Across the internet, specifically this site, Digg, Reddit, etc... there's this growing fad of labeling yourself as a Libertarian.

Let me ask you "Libertarians" this, why even bother? Do you vote for the libertarian on the ballot during the elections and contribute to the 0.001% of the vote he might get? What's the point? Its like voting for Nader... hippies who want to act rebellious but essentially contribute nothing to the system.

I just don't understand the point in labeling yourself something so non-existent in the political system. Do you guys seriously think wearing Ron Paul shirts is going to demolish the massive government already in place? Does being able to criticize every single thing both democracts and republicans do make you feel good inside because you arn't in the same loop?

It just comes off as arrogant. "Oh, I don't believe in things like that... I'm a libertarian" <--- while sticking your nose up and using the snobbiest voice you can imagine. What are you guys trying to contribute, whats the goal? Because it seriously just sounds like "I like being different because it makes me feel special. I look down on people on internet forums while maintaining my doublestandard of not applying to political parties that -actually- contribute to politics in the US."

People on the cutting edge often seem like snobs to the status quo. They often seem to be the odd men out. Change doesn't happen overnight -- it took over a century to turn America into the fascist/socialist mess it is now, it just might take that long to fix it.

However, I am hopeful. Twenty-five years ago I was telling people I'm a libertarian, taht liberty was the way of the future, and that socialism was doomed. I predicted that the soviet union would not last till the end of the century (that being the 20th), and that China would probably go capitalist. They all laughed at me, and no one even knew what a libertarian was.

Here we are, libertarians are well known enough for you to call us snobs, the USSR is gone, and China is neo-fascist  and semi-capitalist.

Things are ahead of schedule as far as I am concerned.

Tech College indoctrinates our youth into being Libertarians as every other colleges indoctrinate our youth into being Liberals.  When it comes to the technical field, the majority are Libertarians.  If you want to stop Libertarians, you should start with the colleges.

Flip Question for you.

Whats more of a wasted vote. Voteing for a thirdparty that Probably won't win.

Or. Voteing for a Main party that are getting closer and closer to beeing the same thing just with diffren't views on Social things? Because they sure as hell look the same with the check book.

You shouldn't let the minority few of any political entity frame your entire perception. A lot of libertarians vote Republican and Democrat alike, and actively participate in the political system we already have. Ron Paul is always a great example, he has no issues infusing the Republican party with his ideology and identifying himself as one despite such night and day stances on things such as the wars.

Treat the libertarian fringe the same way you would the liberal and conservative fringe. Realize that they're not apart of the greater, cooperative America, which believes the best of one another and has the best intentions for one another.

Originally posted by Ekibiogami

Flip Question for you.

Whats more of a wasted vote. Voteing for a thirdparty that Probably won't win.

Or. Voteing for a Main party that are getting closer and closer to beeing the same thing just with diffren't views on Social things? Because they sure as hell look the same with the check book.

You should never vote for a specific party one way or another. A vote for Ron Paul is different from a vote for McCain. Even though Ron Paul lost last year, he made strides in power due to his performance and has been able to do things like accomplish getting quite a lot of signatures on his Audit the Fed deal.

The parties can be infused with new thoughts, so long as people vote in a way that demands it. The whole Blue Dogs inception is a prime example of what can happen after about a decade of exactly that.

Originally posted by Ekibiogami

Flip Question for you.

Whats more of a wasted vote. Voteing for a thirdparty that Probably won't win.

Or. Voteing for a Main party that are getting closer and closer to beeing the same thing just with diffren't views on Social things? Because they sure as hell look the same with the check book.

The indepedant with 0% chance to win is a much more wasted vote.

It's easy sit here and say republicans are democrats are the same flith, but they really arnt... look at the voting records.. they vote differently on most things. And its absurd to think that McCain would be doing the same things Obama is right now. As much as want to blame the 2-party issue on everything, the right and left DO have differences and voting does matter, even if not a huge sense. Yes, Obama will abuse executive powers just like McCain/Bush would, yes he will break or ignore most campaign promises. However, you can be sure that the liberal (Obama) will spend more time with domestic issues like health where a conservaitve like McCain would leave domestic and spend most waking moments worrying about places like Iran.

The differences are there... so voting DOES matter regardless of how cynical we want to sound.

