American Libertarianism: Stupid, Selfish and Mean

About Collin Hinds
Senior Writer and editor.
View all posts by Collin Hinds →

By the time I graduated from college, I considered myself a libertarian. That was because I had read John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty. I particularly enjoyed this passage:

That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

As a philosopher and politician in Victorian England, Mill formulated his philosophy of the sovereignty of the individual in reaction to the stringent mores and laws of his time. Mill’s philosophy was essentially a liberal’s push back against social conservatism.

In our time, especially here in America, libertarianism has morphed into something ugly. It has become the philosophy of choice of the Republican party, and a justification for an attitude that is stupid, selfish and mean.

 American Libertarianism: Stupid, Selfish and Mean

Modern American libertarianism is stupid because it is short sighted.

It doesn’t comprehend what an uber-libertarian world would look like in the long run. The rich would simply get richer, and we would all be at the cold mercy of corporate behemoths whose only virtue and aim is in making a profit, the environment and general wellbeing of society be damned. Ultimately, American libertarianism is the enemy of Democracy as we know it in that the alternative it offers is a government of the fabulously wealthy and greedy, for the fabulously wealthy and greedy. Everywhere would be either Wall Street or Squalor Row.

American libertarianism is hopelessly selfish.

The infantile selfishness of American libertarianism should be obvious to anyone with a brain. It is so much about the welfare of the individual that the collective is the baby thrown out with the bath water. Like all philosophies doomed to failure, American libertarianism doesn’t recognize the whole of which it is a part. Life is a balancing act and calls for checks and balances to keep it healthy. Some times call for a focus on the individual to effectuate the greatest good. Other times call for a bolstering of the health of the collective to keep things humming in the general direction toward progress. Make one the ultimate master of the other and doom will follow.

American libertarianism is just plain mean.

It is a philosophy of heartlessness at its core, and ruthlessly promotes division between the haves and have-nots. The only welfare offered by the quintessential American libertarian is that in times of need, pray harder and good luck. Economically it is survival of the fittest, and ignores the fact that humanity is endowed with more than a lizard’s brain. Love and compassion for humanity and our planet don’t fit into the libertarian rubric from what I can tell.

Starting about the time that Bill Clinton was sworn into office, a cynical machine, designed by libertarians to undermine liberal Democracy, was fired up and has been running full throttle ever since. That machine’s purpose is to destroy all the functions of government that protect the average citizen from the ravages of unfettered greed. In the process, libertarians like billionaires David and Charles Koch, who generously fund astroturf movements, like the Teaparty, have successfully convinced millions of Americans that it is in their best interest to screw themselves royally at the voting booth.

Being a self-respecting individual, I don’t consider myself a libertarian any more.

Follow MadMike’sAmerica on Facebook and Twitter, and don’t forget to visit our HOME PAGE.

If you liked our story please share it at REDDIT.COM and PINTEREST as well as TUMBLR.

Did you like this? Share it:
Posted by on October 22, 2011. Filed under Commentary. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
Back to Main Page

131 Responses to American Libertarianism: Stupid, Selfish and Mean

  1. SJ Reply

    September 3, 2010 at 12:08 pm

    @Lawyer.
    Right on. Like Ayn Rand’s body of work, this is a philosophy engineered to make people feel better about acting like selfish assholes.
    Great citations of Mill, I’d add a few from the great John Locke as well.
    Great illustration btw, where did you find that?
    -SJ

    • The Lawyer Reply

      September 3, 2010 at 12:12 pm

      I found both the cartoon and the Haliburton Sign by searching google images. In the original draft I had a sentence that took a dig at Ayn Rand speculating why no one has ever made a t-shirt that said, “Ayn Rand Was a Selfish Twat,” but decided it had to come out in the edit.

      • SJ Reply

        September 3, 2010 at 12:20 pm

        @Lawyer
        Thanks, that cartoon was signed “Singer,” just wondering who that might be, I’ll do some searches and try and pin him/her down.
        Apparently there is yet another attempt at turning Atlas Shrugged into a movie debuting in 2011. It will suck, unless it’s a comedy.

      • Max Power Reply

        April 22, 2011 at 11:02 pm

        I wouldn’t wear that shirt, because here in America “bitch” and “cunt” would both be more accurate.

    • Maximum Freedom, Minimum Government. Reply

      March 21, 2012 at 12:36 pm

      Just because someone believes in liberty, freedom, and being a self-made person means that they are narcissistic bastards? Hell no. Freedom is absolutely necessary and it’s what America was founded on. That’s what libertarianism is about, not trying to make the rich, richer and the poor, poorer, nor trying to make everyone poor (i.e.- socialism).

      • rational man Reply

        April 24, 2012 at 2:39 pm

        The problem is, libertarianism naturally ENDS making the rich richer and the poor poorer, whether that’s its aim or not.

        Name me ONE place where Libertarian principles have been successfully applied. You can’t.

        Also, you misattribute the aims of socialism with typical inflammatory, bombastic straw-man BS arguments.

      • Cthulhu Reply

        June 27, 2012 at 11:39 am

        There ARE NO “Self-Made” people here in America, no matter how F’ing hard you try and push that Meme.

        Everyone raised here, rich or poor, has benefitted from the collective work and finances of everyone else.

        Schools, Roads, sewers, water, police, fire, libraries, and on and on, have all worked to benefit everyone living here.

        Unless you were raised in a cave in the High Sierras by wolves, and educated by woodland fairies, you ain’t a self made anything.

        As such, you owe it to the rest of us to pay it back, and pay it forward so that the next kid gets the same leg up (or better leg up) as you did.

        • Biglt Reply

          June 27, 2012 at 11:54 am

          Extremely well said!

        • Imrahn Zakahev Reply

          June 27, 2012 at 7:10 pm

          I couldn’t have said it better!

  2. Holte Ender Reply

    September 3, 2010 at 12:26 pm

    Those Koch brothers are certainly pieces of work. Great piece.

  3. Krell Reply

    September 3, 2010 at 3:41 pm

    Great one, Law Man! Objectivism and Libertarianism always did seem as an excuse to act like a narcissistic ass.

    This post and one that I did later today could be 2 chapters in a very good book.They both touch on subjects that seem to be an affliction on America today.

    Plus any light or exposure on those boys in Wichita is good in my book!

    • The Lawyer Reply

      September 3, 2010 at 4:27 pm

      You would think we coordinated our efforts, drew straws and said, okay, you right about that, and I’ll write this. Even if you are an engineer, great minds think alike.

  4. Gwendolyn H. Barry Reply

    September 3, 2010 at 5:57 pm

    “Modern American libertarianism is stupid because it is short sighted. It doesn’t comprehend what an uber-libertarian world would look like in the long run. The rich would simply get richer, and we would all be at the cold mercy of corporate behemoths whose only virtue and aim is in making a profit, the environment and general wellbeing of society be damned.”

    Aren’t we there? This, like Krell’s … great words. It’s a good day at sea here at MMA. I admire your personal authenticity Mr. Lawyer.

    • The Lawyer Reply

      September 3, 2010 at 6:49 pm

      If we are not there already, we are uncomfortably close.

      • Mother Hen Reply

        September 4, 2010 at 4:18 am

        I too was going to quote that and point out that we are there already.

        Mill’s (typical of the Victorian age) ponderings sound remarkably akin to the Wiccan philosophy, “An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will.”

        Most laws made by men are to prevent other men from doing something that could hurt other people. We are slower to enact laws that prevent the hurting of things like the environment, animals, etc, though in the end nature will have her pound of flesh when the planet shakes us off like so many fleas.

  5. Stella by Starlight Reply

    September 4, 2010 at 1:54 am

    Thanks, Lawyer. John Stuart Mill’s classic political essay is so apt as pertains to all political history. Gwendolyn, your comment is dead on poit. One major political dissapointment for me is when Mike Gravel chose to run on a Libertarian platform. Theis is a party that takes greed and Corporatism to effect extrmist control.

  6. Will "take no prisoners" Hart Reply

    September 5, 2010 at 1:38 am

    In the 10 years prior to his running for President, Joe Biden gave less than 3 tenths of one percent of his earnings to charity (yes, he upped it to 1.5% the year that he did run). That, to me, sounds pretty damn “selfish”, too.

    • The Lawyer Reply

      September 5, 2010 at 10:36 am

      You are comparing one guy and his charitable habits to a whole cultural attitude/philosophy of a large group of people that want to institutionalize greed and selfishness. Apples and oranges.

    • Terry C - NJ Reply

      October 23, 2011 at 3:04 pm

      Joe Biden was one of the LEAST wealthiest people in the Senate.

      Rick Perry hasn’t given squat to charity.

    • Cthulhu Reply

      June 27, 2012 at 11:42 am

      I would point out that giving money to your cult of choice, espcially if they demand it (Tithing) ISN’T Charity.

      If your tithing is used to build massive, offensive, gaudy temples to themselves, or use it to buy elections (Yes, I’m looking at you, Mormons), that ain’t charity either.

  7. Will "take no prisoners" Hart Reply

    September 6, 2010 at 12:01 pm

    It isn’t JUST this one guy. Study after study after study show that conservatives give significantly more to charity than do liberals. They also donate more of their time and blood. In fact, if liberals and moderates (a category to which I probably belong) gave as much blood as conservatives, the blood supply would increase by over 40%……But, noooooooo, let’s simply grow the size of government instead, confiscate finances from private citizens, etc.. That’ll work much better.

    • Justin O. Reply

      September 24, 2010 at 2:00 am

      Those studies are flawed.

      A) They don’t control for income. Rich people are more likely to be conservative and thus have more to give.

      B) Many of them count churches as charities. Conservatives are more likely to be religious, so they give more money to the church. Mormons donating 10% of their income to the church should not be counted.

