Ron Paul seems to be cool!

[Berzerker]

Q. Hey, what's the difference between Libertarians and Communists?

A. Communism has succeeded in actually producing stable, if not rich, societies. Libertarianism is so kooky that no-one's ever going to go for it.

Would you call the Declaration of Independence a liberal, conservative, or libertarian document? Aside from slavery (not the commie version), would you call the US Constitution a liberal, conservative, or libertarian document? Its no coincidence Paul has by far the best track record when it comes to keeping the oath of office.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Agathon
Libertarianism is so kooky that no-one's ever going to go for it.

Unfortunately people fall for it. It just fails so fast that they abandone it. So no Libertarian society can ever actually be created.

[Berzerker]

I didn't read past this ****.

Good night. I might come back tomorrow.

I will fart again in your general direction

You mean NATO and the WTO, right?

NATO and the UN, I'm unaware of American blood being spilled for the WTO. Well, aside from cuts and bruises of protesters picketing their meetings.

[Berzerker]

umm...the reason we dont see libertarian societies everywhere is because most people dont really believe in freedom... That much is painfully obvious...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
umm...the reason we dont see libertarian societies everywhere is because most people dont really believe in freedom... That much is painfully obvious...

That's because it doesn't work. I thought I said that part.

[Berzerker]

No Kid, the people who dont believe in freedom came to that conclusion based on culture, religion, ideology, racism, or some other bugaboo. People aren't taught to be free... Aside from slavery, which the South did not need to survive, the USA was more libertarian than liberal or conservative for most of its early history...and we obviously survived.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
No Kid, the people who dont believe in freedom came to that conclusion based on culture, religion, ideology, racism, or some other bugaboo. People aren't taught to be free... Aside from slavery, which the South did not need to survive, the USA was more libertarian than liberal or conservative for most of its early history...and we obviously survived.

The US started getting less libertarian from the very beginning. It had nothing to do with the things that you mentioned. It was because of the desire to become a great nation, manifest destiny and all that. We wanted that more than freedom.

[Berzerker]

Of course there were anti-freedom forces in the country (show me a country without busy-bodies and blue noses), Jefferson wrote a letter to John Adams around 1820 lamenting the nation's first prohibition movement. So what? Was the country teetering on the edge of destruction and giving up the freedom to drink booze was required for our survival? Apparently not, the movement stopped short of prohibition. That changes nothing about our founding documents and the Framers' intent and does not support your contention that libertarianism cant survive, it did in the very country we call home

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Berzerker
umm...the reason we dont see libertarian societies everywhere is because most people dont really believe in freedom... That much is painfully obvious...

that is very true.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Would you call the Declaration of Independence a liberal, conservative, or libertarian document? Aside from slavery (not the commie version), would you call the US Constitution a liberal, conservative, or libertarian document? Its no coincidence Paul has by far the best track record when it comes to keeping the oath of office.

I'd call it an expression of Enlightenment liberalism.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Berzerker
umm...the reason we dont see libertarian societies everywhere is because most people dont really believe in freedom... That much is painfully obvious...

No. They believe in freedom, just not in the kind of freedom that would destroy all social institutions and leave us in a Hobbesian state of nature.

Libertarians have to explain how their state would deal with collective action problems and market failures without introducing the kind of coercive state they claim to despise. Pretending these things don't exist is not a viable option.

That's why the communist societies worked. It's better to have a really bad coercive state than no coercive state at all.

[CrONoS]

@agathon

I pretty sure you know that if you had a debates against a libertarians, a paleo conservatives and you. You would have the same critics of libertarianism than a paleo conservatives. So your intellectual ally about this issue; would be a fellow conservatives.

Which would be a kind of funny;

btw; interesting discussion guy's!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by CrONoS


@agathon

I pretty sure you know that if you had a debates against a libertarians, a paleo conservatives and you. You would have the same critics of libertarianism than a paleo conservatives. So your intellectual ally about this issue; would be a fellow conservatives.

Which would be a kind of funny;

btw; interesting discussion guy's!

I rate the Libertarians higher than the conservatives. At least Libertarians can tell you what they actually stand for.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Berzerker
No Kid, the people who dont believe in freedom came to that conclusion based on culture, religion, ideology, racism, or some other bugaboo. People aren't taught to be free... Aside from slavery, which the South did not need to survive, the USA was more libertarian than liberal or conservative for most of its early history...and we obviously survived.

That's because when you attempt to strip away culture, religion, and ideology you get chaos, gangs and organized crime, and then a dictatorship to "restore order." Kinda like what happens when the meta-stable communist version of libertarianism finally collapses.

[Aeson]