 Libertarians love telling you how things should be done but give them any power and you'll see the many flaws in their logic.

Originally posted by Netzoko

Originally posted by Ekibiogami

Flip Question for you.

Whats more of a wasted vote. Voteing for a thirdparty that Probably won't win.

Or. Voteing for a Main party that are getting closer and closer to beeing the same thing just with diffren't views on Social things? Because they sure as hell look the same with the check book.

 

The indepedant with 0% chance to win is a much more wasted vote.

It's easy sit here and say republicans are democrats are the same flith, but they really arnt... look at the voting records.. they vote differently on most things. And its absurd to think that McCain would be doing the same things Obama is right now. As much as want to blame the 2-party issue on everything, the right and left DO have differences and voting does matter, even if not a huge sense. Yes, Obama will abuse executive powers just like McCain/Bush would, yes he will break or ignore most campaign promises. However, you can be sure that the liberal (Obama) will spend more time with domestic issues like health where a conservaitve like McCain would leave domestic and spend most waking moments worrying about places like Iran.

The differences are there... so voting DOES matter regardless of how cynical we want to sound.

So... Basicly its ok to vote for one side who wants to kill the country but give everyone roses, Or vote for the side that wants to kill the country Security...

No. I really dont see any diffrance at this point.

Because it lets people know your political views in general instead of having to guess at it, that is why you would use any sort of label.

And I don't buy into the "why don't you vote for the parties that can get elected" junk, sure they can get elected but if you don't like the options then why pick them.  Because you could join one of the other two parties and you could vote for canidates from them but if they don't represent your views then what service are you really doing to yourself.

Personally my views fall into libertarian territory but I am not a member of the party nor vote for them, precisely because the party is full or wacky anarchists, psuedo conservatives, conspiracy nuts and Ron Paul supporters that would rather run off at the mouth about freedom and tyranny at a very shallow level rather than anything practical.

But saying you are not one of the two main parties or ideologies  and critique their retarded policies that fail over and over and have ideas of your own isn't a waste, sure especially on this site people throw the term around a lot and perhaps there is the sense that you are rebellious because you don't call yourself a republican, which is what most the self proclaimed libertarians are honestly, which annoys me as someone who uses the label too to have to be lumped in with the same people which reflects poorly on me.  So considering certain people, it is kind of pretentious, but in general no I don't think so at all, there is a difference between people who have ideas verses people who like to complain, unfortunately the latter groups themselves with the former a lot especially in alternative ideologies.

Originally posted by Netzoko

Across the internet, specifically this site, Digg, Reddit, etc... there's this growing fad of labeling yourself as a Libertarian.

Let me ask you "Libertarians" this, why even bother? Do you vote for the libertarian on the ballot during the elections and contribute to the 0.001% of the vote he might get? What's the point? Its like voting for Nader... hippies who want to act rebellious but essentially contribute nothing to the system.

I just don't understand the point in labeling yourself something so non-existent in the political system. Do you guys seriously think wearing Ron Paul shirts is going to demolish the massive government already in place? Does being able to criticize every single thing both democracts and republicans do make you feel good inside because you arn't in the same loop?

It just comes off as arrogant. "Oh, I don't believe in things like that... I'm a libertarian" <--- while sticking your nose up and using the snobbiest voice you can imagine. What are you guys trying to contribute, whats the goal? Because it seriously just sounds like "I like being different because it makes me feel special. I look down on people on internet forums while maintaining my doublestandard of not applying to political parties that -actually- contribute to politics in the US."

I am not only a registered Libertarian, I was a representative for the Libertarian party. It is amusing that you would think that Libertarians come off as " above the other Parties", because for the most part, Libertarians are snubbed by the other parties.  The only reason they are not included in  most of the debates is because the other parties fear their impact. Most people  have no idea what the Libertarians represent, and dismiss them as " pothead tree hugging hippies" ( slander so no one will pay attention), when in fact, many Doctors, Nurses, and Educators are and have been Libertarians for many years.
 

It is not some fad, It has never been a "cool thing" to be Libertarian, and until Ron Pauls infiltration of the Republican party people for the most part ignored what Libertarians had to say, one of the reasons many Libertarians have become disheartened over the years.

Simply put, to be a Libertarian is to believe in self ownership, to not believe in victimless crime and believe in the core principles that all people have a right to freedom, as long as that freedom is not imposing upon anyone else's freedom. That is the difference between Libertarians and the other parties. If there is NO victim, there can be NO crime.

Libertarians ultimate goals are to give people back the freedoms that were unlawfully taken from them, prevent the majority from ever ruling the minority,  do away with victimless crimes, reduce the governments role into their daily lives, reduce the size of government, give people back their freedom to choose how to spend their money, restore the proper use of our military, That all live by the same laws, No one is above the law, and give people back their rights to land and property ownership.

 The government should only intervene when one person tries to interfere with the lives of others, when there is actually a victim or when our country is threatened by acts of war.  The federal governments primary role is to protect and uphold the Constitution and to settle interstate disputes, not rule the people. Both Republicans and Democrats appear to have forgotten this along the way, and relinqushed not only their duties as described by our founders but "took" what was prohibited by the laws that  this nation was founded upon.

Libertarians have made much progress as people become aware of what is actually happening, this movement in an increase in the Libertarian party is a direct result of people starting to pay attention and find out for themselves by watching C-span, reading the bills they are passing and actually seeing what they have been doing.  There ARE Libertarians being elected now, when it seemed impossible in the past, you can thank the corrupt politicians making a mess of things for that. The Libertarian party would have never gained this much momentum without all of those idiots in Washington really screwing things up.

We could only be so lucky to one day have a Libertarian majority in our government, you would finally see what " Freedom, Liberty, and Justice" were supposed to mean in the first place.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

 Libertarians love telling you how things should be done but give them any power and you'll see the many flaws in their logic.

?? would you like to elaborate on the "Flaws of Libertarianism"? LMAO * calls your bluff*

Not all of the people saying they are libertarian are from a country with a two-party system. Don't assume that every libertarian you meet on the internet is automatically American.

Originally posted by Praetoriani

Not all of the people saying they are libertarian are from a country with a two-party system. Don't assume that every libertarian you meet on the internet is automatically American.

It is the core belief in self ownership and freedom and non belief in victimless crime, I would hope more people than just Americans want these things.
 

Originally posted by Netzoko

I just don't understand the point in labeling yourself something so non-existent in the political system.

  So people are only allowed to vote for two candidates? You're the one who has been brainwashed, having grown up in a two-party system. There are other countries in the world with proportional representation to some degree; imagine having 10+ parties with different beliefs coming to decisions more quickly than they do in our system..

 Fiction? Nope. Reality in quite a few successful European countries. Does it say anywhere in our constitution that a presidential candidate must be selected from only the two dominant parties in the United States? No, yet people continue to only select from those two choices and then disparage others for choosing different candidates, since they claim that it's "pointless" to select others as they have no choice of winning. Even if they are discontent with their choice, they will choose the popular choice that most agrees with their ideals and likely reelect him (even if they are further discontented by his behavior) .

 Do you see irony in there at all? I think America's voting behavior is nothing short of insanity, if not some kind of product of mind control and media, since no rational human being would keep voting in officials and presidential candidates who belong to parties who have betrayed the American people repeatedly.

Originally posted by deviliscious

Originally posted by Sabiancym

 Libertarians love telling you how things should be done but give them any power and you'll see the many flaws in their logic.

 

?? would you like to elaborate on the "Flaws of Libertarianism"? LMAO * calls your bluff*

Libertarianism gives power to the wealthy.  You'll have the top 1% owning and controlling everything.  They'll be able to do what they want, when they want, to whoever they want because they'll have the monopoly and the money.

McDonalds wants to save money by using meat that is of questionable quality?  No problem, buy or bribe the private meat inspection companies.  Problem solved. 

Wal-Mart wants to increase it's profits?  No problem, lower the prices, buy out local shops, and force damn near everywhere else to close.  Will people put their foot down and stop shopping at wal-mart?  No, because they'll have the lowest price and tens of millions of employees who need Wal-Mart to stay open so they can provide for themselves. 

There are plenty of flaws. Almost all of them derive from Greed.

"How many libertarians does it take to screw in a light bulb?"

"None, the free market will do it."

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Libertarianism gives power to the wealthy.  You'll have the top 1% owning and controlling everything.  They'll be able to do what they want, when they want, to whoever they want because they'll have the monopoly and the money.

McDonalds wants to save money by using meat that is of questionable quality?  No problem, buy or bribe the private meat inspection companies.  Problem solved. 

 

Wal-Mart wants to increase it's profits?  No problem, lower the prices, buy out local shops, and force damn near everywhere else to close.  Will people put their foot down and stop shopping at wal-mart?  No, because they'll have the lowest price and tens of millions of employees who need Wal-Mart to stay open so they can provide for themselves. 

 

There are plenty of flaws. Almost all of them derive from Greed.

 

 

"How many libertarians does it take to screw in a light bulb?"

"None, the free market will do it."

 

Couple things

1) Capitalism is the transfer of wealth from the stupid to the smart

2) Free markets reward the do-ers of a society and punish the moochers, whereas socialism does the opposite

3) I don't think you fully understand how a free market works, both in theory and practice

-Larger the company the slower they adapt to new changes in the market place which opens up new avenues of opportunity for smaller players and startups

-Only natural monopolies will occur in sectors where it is beneficial to have only a few or one actors (ex. utilities).  Natural monopolies can still price themselves out of the market, Microsoft is a great example of a company that is a natural monopoly (OS developer) who has priced themselves out of many markets and helped fuel the development of Apple and Open Source programs like Open Office, and Open Workbench.

-I'm sure you're using today's monopolies as examples of why free markets don't work.  But you're wrong, each and every monopoly we have in this country is government sanctioned or protected in some way and are not the results of the free market.  Beit through law or regulations.  Show me one that is not!

4) Libertarians take unfettered free markets and atleast in the US, apply limited government regulations to help prevent fraud and coercion.  Many anti-trust laws already in place are great regulations that help prevent this.  Libertarians are NOT against anti-trust legislation in principle IF it is shown that it reduces fraud and coercion in the market place.

Note that in every case I say Libertarians I am talking about the American flavor that are also accurately described as Constitutional Moderates.

I think fringe libertarians have polluted opinion of the libertarian ideology.  No I am not a libertarian, but I have been reading some of the literature and there are some very interesting arguments - with some I might even agree. 

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by deviliscious

Originally posted by Sabiancym

 Libertarians love telling you how things should be done but give them any power and you'll see the many flaws in their logic.

 

?? would you like to elaborate on the "Flaws of Libertarianism"? LMAO * calls your bluff*

 

 

Libertarianism gives power to the wealthy.  You'll have the top 1% owning and controlling everything.  They'll be able to do what they want, when they want, to whoever they want because they'll have the monopoly and the money.

McDonalds wants to save money by using meat that is of questionable quality?  No problem, buy or bribe the private meat inspection companies.  Problem solved. 

 

Wal-Mart wants to increase it's profits?  No problem, lower the prices, buy out local shops, and force damn near everywhere else to close.  Will people put their foot down and stop shopping at wal-mart?  No, because they'll have the lowest price and tens of millions of employees who need Wal-Mart to stay open so they can provide for themselves. 

 

There are plenty of flaws. Almost all of them derive from Greed.

 

 

"How many libertarians does it take to screw in a light bulb?"

"None, the free market will do it."

 

You are so far off base. Libertarians constrains power not distributes it.  It removes the ability for those with money to rule over those without it by making everyone play by the same rules. I cannot even believe you just said that after looking at what both the Republican and Democratic parties have shown us in this regards. Both of those parties are brought to us by those that are wealthy  using their influence to create laws in their favor.  Under Libertarianism they would not be able to have such control, because those special rules put into place by both Demcrats and Republicans would be removed.
 

Libertarians believe in controlling the government powers whereas the other parties have allowed for the wealthy to use that to their advantage for years, it was exactly that influence that allowed things to become the way they are, a further separation of the classes. This would have to be reversed and the damage undone before true Libertarianism could be implmented. It was NOt the Libertarians that gave these huge financial giants their power, it was the two current ruling parties that caused this mess.

Walmart will lose their power when  the playing field is leveled so that local businesses would be allowed to compete. With our current admisitration, Walmart will even be exempt from the healthcare reform....

Big firms may be exempt from health reform

Which parties are backed by finacial giants? which parties have the funding of the wealthy to impose their will? I think you have it backwards... They do not want Libertarians in office because Libertarians would cut them off cold turkey and reverse all of the policies in their favor. The two ruling parties are ruling in favor of those that paid to bring them to us. Who is " paying " Libertarians to cut them off?