      • Ryan T. Reply

        July 19, 2011 at 3:46 am

        Modern American liberals are stupid because they are short sighted. They don’t comprehend what an uber-liberal world would look like in the long run. The rich would simply get richer, and we would all be at the cold mercy of corporate behemoths whose only virtue and aim is in making a profit, the environment and general wellbeing of society be damned. Ultimately, it is the enemy of Democracy as we know it in that the alternative it offers is a government of the fabulously wealthy and greedy, for the fabulously wealthy and greedy. Everywhere would be either Wall Street or Squalor Row.

        See when you allow for a huge Government it attracts all snakes and vermin. It allows for corporatism. It allows for bailouts and hyperinflation. It allows for Patriot Acts and pre-emptive, non ending wars. It allows for increasing dept ceilings without capping and budgeting.

    • Jell Reply

      September 8, 2011 at 1:59 am

      Talk about a loose definition of giving to charity.

    • Terry C - NJ Reply

      October 23, 2011 at 3:06 pm

      “Study after study after study show that conservatives give significantly more to charity than do liberals.”

      Who did those “studies”? The Heritage Foundation? Rush Limbaugh? Faux News?

  8. Jell Reply

    September 8, 2011 at 2:01 am

    I don’t like libertarians because they like to act like they are different from republicans but are really just the same.

    Besides, if rich business people are advocating for a political side, common sense says the average american should vote for the other side because rich people only look out for themselves.

    • Alfonzo Reply

      October 22, 2011 at 6:04 pm

      I agree entirely. Makes you wonder why Obama, Romney and Perry all have such higher donations from corporations as compared to Ron Paul.

      http://dailybail.com/home/photo-comparing-2012-campaign-contributions-for-obama-ron-pa.html

      • Vijay Reply

        October 22, 2011 at 6:13 pm

        @Alonzo

        How funny, I posted my comment just 5 minutes after you, and both of us 6 weeks after Jell. Yet, I had this webpage up for several days before I got a chance to read the editorial, and only just now got a chance to comment… so I didn’t see your comment until after I posted mine.

        Anyway, it’s only funnier that we ended up making the same point to refute Jell’s comment.

        Cheers!

        • Alfonzo Reply

          October 23, 2011 at 1:17 am

          Haha yeah very funny timing indeed. Also pretty funny how he spells out the problem after bashing the solution!

    • Vijay Reply

      October 22, 2011 at 6:09 pm

      By your logic, you should vote for neither Obama nor the non-libertarian GOPers. ALL OF THEM get the majority of their campaign donations from those big greedy corporations.

      Whereas Ron Paul gets his money largely from individuals. Obama is a corporatist just like the others. Ron Paul said recently that if the government was going to give away a ton of money (a la the big bank bailouts), it should have instead been to the people losing their homes, not to the banks that caused it.

      • Terry C - NJ Reply

        October 23, 2011 at 3:08 pm

        Ron Paul is anti-choice and a racist,

        He is also anti-union and thinks Medicare and Social Security are unconstitutional.

        What’s more….his followers are a cult.

        Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo thank you!

  9. Pingback: Is Labor a Commodity? - Page 11

  10. Michael John Scott Reply

    October 22, 2011 at 9:58 am

    An oldie but a timeless goodie. Thanks Collin!

  11. AngryMan9000 Reply

    October 22, 2011 at 11:19 am

    Libertarianism is survival of the fittest. If you keep helping the parasitic class to grow eventually you will end up in idiocracy.
    (Video removed as per comment policy)
    The strong eat the weak and the weak shall burn.

  12. Doug Reply

    October 22, 2011 at 1:23 pm

    It is quite apparent you do not understand libertarianism. Why will you trust some faceless bureaucrat to take care of you, but not your fellow man? Educate yourself.

  13. Warmowski Reply

    October 22, 2011 at 1:27 pm

    And never forget the entrenched machinery dedicated to giving libertarian economics its intellectual and public policy blessing: the think tanks. Cato, Mises, Mercatus, ad nauseam. There is no economic issue they won’t use to advance the power of big business against individuals.

    http://warmowski.wordpress.com/2011/10/14/less-is-more-the-orwellian-derangement-of-libertarian-economics/

  14. UnecessaryEvil Reply

    October 22, 2011 at 3:31 pm

    Nice straw man, pretty much all false. I mean, can you name one major corporation that fully supports the libertarian model? Really not any, that’s why they give money to Democrats, Republicans who lobby for regulating the competition; companies like GE who fully support Obama, and paid no federal taxes last year.

    Libertarianism is selfish? How so? Because people want to stopped being raped/robbed of their hard earned money? Don’t you think taking other a huge chunk of other people’s income is robbery, wrong and selfish itself? Or because Libertarianism believes in people being free and doing what they want as long as you are not harming or infringing on others individual rights.

    Really, this article is full of fallacies, myths and weak talking points pushed by the establishment.

    • Dear lord. Reply

      October 22, 2011 at 7:57 pm

      Spoken like a true defensive Libertarian. Explain to me how a fully libertarianized society would work. Where would roads, public transportation, building maintenance, electricity, etc. come from? Would only the wealthiest in society have access to these things? How do you maintain a society like that?

      • Alfonzo Reply

        October 23, 2011 at 1:13 am

        All things that can be more efficiently done through the private sector. Not necessarily entirely, state and local govt should certainly be responsible, but private companies are much quicker to react than municipalities. Here’s a classic example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a2EhgADVFY

  15. Ilya Beraha Reply

    October 22, 2011 at 4:53 pm

    Totally agree! And there is much that could be added for the close-minded short-sightedness and lack of rational cognitive and historical understanding of economic processes by the retarded mass of Libertarians. Such a movement can’t find broad acceptance to say nothing of recognition. Ridiculous and sad story of messed up small group of people who believe greed is natural and inborn. ROFLMAO.

  16. Alfonzo Reply

    October 22, 2011 at 5:58 pm

    This article is pure nonsense. The libertarian society is the MOST moral in terms of fairness and compassion. I see absolutely no sources to back all your ridiculous assumptions that a smaller and less powerful govt that is not handing out subsidies would encourage greed and immoral practices.

    “we would all be at the cold mercy of corporate behemoths whose only virtue and aim is in making a profit, the environment and general well being of society be damned”

    It is the govt subsidizing these corps, edging out free market competition, that allows them to act this way. A corporation benefits by the customer benefiting from the product or service they produce. In a free market they are driven to make a profit but they are also fearful of losing that profit should a better competitor come along or should they engage in activities that draw them in a poor light. With govt subsidizing and regulating the smaller competition out of the picture the bigger corporations are not kept in check.

    “The infantile selfishness of American libertarianism should be obvious to anyone with a brain.”

    Could you spout a more infantile and ignorant bout of propaganda?

    “Life is a balancing act and calls for checks and balances to keep it healthy”

    That is EXACTLY what free market principles advocate. Why on earth would you trust in the checks and balances of an over powered govt who has NO incentive to act in your best interest? They bail out their failing buddies on wall st, they give contracts to their buddies in big business; these are things that WOULD NOT happen in a libertarian society where govt does not have the power and influence to do this!

    • Vijay Reply

      October 22, 2011 at 6:27 pm

      The writer of this piece and the people supporting remind me exactly of Fox News and its supporters, respectively. It’s scary how both sides appear equally closed-minded.

      I welcome the notion that you and I are wrong in our libertarian leanings. But I have tried and tried to see things from the Republicans and Democrats’ vantages… and Ron Paul’s libertarianism (not that Tea Party crap) prevails every time. In all honesty, it makes me believe in humanity and that our great country can be prosperous again.

      • Francine Reply

        June 27, 2012 at 11:30 am

        And if all the corporate masters would always do the right thing to provide the best services and products to their customers if the gawd dang big government would just get out of the way, why aren’t they doing it now? Why are they polluting the rivers, streams, air and water? How come they don’t show the EPA what good libertiarians they would be without them being forced to do it? If libertiarians theory would work so well, why don’t they grab that ideology by the horns and with their charitable contributions wipe out poverty, hunger, sickness and homelessness?
        The day that one libertiarian can answer why the big corporations would run like a well oiled machine if the government didn’t require it, is the day I will give their ideology some thought.
        To me they are like children who don’t want to clean their bedrooms, because their mommy punished them for not doing it.

        • Alfonzo Reply

          July 3, 2012 at 10:51 am

          “How come they don’t show the EPA what good libertiarians they would be without them being forced to do it?”

          That’s not how it works. No one is going to voluntarily do something that is not in their best interest. The reason that a company would not pollute under the libertarian model is because the ramifications of ruining someone else’s property would be so great that it is in the company’s best interest to avoid contaminating the land in the first place. Capitalism needs FEAR to counterbalance the GREED. Fear is what keeps people from acting too greedy, but the government has taken much of the fear out of the business environment. Once they set known regulations, companies know exactly what their fines will be for breaking them. They know where the line is and how to toe it, or who to lobby with to have those lines changed. If all the govt id was enforce property rights, then a town that sues a company for polluting a river could end up with a settlement that is highly unknown, and would be a far better deterrent of such bad behavior than regulations set by the EPA.

    • thorpe Reply

      June 27, 2012 at 9:22 am

      And if a company poisons its customers, how many would have to die before the company would be put out of business, and who would enact its punishment? Who would decide its punishment, prairie justice vigilantism? When you leave your property, will you have to pay a toll to cross over the next property, and the next, and so on? In an accident, will you be able to trust the person who calls himself a doctor, without a certification process with teeth behind it? And if you organize a community to establish community help organizations for firefighting, ambulance, road repair, etc., isn’t that in fact creating a government?

      • Alfonzo Reply

        July 3, 2012 at 11:08 am

        “And if a company poisons its customers, how many would have to die before the company would be put out of business, and who would enact its punishment?”

        Probably less than do now. How much false security is given when the govt puts its seal of approval on an item? They once mandated that all pajama makers must use a flame retardant compound called Tris, after some children’s pajamas caught fire. A quick, overly sensationalist reaction that ended up doing more harm then good when it was found out that the compound was a dangerous carcinogen. But you can see how the heavy hand of government can give a false sense of security and end up doing more harm through their ‘good intentioned’ actions.

        “When you leave your property, will you have to pay a toll to cross over the next property, and the next, and so on?”

        If a private company owns and maintains those roads, and you want to use their service, then why shouldnt you pay? You already pay the govt for various bridges and tunnels, do you think the govt would be more efficiently using that toll money to make repairs than a private company would? I certainly don’t think so.

        “In an accident, will you be able to trust the person who calls himself a doctor, without a certification process with teeth behind it?”

        That is for the market to decide. If a person wants to see a doctor who was certified by an organization, who put their reputation at stake in certifying them, then they will likely pay a premium for that doctor’s services over another’s. If a doctor decides they don’t want the certification, they may only be able to charge less, and make more money in volume. If a doctor does not do a good job though, then he will have trouble finding patients. Even today, many people go to physicians based on a friend recommendation because no one will trust a doctor who is not well-recommended.

  17. Asquared Reply

    October 22, 2011 at 7:55 pm

    Great rant. You outlined EVERYTHING I despise about Libertarianism. I could ALMOST handle the selfish bastards if their philosophy made any fucking sense.

  18. Jack Noir Reply

    October 26, 2011 at 5:50 pm

    I’m a year late, but it is still prudent to respond to this.

    Collin Hinds, you are an awful writer. This piece of trash you call an article is nothing more than you flinging about insults and circular logic. It is BLATANT that you do not understand libertarianism and that your own political philosophy is riddled with fallacies, inconsistencies, and downright stupidity.

    You are scum.

    • The Lawyer Reply

      October 28, 2011 at 11:39 pm

      What a superb critique. And your are an asshole, Jack.

      • Cathy Reply

        December 12, 2012 at 4:49 pm

        This is the only thing we agree on. It WAS a superb critique!

    • Maximum Freedom, Minimum Government. Reply

      March 21, 2012 at 12:43 pm

      Jack Noir, I applaud you for your similar position on the bull crap written by Mr. Hinds.

    • Cathy Reply

      December 12, 2012 at 4:48 pm

      Jack, I couldn’t agree with you more. The author of this piece (I believe his handle is “The Lawyer”) clearly has a hatred for Republicans/Libertarians/Conservatives. He lumps them all together, throws in a few garnishes like the Koch Brothers and the Tea party and stirs up a hatefest that only a liberal would love. Mmm, mmm, good! He really has no true comprehension of what the value of liberty is and does not seem to respect private property. He should talk to my friends who came from Soviet Russia. They’ll set him straight.

  19. Kirsten Reply

    November 8, 2011 at 2:35 am

    The reason some people become libertarians is because they lack a fundamental understanding of how our society actually works. For one, we live in a culture where women, lgbtq and racial minorities are set up for failure from birth. I’m honestly not surprised that every single libertarian I’ve met in person was a middle class straight white male.

    Secondly,I don’t like their social Darwinian attitude. If we lived in a libertarian society, and someone like Einstein were born, that child would be considered a failure and would not be afforded any equal opportunity. Einstein was considered retarded when he was a little boy, and I’ve heard numerous libertarians claim that since some people are “inferior”they don’t deserve the same opportunities. Basically they want to judge you on how you are the second you are born, not any potential you may develop later in life due to things like affirmative action or any sort of socialization.

    Its no surprise that many libertarian politicians are racist misogynists. They see the fact that white people are far more successful and assume that success equates to hard work and therefore superiority. They do not take into account that if they were born black or Latino they would have the door shut in their face at every turn no matter how hard they work. The system already works in their favor so they see no problem with the logical conclusion their beliefs will take.

    And for people who claim to be pro-choice, government should have to pay for abortions for women who are raped, and yet libertarianism would result in the opposite. Meaning poor women would not be able to afford a necessary abortion. So that sounds pretty anti-choice to me.

    Basically, libertarianism only works for those who are already wealthy. It maintains the status quo; all of the social injustice that already exists in our society would merely be re-validated, resulting in victim-blame.

    In my view libertarianism is merely a watered down version of neoliberalism. Freedom isn’t an issue for Neoliberalism. Its main concern is the freedom to consume but unless you already have money, that equates to no freedom whatsoever.

    • Alfonzo Reply

      November 13, 2011 at 4:01 pm

      I don’t know where you could possibly derive that libertarians are racist, sexist, homophobic and elitist, but it is pure slanderous garbage. Though I certainly can’t speak for every individual, Libertarianism is centered around basic equal rights for everyone. What you seem to be upset about is that everyone doesn’t get the same opportunities, but this is a natural fact of life. Humans pass down things to their children generation after generation. Whether it’s wealth, good looks, an aptitude for science or music, or even diseases and conditions, you can not shift around resources to provide everyone the exact same equal starting place.

      It is not libertarians who would have held Einstein back, it is liberals. Through a libertarian lens, Einstein is able to make his own choices and follow his own desires to meet his own goals. Through a liberal lens Einstein would have been forced down a path that would have best served the community as a whole. A child who shows a weak intelligence early on would have been pigeon-holed into a job of toil, but the libertarian mandate of free choice allows them to strive for what they think is best for themselves. In doing so they may find tons of other things they excel at, that they would have never had the opportunity to try if their jobs were picked out for them by the govt by age 5.

      The welfare system as it stands now, hurts the impoverished far more than a capitalistic system would. People are babied by the govt and there is often no real incentive for them to become independent once they are already receiving something from the govt. Through capitalism there is always an incentive to make something better for yourself.

      As for your misunderstanding over the libertarian view on abortions, I believe they are for the most part pro-life in that they view the unborn baby as a life, who’s liberty needs protecting. The use of force on the unborn baby through an abortion is therefore deemed unlawful. Though they concede that there are many situations where an abortion could be necessary I think they are generally against it’s use. I think a woman should have her choice completely, but needs to be responsible in the matter. However, the govt using tax payer money to have abortions performed is greatly unsettling to me. This is because it takes the individual choice completely out of the equation. People need to be entitled to hold their own values, and if the govt comes in a takes a pro-life person’s taxes and uses it to perform abortions then they have used that money contrary to the values of that person. Allowing each person to have their opinion is key in the libertarian ideology, but forcing that opinion on someone else is never condoned, and that is exactly what is being done with govt funded abortions.

      • Maximum Freedom, Minimum Government. Reply

        March 21, 2012 at 12:58 pm

        For a libertarian to be automatically considered sexist, racist, and homophobic is complete idiocy. I am libertarian, lesbian, deist, and believe in the equality of all people; regardless of race, gender, orientation, and/or religion.
        I don’t understand how anyone that considers themselves libertarian can be anything but pro-life. It’s simple, that “fetus” is very much alive and therefore has rights.
        True libertarians are also not socially Darwinist, we believe in the rights of people to their life, their liberty, and the pursuit of their happiness. Nobody has the right to suppress another persons rights based on the individuals level of intelligence.

    • Cathy Reply

      December 12, 2012 at 4:53 pm

      Kirsten, your comment is an insult to the many blacks, latinos and women who have succeeded in life based on their hard work, prudent life choices and MERIT.

  20. homeschooling Reply

    December 18, 2011 at 2:43 am

    hello!,I love your writing very a lot! share we keep up a correspondence extra about your post on AOL? I need an expert in this house to solve my problem. Maybe that’s you! Looking forward to look you.

  21. TTK Reply

    February 7, 2012 at 3:55 pm

    I love the fact free, abstract arguments frequently used by libertarians. It is amusing

    In a libertarian society, we would be on a bartering system. State issued notes would be “immoral”. Oh how more efficient things would be.

    There was a time when businesses could do whatever they wanted, and it was called the 19th century. Not such a great time to be a worker.

    And if you think tax is theft, well then just fuck yourself. Wage labor is theft. Refute the theory of surplus value and I will give you a dollar maybe, which you will probably refuse because it is a state issued note.

    Finally, the difference between positive and negative right is completely artificial. You need enforcement to protect everything. Without enforcement, laws are just fun little word on paper.

    Suck my dick, fuck the bourgeois, down with capitalism

    • Alfonzo Reply

      February 9, 2012 at 9:48 am

      “In a libertarian society, we would be on a bartering system.”

      False, there could still be paper money so long as it is back by a hard asset. It doesn’t have to even be gold, but it has to be limited in supply, and un-manipulable by human whim.

      “There was a time when businesses could do whatever they wanted, and it was called the 19th century. Not such a great time to be a worker.”

      Not a great time to be a worker?? How about the time when the middle class was able to grow and improve their standard of living far beyond any other time in previous history! Just because those jobs don’t seem desirable not doesn’t mean the labor force didn’t want them at the time, and it doesn’t mean they weren’t beneficial to the labor force at the time.

      “Wage labor is theft. Refute the theory of surplus value and I will give you a dollar maybe, which you will probably refuse because it is a state issued note.”

      So is every product you buy a theft? I mean it cost the company less to make than what you pay for it! They’re stealing your hard earned money on over priced goods!! Jeez, you must not understand economics one iota. Those workers may be producing more value for their employers than they are being paid, but they wouldn’t have those jobs otherwise! No one is going to pay someone a wage if there is no profitable benefit to them!

      “Without enforcement, laws are just fun little word on paper.”

