View Story | 464 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
It really depends on how you define "social policy". I suspect MB was talking about things like drug laws.
But...no FDA, no public hospitals, no public education, etc. Hard-liner Libertarians are dumber than Communists.
Live Free Or Do Whatever It Takes So I Don't Die
by nasarius on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 05:12:38 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
...just like other groups - there are moderates and radicals and extremists. The first time I interview one 35 years ago, he was all for eliminating the government military and putting defense into the private sphere. Looks like he's on the way to getting his wish.
I consider regulation an economic/environmental issue. But, of course, public schools falls under that, and that's not a libertarian point of view I support.
I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain
by Meteor Blades on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 05:17:05 PM PDT
I saw Mr. Paul on Jon Stewart last night-- the only tv I ever watch. He said something about getting rid of medicare and then something about the free market regulating itself.
Seems to me that's exactly how we're in the multiple messes we're in now: because we've let the free market regulate itself and regulate our environmental policy, our foreign policy, our social policy... and in that way I spose you could say social issues were economic issues.
But to libertarians, the idea that everyone's child deserves an education even if the parents haven't got a few thousand dollars to spend on it is socialism.
And in a way, that's just what it is...
-9.0, -8.3. History is more or less bunk.--Henry Ford Henry Ford is more or less bunk.--history
by SensibleShoes on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 05:27:23 PM PDT
...with that word "socialism," as long as "democratic" is attached to it in more than a casual way.
by Meteor Blades on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 06:14:27 PM PDT
; )
Alito. Kennedy. Roberts. Scalia. Thomas. More important than ever: ERA NOW!
by greeseyparrot on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 06:33:56 PM PDT
We only need to look at what stagnant cesspools that Norway, Denmark, The Netherlands, Canada, etc., have become to put the lie to Democratic Socialsm.
El Salvador and Somalia are superior models, in every respect. Libertarian paradise!
/snark
No more Republican rule.
by HarveyMilk on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 06:49:47 PM PDT
I've seen this comment posted seriously on other message boards. Someone was trying to tell me how great Somalia is, because there are some privately built roads.
"A problem facing any American is a problem facing all Americans." Obama
by otto on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 08:18:19 PM PDT
On my path from Reaganite to full-blown liberal Ron Paul was a normal step in the progression...
by Sam the Wolfdog on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 07:36:12 PM PDT
But I voted for him because he was running as a Libertarian Party candidate, not on his own merits, so much.
I don't apologize for that vote, either. If Democratic candidates want my vote, they have to pass at least the bright line test. They have to be generally in favor of the Bill of Rights, for example. Most of them are really iffy on fundamental personal freedoms, like the freedom from unreasonable search. You know, those are freedoms you might not be able to ever get back once they're gone.
And I shudder when the Democratic Party runs a candidate that I can't tell from the Republican challenger on any issue that matters to me.
If they want my vote, then they have to get it the old fashioned way.
Think, liberally.
by Liberal Thinking on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 12:21:05 AM PDT
there are moderates and radicals and extremists.
Back in the pre-blog days, Libertarians were the dominant force in almost any political discussion on the net. From what I've seen, the proportion of extremists is a lot higher than in other groups. Unsurprising, if you consider that the crazy is established in their platform.
A few examples...
We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.
That sounds nice, until you realize that taxes are included in "force" (oh my god, men with guns steal your moneys!!!!111one).
Only individuals and private entities have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes on the valid rights of others. Resource management and planning are the responsibility and right of the legitimate owners of land, water and other natural resources.
Pollute your own land all you want. If it seeps into your neighbor's land...well, they'll have to take it up in court. Hopefully they're not dead by then.
Therefore we oppose all intervention by government into the area of economics. The only proper role of existing governments in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected.
Labor laws? Ha! Anti-trust laws? No way.
And so on.
It really gives you some perspective to "debate" these purist Libertarians.
by nasarius on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 07:52:16 PM PDT
It's good to see that someone else remembers the bad old days of political "discussion" on the Net in the 80s and 90s (he said, stroking his long white beard).
Darcy Burner needs you... now more than ever.
by phenry on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 08:05:50 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 464 comments