Originally posted by deviliscious

You are so far off base. Libertarians constrains power not distributes it.  It removes the ability for those with money to rule over those without it by making everyone play by the same rules. I cannot even believe you just said that after looking at what both the Republican and Democratic parties have shown us in this regards. Both of those parties are brought to us by those that are wealthy  using their influence to create laws in their favor.  Under Libertarianism they would not be able to have such control, because those special rules put into place by both Demcrats and Republicans would be removed.
 

Libertarians believe in controlling the government powers whereas the other parties have allowed for the wealthy to use that to their advantage for years, it was exactly that influence that allowed things to become the way they are, a further separation of the classes. This would have to be reversed and the damage undone before true Libertarianism could be implmented. It was NOt the Libertarians that gave these huge financial giants their power, it was the two current ruling parties that caused this mess.

Walmart will lose their power when  the playing field is leveled so that local businesses would be allowed to compete. With our current admisitration, Walmart will even be exempt from the healthcare reform....

Big firms may be exempt from health reform

Which parties are backed by finacial giants? which parties have the funding of the wealthy to impose their will? I think you have it backwards... They do not want Libertarians in office because Libertarians would cut them off cold turkey and reverse all of the policies in their favor. The two ruling parties are ruling in favor of those that paid to bring them to us. Who is " paying " Libertarians to cut them off?

Nope, I have to disagree.  You talk from a purely ideological viewpoint which does not stand the test of reality.  Corruption would still be there the venue would just change.  Your post reminds me about another issue I have with liberatarians, the "rose colored glasses affect", where everything will just be so much better and that everything will just fix itself.  Wealth has corrupted government?  Isn't the mantra of many a libertarian "mine".  How would you propose that a Libertarian controls the government powers?  Who are the ones that decides how these powers are to be defined and controled?  How is the playing field leveled with Wal-Mart and the mom and pops under liberatrianism?   

Originally posted by kiddyno071

Originally posted by deviliscious

You are so far off base. Libertarians constrains power not distributes it.  It removes the ability for those with money to rule over those without it by making everyone play by the same rules. I cannot even believe you just said that after looking at what both the Republican and Democratic parties have shown us in this regards. Both of those parties are brought to us by those that are wealthy  using their influence to create laws in their favor.  Under Libertarianism they would not be able to have such control, because those special rules put into place by both Demcrats and Republicans would be removed.
 

Libertarians believe in controlling the government powers whereas the other parties have allowed for the wealthy to use that to their advantage for years, it was exactly that influence that allowed things to become the way they are, a further separation of the classes. This would have to be reversed and the damage undone before true Libertarianism could be implmented. It was NOt the Libertarians that gave these huge financial giants their power, it was the two current ruling parties that caused this mess.

Walmart will lose their power when  the playing field is leveled so that local businesses would be allowed to compete. With our current admisitration, Walmart will even be exempt from the healthcare reform....

Big firms may be exempt from health reform

Which parties are backed by finacial giants? which parties have the funding of the wealthy to impose their will? I think you have it backwards... They do not want Libertarians in office because Libertarians would cut them off cold turkey and reverse all of the policies in their favor. The two ruling parties are ruling in favor of those that paid to bring them to us. Who is " paying " Libertarians to cut them off?

 

Nope, I have to disagree.  You talk from a purely ideological viewpoint which does not stand the test of reality.  Corruption would still be there the venue would just change.  Your post reminds me about another issue I have with liberatarians, the "rose colored glasses affect", where everything will just be so much better and that everything will just fix itself.  Wealth has corrupted government?  Isn't the mantra of many a libertarian "mine".  How would you propose that a Libertarian controls the government powers?  Who are the ones that decides how these powers are to be defined and controled?  How is the playing field leveled with Wal-Mart and the mom and pops under liberatrianism?   

What prompted the rise of wal-mart and the fall of mom & pop? It wasn't the free market, these things rose with the rise of big government. It was increasing the cost of production through government regulation that killed the small factories and caused the rise of the big ones and consolidation; it was the increase in the costs of goods sold through government regulation and intervention that led to the dying of the small retailer and the rise of the big one.

Libertarianism encourages VARIETY -- where you have natural  economies of scale (say certain large markets) you might end up with bigger businesses -- but there is always room for the small in other, less frequented locations and endeavors.

