Announcement

**Bugs ****ing Bunny** · November 6, 2003, 17:22

You'll never cut it as a libertarian.

**Caligastia** · November 6, 2003, 17:26

I know. Telling people what to do is so much easier than letting them think for themselves.

Oh, and in case you haven't seen it before, this article fits perfectly with this thread. Good for a laugh too.

**Juggernaut** · November 6, 2003, 22:29

Berzerker: Try to think about why you are so strong minded about drug legalization and if you think you are so right, why do have such a perseverance in creating drug threads, why don't you just think "fools" and let it pass sometimes.

Also try to think about why the word escapism causes such rage inside of you. Park Avenue, this goes for you too.

**GePap** · November 6, 2003, 22:45

IN the 5000 years plus of recorded human hisotry there has never been one single libertarian society, while almost every other permutation has been covered. That ladies and gentlement is all the proof needed against Libertarianism.

Nice, and utterly irrelevant theory.

**Urban Ranger** · November 6, 2003, 22:46

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
True 'nuff. They are born that way. However, if there was no government, they wouldn't be rich. They'd be robbed.

Or they'd richer, since they'd robbing other people.

**Lawrence of Arabia** · November 6, 2003, 23:22

I just wanted to say something. I'm tired of seeing all the social/ commiecrats calling us selfish. Libertarians arnt necessairly selfish. I donated money to help the victims of the SD county fires. On the other hand, they do not want to see your money taken from you without you wanting it taken.

**Urban Ranger** · November 6, 2003, 23:43

They are not necessarily selfish, but they don't want taxes. They want police and fire services, but they don't want to pay for them. They want national defenses, but they don't want to pay for them, either.

Okay, I am confused.

**Berzerker** · November 7, 2003, 00:11

Juggernaut -

Berzerker: Try to think about why you are so strong minded about drug legalization and if you think you are so right, why do have such a perseverance in creating drug threads, why don't you just think "fools" and let it pass sometimes.

You mean I should not try to advance my viewpoint? Should everyone else do that? hmm...silence may be golden but when some people are putting millions in cages for exercising their freedom, the moral thing to do is speak up. On the other hand, if everyone followed your advice, drugs would still be legal... And so would murder, slavery, and...well...you get the point...

Gepap -

IN the 5000 years plus of recorded human hisotry there has never been one single libertarian society, while almost every other permutation has been covered. That ladies and gentlement is all the proof needed against Libertarianism.

Nice, and utterly irrelevant theory.

I'd say the northern US before the Civil War was largely libertarian except for several laws prohibiting personal behavior like homosexuality... But if the year was 600 BC, would you argue democracy was a nice, and utterly irrelevant theory?

UR - first, congrats on your "promotion".

They are not necessarily selfish, but they don't want taxes. They want police and fire services, but they don't want to pay for them. They want national defenses, but they don't want to pay for them, either.

Okay, I am confused.

Confusion often stems from false assumptions. Libertarians don't oppose user fees/taxes for these services. Some even support forced taxation for these, and citing these services - a common tactic from people on your side - to detract from what libertarians despise - the massive forced "re-distribution" of wealth as payback for votes - is illogical.

**Berzerker** · November 7, 2003, 00:16

Many liberals vehemently oppose massive subsidies to the corporate donors of politicians. Are they selfish? Why not? Why the double standard? Why is it selfish to oppose handouts to one group of people and "unselfish" to support handouts to another group?

**St Leo** · November 7, 2003, 00:56

Many liberals vehemently oppose massive subsidies to the corporate donors of politicians.

A corporation is not a group of people. It is a single entity.

I wouldn't necessarily object to a handout going exclusively to the employees of a particular corporation.

I'd say the northern US before the Civil War was largely libertarian except for several laws prohibiting personal behavior like homosexuality...

I'd disagree. Libertarianism hasn't been practised since the development of agrarian societies and it is not reasonable to expect it to make any sort of comeback.

What is reasonable is to expect a social liberal country to provide to its citizens all the disadvantages that libertarianism used to offer without any of the drawbacks.

A nomadic lifestyle actually offered far more leisure time, demanded far less labour, and led to a healthier life than the agricultural mode of life that followed.

**David Floyd** · November 7, 2003, 00:56

By the way, what's wrong with being selfish? All "selfish" means is acting in your own self-interest, right? And what's wrong with that?

**Berzerker** · November 7, 2003, 01:21

St Leo -

A corporation is not a group of people. It is a single entity.

It IS a group of people with a special legal status.

I wouldn't necessarily object to a handout going exclusively to the employees of a particular corporation.

Huh? You mean there are people in that entity?

I've got news for ya, many liberals (and libertarians) despise corporate welfare. Are they selfish?

I'd disagree. Libertarianism hasn't been practised since the development of agrarian societies and it is not reasonable to expect it to make any sort of comeback.

You disagree but provide no refutation. The fact remains, the north was economically very libertarian.

What is reasonable is to expect a social liberal country to provide to its citizens all the disadvantages that libertarianism used to offer without any of the drawbacks.

You want disadvantages without drawbacks?

Sorry, just found that an amusing way of putting it. Tell me, Leo, whats the unemployment rate in Europe? Is that a disadvantage or a drawback?

A nomadic lifestyle actually offered far more leisure time, demanded far less labour, and led to a healthier life than the agricultural mode of life that followed.

Perhaps (I don't buy that though), but it was that agricultural system that was a needed stepping stone to the increasing quality of life we see today.

**Theben** · November 7, 2003, 04:02

Originally posted by NeOmega
???? How do you figure? Did I say I am in school? Did I say I was going to school? Do you need to go to school to figure this one out? :P

So either you went to school and you've been justly rewarded with a $9,000/year career, or you never went to school because your parents would rather spend all their money on your girlfriend's parents.

Jeez, you suck.

**Juggernaut** · November 7, 2003, 04:16

Originally posted by David Floyd
By the way, what's wrong with being selfish? All "selfish" means is acting in your own self-interest, right? And what's wrong with that?

You tend to get bad conscience?

Let me ask you a question: why do you think about this so much?

Have you have ever convinced anyone about being selfish. You are very good at debating...

**Juggernaut** · November 7, 2003, 04:24

Berzerker: You should always speak up when you feel something's wrong but these people have heard your arguments over and over again.

They are not dumb, they listen to you and they feel this subject is very important to them as well.

They read the same lines and facts from you over and over again and try to think find new viewpoints (there aren't any left)

How come they just don't agree? They want to agree...

Announcement

Every individual should be a libretarian at heart

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment