporations are now equal partners in crime, so to speak. they often collaborate in bringing neo-liberal policies to bear.
there is social/cultural globalization and the movement(s) you refer too generally don't touch upon this aspect very much (beyond its interplay with the economic side - e.g. homogenization of food options with global brands like coke and mcdonald's spreading everywhere). but essentially globalization is all about corporations and anarchists have every bit as much a fundamental disagreement with corporations as with governments. furthermore, although anarchists are often found among anti-corporate/economic globalization movements, be careful not to believe that they control these movements and stand for every bit of rhetoric they produce. it is a broad movement that certainly includes progressive democrats who would definitely support varieties of "government intervention" like you mention.
so the anarchists are there expressing disagreement with corporate globalization (which results in sweatshops, child labor, environmental destruction, privatization of public services like water etc) as well as national governments (G8 industrial superpowers) and increasingly powerful international governing bodies (such as the WTO) which foster it.
If you end all trade, you end up with the government being the only power left to fight. Also, billions would die.
If you then fight the government and win, then trade will start up again on its own, and corporations will start to grow.
I continue to have a low opinion of anarchists - the only world that would make them happy is a world that is impossible to build, and if they started to get what they wanted there would be massive death and distruction.