However when big government and big unions killed off the little guy, the big guy expanded.

People need to look beyond what IS and stop blaming WHAT IS on capitalism. We haven't had a truly capitalist system for a long time. Each government intervention has exacerbated the problems perceived that led to the intervention in the first place.

We need to look back at interventionism in order move forward into liberty.

Originally posted by kiddyno071

Originally posted by deviliscious

You are so far off base. Libertarians constrains power not distributes it.  It removes the ability for those with money to rule over those without it by making everyone play by the same rules. I cannot even believe you just said that after looking at what both the Republican and Democratic parties have shown us in this regards. Both of those parties are brought to us by those that are wealthy  using their influence to create laws in their favor.  Under Libertarianism they would not be able to have such control, because those special rules put into place by both Demcrats and Republicans would be removed.
 

Libertarians believe in controlling the government powers whereas the other parties have allowed for the wealthy to use that to their advantage for years, it was exactly that influence that allowed things to become the way they are, a further separation of the classes. This would have to be reversed and the damage undone before true Libertarianism could be implmented. It was NOt the Libertarians that gave these huge financial giants their power, it was the two current ruling parties that caused this mess.

Walmart will lose their power when  the playing field is leveled so that local businesses would be allowed to compete. With our current admisitration, Walmart will even be exempt from the healthcare reform....

Big firms may be exempt from health reform

Which parties are backed by finacial giants? which parties have the funding of the wealthy to impose their will? I think you have it backwards... They do not want Libertarians in office because Libertarians would cut them off cold turkey and reverse all of the policies in their favor. The two ruling parties are ruling in favor of those that paid to bring them to us. Who is " paying " Libertarians to cut them off?

 

Nope, I have to disagree.  You talk from a purely ideological viewpoint which does not stand the test of reality.  Corruption would still be there the venue would just change.  Your post reminds me about another issue I have with liberatarians, the "rose colored glasses affect", where everything will just be so much better and that everything will just fix itself.  Wealth has corrupted government?  Isn't the mantra of many a libertarian "mine".  How would you propose that a Libertarian controls the government powers?  Who are the ones that decides how these powers are to be defined and controled?  How is the playing field leveled with Wal-Mart and the mom and pops under liberatrianism?   

Coompletely Agree.

With little restrictions nothing will stop the big guys from getting even larger.  Government power will be reduced drastically, but it will shift right over to the massive corporations.  You think you a large democratic government is bad?  Imagine what a massive private corporation can do when it doesn't have to put anyone up for election.

Microsoft partners with apple, who then has enough money to buy all the manufacturers, who then have enough to buy/create sotware companies, etc. 

Libertarianism encourages competition, but only until the ones involve realize then can just team up and make even more money.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Completely Agree.

 

With little restrictions nothing will stop the big guys from getting even larger.  Government power will be reduced drastically, but it will shift right over to the massive corporations.  You think you a large democratic government is bad?  Imagine what a massive private corporation can do when it doesn't have to put anyone up for election.

 

Microsoft partners with apple, who then has enough money to buy all the manufacturers, who then have enough to buy/create sotware companies, etc. 

 

Libertarianism encourages competition, but only until the ones involve realize then can just team up and make even more money.

I still think you have a misunderstanding of how a free market works.

"With little restrictions nothing will stop the big guys from getting even larger."

This is 99% false.  Only in natural monopolies would monopolies exist and even then they could price themselves out of the market by charging too much.  Sure there are advantages to being the monopoly but it comes with disadvantages too.  I have listed numerous examples of them including the inability to adapt to changing market forces yet you have not countered any of my points.  You have not given any economy backing to your statements yet my points stem from sound economic theory that is shared by all 3 major schools of thought, Friedman, Keynes, and Mises.

Microsoft and Apple will never partner.  it is not in their best interests to do so.  They don't have enough money to buy all of the manufacturers either.  Your scenario has never happened nor will it, unless Government helps it along with unnecessary intervention that is...

We already see what large government sponsored monopolies give us.  Haliburtons, war, famine, shortages.