      No one is saying there is no enforcement of the laws. That’s part of govt’s role in a libertarian society. To enforce contracts and allow for restitution against fraud and other forms of force. Libertarianism is not anarchy. Govt still has very important roles.

      “Suck my dick”

      Aaannnd there goes your credibility. Because no one as dumb and ignorant as you can possibly make an argument without reverting to flagrant name-calling and boisterous malediction. Shame on you for not educating yourself more.

      • Michael John Scott Reply

        February 9, 2012 at 4:24 pm

        Now here’s some real intelligence. Read his words: “suck my dick.” Yup. You’re a fine example of credibility.

    • Imrahn Zakahev Reply

      July 4, 2012 at 3:25 pm

      Same here I hate their arguments TTK, they leave countless factors out of the picture and they use straw-man arguments. This will also be a response to Alfonzo’s post.
      You said:
      “In a libertarian society, we would be on a bartering system. State issued notes would be “immoral”. Oh how more efficient things would be.”
      Alfonzo said:
      “False, there could still be paper money so long as it is back by a hard asset. It doesn’t have to even be gold, but it has to be limited in supply, and un-manipulable by human whim.”
      What would back this up gold? FYI Gold Standard won’t work. Not enough gold. So unless more gold appears we would be under a bartering system. Yes I can’t wait to go back to the ancient times where there was no money.

      You said:
      “There was a time when businesses could do whatever they wanted, and it was called the 19th century. Not such a great time to be a worker.”
      Alfonzo:
      “Not a great time to be a worker?? How about the time when the middle class was able to grow and improve their standard of living far beyond any other time in previous history! Just because those jobs don’t seem desirable not doesn’t mean the labor force didn’t want them at the time, and it doesn’t mean they weren’t beneficial to the labor force at the time.”
      Sir, you are correct not such a great time to be a worker as well as a consumer. In another post I said: “At the turn of the 20th century, business could do what it wanted– and it did. The result was robber barons, monopolistic gouging, management thugs attacking union organizers, filth in our food, a punishing business cycle, slavery and racial oppression, starvation among the elderly, gunboat diplomacy in support of business interests.
      The New Deal itself was a response to crisis (though by no means an unprecedented one; it wasn’t much worse than the Gilded Age depressions). A quarter of the population was out of work. Five thousand banks failed, destroying the savings of 9 million families. Steel plants were operating at 12% capacity. Banks foreclosed on a quarter of Mississippi’s land. Wall Street was discredited by insider trading and collusion with banks at the expense of investors. Farmers were breaking out into open revolt; miners and jobless city workers were rioting.” So it was correct what you said. Alfonzo what you said was completely refuted by my post. You clearly do not understand that. Even after the 19th century that happened as well as child labor. Can you not read, is that part of your problem? The living standard was raised after WW2 you moron.

      You said:
      “And if you think tax is theft, well then just fuck yourself. Wage labor is theft. Refute the theory of surplus value and I will give you a dollar maybe, which you will probably refuse because it is a state issued note.”
      Alfonzo said:
      “So is every product you buy a theft? I mean it cost the company less to make than what you pay for it! They’re stealing your hard earned money on over priced goods!! Jeez, you must not understand economics one iota. Those workers may be producing more value for their employers than they are being paid, but they wouldn’t have those jobs otherwise! No one is going to pay someone a wage if there is no profitable benefit to them!”
      Yes I agree this society thrives on taxes if you think that is theft then a functioning society must be theft too. Alfonzo wage labor is theft. Wage labour is a major, if not defining, aspect of hierarchical industrial systems. Wage labour is the mode of production where the worker sells their labour power as a commodity (and the wage labourer is one who sells their labour power.). If that is not theft then I don’t know what is!

      You said:
      “Finally, the difference between positive and negative right is completely artificial. You need enforcement to protect everything. Without enforcement, laws are just fun little word on paper.”
      Alfonzo said:
      “No one is saying there is no enforcement of the laws. That’s part of govt’s role in a libertarian society. To enforce contracts and allow for restitution against fraud and other forms of force. Libertarianism is not anarchy. Govt still has very important roles.”
      I know that for a fact TTK. If the teachers did not enforce the “no gaming at school” rule. It would be fun little words on paper, but the teachers enforce the rules and they actually mean something. Alfonzo, there would be lower taxes in a libertarian society, therefore less money to deal with criminals and crime. And another thing Alfonzo I wonder if your eyes ears and brain are just props because there is no enforcement in minimum government. There needs to be the proper amount of government: big economically, small personally. Libertarianism is anarchy, for the rich in the free-market you allow financial anarchy. “allow for restitution against fraud and other forms of force.”. Aaand you just described capitalism. Wether it is the intention or not it leads to brute force. In the 20th century communism tried to destroy the world, today capitalists are showing them how it is done.
      And TTK I agree with your last statement “fuck the bourgeois, down with capitalism”. Capitalism has proved to be as toxic as communism. Go Socialism. Fuck the rich too, it was their need for greed that brought us into this mess.

