Any Libertarians in the house ?

I don't know much about these types, but I think it is where everyone has to pull their own weight, am I close ?

Libertarian party:

US party est'd 1971. Opposes laws which limits human behaviour, advocates free market economy without govt regulation or assistance. Opposes govt spending on welfare etc. Favours neutral foreign policy and withdrawal from United Nations. In 1980 US presidential elections Libertarian candidate polled 920,000 votes. Has steadily declined since Reaganomics was deployed. ...

Hmm, appearantly their not all bad, how come so few in number ?

What does either of the Big Parties have over them ?

They're better liars.

Ya, but that's just a matter of experiance...give the new guys a chance.

Opposing laws that limit human behavior will do them in every time. Most Americans approve of the government interfering in (controling) their neighbors lives.

Does it have to be the Federal government, couldn't those worried about neighbors simply herd up in Home Owners Assosiations and such ?

the reasonthe libertarians get no traction is because they dont believe in all the corporate welfare going to the corporatons.....because of that they dont get the huge corrupt lobby efforts and funds from the corporations that are given mainly to the republicans and the dems second behind them

I see that Ayn Rand's book "Atlas Shrugged" will be made into a movie. From what I understand, Ayn Rand's ideas are, to a point, the basis for a part of the Libertarian philosophy.
One of the big obstacles to third party establishment is the way the tax campaign funds are allocated to the other two entrenched parties.

Oregonian,

I used to be a semi-Libertarian. Unfortunately it had the effect of wasting my vote and allowing scumbag Republicans get elected who have used their power to help transfer all wealth to the already wealthy. I've been voting for a bevy of Democrats ever since, mainly as a defense mechanism to try to keep Republican slime from over-taking all aspects of American life.

There's a lot about Libertarian philosophy to like, unless you're already deeply wired into either corporate or social welfare. The one thing about Libertarianism I most opposed is the complete lack of public resources. I mean, sure, it would be possible to have private toll roads everywhere, but it's a lot more efficient to have well planned public road systems. I also like the concept of public ownership of national parks, forests, and water, which Libertarianism would convert all of those to private ownership to the highest bidder.

Further, as I've become older, I think my human compassion has increased, and I'm not opposed to a reasonable degree of social welfare. Yeah, I do hate welfare cheats, but we know it's the exceptions to the rule that make the news stories. I do believe that the extensive corporate welfare will bring our nation down long before social welfare does.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo g.;

The private ownership of parks/water thing would probably work out because groups of people who care the most would join forces to get control of what they care about.......

Something similar would have to happen with transportation too, even if it would work on paper though......how to make the switch ?

Excuse me? Do you honestly think that's a good idea? There is NO PUBLIC OVERSIGHT in those situations. The Nature Conservancy is a perfect example... buy up some land to "protect" and develop it for your rich contributors to have estates on and remove any previously held access to the public in perpetuity.

No fricken thanks!

AuntyM;

So you do find some comfort hiding behind W's skirt ?

What's is that supposed to mean or do you even know?

I don't buy into anyone's agenda. Not even the "save the land" scammers.

Heh, read your post above.....you feel more comfortable with the current arrangement than with "NO PUBLIC OVERSIGHT"...


I quipped something like you don't mind hiding behind W's skirt, how did you not make the connection ?

What you're implying may make some sort of sense to you, but it makes NONE to me. If you want to communicate here, you might want to be specific and not play stupid kid games.

The current "arrangement" is no thanks to Bush. He and his administration have neither encouraged nor discouraged these land trusts and their activities.

These land trusts are controlled by hand selected board members that make all the decisions. They don't answer to anyone but their large donors. If you think that's how land and water issues should be decided, you don't deserve the liberty you've been given.

This is not a partisan issue, so don't try to make it one. These rich donors come from both sides of the fence and they want to be Lords and Lady's, keeping it for themselves, like the Britain of old.

Oh, and we give them huge tax right offs to pull their crap.

Again, no fricken thanks.

Okay, I'll try to explain my remark in more detail, and I'm not trying to hurt your feelings or be too mean either........


We were discussing what it would be like living in a Libertarian society, where Uncle Sugar would be mostly gone........you expressed fear over who gets to do what, and I made the comment about you feeling safer behind W's skirt........

You did seem to favor the status quo over the system being discussed, and I thought it somewhat humorous to point that out since you generally seem to think Sadam himself would be a better President than W.

At this point in the delivery I will concede that the humor is gone, probably with a facial expression or tone of voice I could have done better.....

I think you assume way more than you should, are mixing apples and oranges and probably have some concept of a libertarian society that's different than mine. So far, I've found no humor in your posts. Only the inexperience of youth.

I guess you are implying that you think you have both age and wisdom on me, is that what they call smug ?


When someone makes a funny at my expense I enjoy the funny, and start paying closer attention...

A funny? It's funny you put Bush in a skirt. It's funny that you choose to hide behind the skirts of female troops doing your fighting for you in two wars.

What are you reffering to with this remark ?

"It's funny that you posted an opinion without any fore thought and then tried to weasle out of being shown the error of your thinking with innuendos you can't support."

Your diversionary tactic/comment of me hiding behind a skirt was to avoid acknowledging my challenge to your above statement.

"would probably work out" tells me you put little thought into your statement.

Having "land barons" control large tracts of land and water would be a huge mistake, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why. It also doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out you were trying to deflect deserved criticism.

I guess I may have went a little too quickly there.....


In our discussion of a Libertarian society I thought we were assuming private ownership of pretty much everything, and I think people with similar interests would join together to make whatever impact they desire.........

I think you are saying that all the bad people will buy all the good stuff that you want, and leave you with no President to condemn for it.......

In our imaginary Libertarian society supply and demand economics will really be powerfull....no Uncle Sugar interfering with those pesky subsidies and lucrative contracts, so a large group of motivated citizens will swing a bigger hammer......

Sure, timber companies will still manage their land in the interest of sustained yield, instead of trying to grow 600 year old forests.......

There will still be millions of people who want millions of acres of land set aside untouched by mankind...........

If a particular company goes bad, then consumers will avoid their product until they get the message........

I may have a little more faith in mankind's ability to think than you, but I only expect that under a completely different government, the way things are now, thinking isn't necessary, Uncle Sugar likes dummies, and hands out the cash to keep them alive and lazy.

You did because you are posting from the perspective of a theoretical situation that does not, and will not ever exist.

I'm posting from the prospective of having knowledge of situations and acts that have already occured.

People with similar interests like fishing? Since when have fishermen joined together to make any impact other than harvesting? Damned few of them do anything positive to save what they supposedly love. Been there. Have the Tshirt.

I am saying that only the people who can afford to participate in aquisitions will be the ones with access. Your comment about condemning a president is out in left field along with the rest of your silly assumptions. This and past presidents have almost no impact in this scenario.

You probably ought to give up your attempt at making this a partisan argument.

Right now, it looks like "Muslims" have the biggest hammer. The coporate whores will vaporize them before allowing them to be in charge.

In theory, they won't HAVE any land. Richer interests would have pooled their resources to "save and protect" forests. Till they need money for more aquisitions to save. Then, they'll strip it bare.

And they will be able to wish in one hand and sh!t in the other to see which gets full faster. It won't be untouched. The rich will have their finger prints all over it.

You really need to get out more. :rolleyes:

Faith? That isn't faith. It's wishful thinking based on your youthful inexperience.