"Libertarianism encourages competition" - You're right, and you should've ended your sentance there :)

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by kiddyno071

Originally posted by deviliscious

You are so far off base. Libertarians constrains power not distributes it.  It removes the ability for those with money to rule over those without it by making everyone play by the same rules. I cannot even believe you just said that after looking at what both the Republican and Democratic parties have shown us in this regards. Both of those parties are brought to us by those that are wealthy  using their influence to create laws in their favor.  Under Libertarianism they would not be able to have such control, because those special rules put into place by both Demcrats and Republicans would be removed.
 

Libertarians believe in controlling the government powers whereas the other parties have allowed for the wealthy to use that to their advantage for years, it was exactly that influence that allowed things to become the way they are, a further separation of the classes. This would have to be reversed and the damage undone before true Libertarianism could be implmented. It was NOt the Libertarians that gave these huge financial giants their power, it was the two current ruling parties that caused this mess.

Walmart will lose their power when  the playing field is leveled so that local businesses would be allowed to compete. With our current admisitration, Walmart will even be exempt from the healthcare reform....

Big firms may be exempt from health reform

Which parties are backed by finacial giants? which parties have the funding of the wealthy to impose their will? I think you have it backwards... They do not want Libertarians in office because Libertarians would cut them off cold turkey and reverse all of the policies in their favor. The two ruling parties are ruling in favor of those that paid to bring them to us. Who is " paying " Libertarians to cut them off?

 

Nope, I have to disagree.  You talk from a purely ideological viewpoint which does not stand the test of reality.  Corruption would still be there the venue would just change.  Your post reminds me about another issue I have with liberatarians, the "rose colored glasses affect", where everything will just be so much better and that everything will just fix itself.  Wealth has corrupted government?  Isn't the mantra of many a libertarian "mine".  How would you propose that a Libertarian controls the government powers?  Who are the ones that decides how these powers are to be defined and controled?  How is the playing field leveled with Wal-Mart and the mom and pops under liberatrianism?   

 

Coompletely Agree.

 

With little restrictions nothing will stop the big guys from getting even larger.  Government power will be reduced drastically, but it will shift right over to the massive corporations.  You think you a large democratic government is bad?  Imagine what a massive private corporation can do when it doesn't have to put anyone up for election.

 

Microsoft partners with apple, who then has enough money to buy all the manufacturers, who then have enough to buy/create sotware companies, etc. 

 

Libertarianism encourages competition, but only until the ones involve realize then can just team up and make even more money.

Nothing has stopped the big guys from getting larger, in fact, the actual evidence shows that government intervention hurts the little guy and helps the big guy.

Government intervention destroys the little guy by raising costs for the little guy. These can be absorbed by the big guy, especially the ones with friends in washington.

Originally posted by smokemonsc

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Completely Agree.

 

With little restrictions nothing will stop the big guys from getting even larger.  Government power will be reduced drastically, but it will shift right over to the massive corporations.  You think you a large democratic government is bad?  Imagine what a massive private corporation can do when it doesn't have to put anyone up for election.

 

Microsoft partners with apple, who then has enough money to buy all the manufacturers, who then have enough to buy/create sotware companies, etc. 

 

Libertarianism encourages competition, but only until the ones involve realize then can just team up and make even more money.

 

I still think you have a misunderstanding of how a free market works.

"With little restrictions nothing will stop the big guys from getting even larger."

This is 99% false.  Only in natural monopolies would monopolies exist and even then they could price themselves out of the market by charging too much.  Sure there are advantages to being the monopoly but it comes with disadvantages too.  I have listed numerous examples of them including the inability to adapt to changing market forces yet you have not countered any of my points.  You have not given any economy backing to your statements yet my points stem from sound economic theory that is shared by all 3 major schools of thought, Friedman, Keynes, and Mises.

Microsoft and Apple will never partner.  it is not in their best interests to do so.  They don't have enough money to buy all of the manufacturers either.  Your scenario has never happened nor will it, unless Government helps it along with unnecessary intervention that is...

We already see what large government sponsored monopolies give us.  Haliburtons, war, famine, shortages.

"Libertarianism encourages competition" - You're right, and you should've ended your sentance there :)

Keep on smokin' 'em brother Smoke. Remember they are only repeating what their socialist schools have taught them. We have to undo a lot of damage that has been done to them through the propaganda and lies propagated by those socialist systems. We will do this by continually sharing the actual facts and real evidence.

EDIT: fixed what was some really bad writing :)