      • Alfonzo Reply

        July 16, 2012 at 7:08 pm

        “Gold Standard won’t work.”

        You must not understand the gold standard.

        “wage labor is theft. Wage labour is a major, if not defining, aspect of hierarchical industrial systems. Wage labour is the mode of production where the worker sells their labour power as a commodity (and the wage labourer is one who sells their labour power.). If that is not theft then I don’t know what is!”

        That is a ridiculously illogical and uniformed statement. The worker is not as productive on his own as he/she is when they are employed by an entrepreneur. Let’s say there’s a worker whose sole job is digging. He’s got his shovel and he can sell his service to people for $2/hr. He gets to keep that wage all to himself and bear his own expenses. Then a guy who owns a construction company comes along and offers him a job digging holes with a big excavating machine. Now people pay the construction company $6/hour to dig holes, because they can dig more holes in an hour. Of that $6 the worker gets $3 (1 more than he made before) $1 dollar goes to buy the equipment and $2 goes to the owner of the construction company. Where is the labor being stolen from again? It is not, labor is sold in the labor market at an agreed upon wage between both parties. The business owner is not going to buy the labor if they can’t make a margin on the productivity. Why would I hire someone at $5 per hour if they can only produce $5 per hour of productivity for my business? On the flip side why would the worker work for someone at $10 per hour if they can work for themselves at $20 per hour? Labor is a scarce resource and is indeed a commodity.

        “Libertarianism is anarchy”

        If that were true then why the second more confusing name? They different ideologies. Maybe the difference are smaller than a democracy and communism but they are still differences, and you really should know the difference if you’re going to open your big misinformed mouth.

  22. Metroulas Reply

    April 7, 2012 at 7:49 pm

    this is a woefully incorrect analysis of libertarianism. I mean, it’s not even close.

    For any of those interested, read this:

    Links not permitted as per comment policy.

  23. Imrahn Zakahev Reply

    June 26, 2012 at 8:09 am

    All right I’m going to not make any name-calling arguments here unlike these n00bs at the top who think they’re cool because they swear. I’m just going to make my arguments.
    1) The Free-Market is an outdated 18th century theory regarding economics.
    In that the Free-Market government steps out. In the 18th century that might have good as you could trust the corporations. Now these days you can’t trust them. Now all it takes is for a few corporate n00bs to ruin it for everyone. Too much economic freedom isn’t good. Don’t believe me? Then why in 2008 were the bankers allowed to sell houses to people with no proof of income, no proof of job, no proof of economic responsibility and no proof of money. They had the freedom to do so. Look how well that worked. It caused the f-cking crisis in ’08.
    2) Poor=Discriminated against and having every door shut in the face not lazy.
    Almost every Tea Party, conservative and libertarian attack dog has described being poor as being lazy. Factors are left out. Are these people disabled? Are they minorities that have every door slammed in the face? There are moochers on the welfare system there’s no doubt about that. But I want to change it to workfare. You get welfare if you have a job, if you don’t the government gives or finds you one if you are eligible to work.
    3) Government services have value and they create jobs
    Public schools may be crap but hey it’s better than
    a) increasing the illiteracy rate due to lack of public schools and letting the kids run feral
    or
    b) giving the families money to pay for a private school
    Uh excuse me, I go to a private school and I swear by god the tuition is highway robbery (In the $20,000 to $40,000 zone). How in the hell do you expect those in the lower middle class, working class and lower class to pay for such a school? And apparently libertarians think the government creates no jobs. Then I suppose teachers, cops, firefighters and postal workers are all run by the private sector. Don’t give me this: “The private sector does everything better.”. Great, just what our society needs! Cops being run by the private sector and being stuck with a bill after the robber gets caught. Nice! Also who do you think pays for the roads, bridges, tunnels, public transportation, public schools, police departments, fire departments, military and garbage collecting? Your secret Santa? The government via taxes. Libertarians want lower taxes. Get ready for shittier/no public schools; shittier/no new roads; shittier/no new bridges; shittier/no new tunnels; lower cop, firefighter, postal worker, and teacher salaries and less garbage being collected.
    4) Bailouts are good to people who need them (banks need not apply)
    from voices.yahoo.com
    a. Precedent: The Chrysler bailout of 1979 was a huge success. In 1979 the Chrysler Corporation was headed toward bankruptcy. The company traveled to Washington and persuaded the Federal Government to guarantee its loans. The new money allowed the automaker to continue its retooling program. In 1982, Chrysler broke even during a miserable year for auto sales. In 1983 the company made unprecedented profits and paid back the guaranteed government loans. By 1984 the company really took off and sold more than 2 million vehicles, and earned a whopping $2.4 billion. This allowed the company to rehire thousands of workers. Sophisticated production procedures and innovative products were establishing a great reputation for Chrysler.
    b. End the Recession. The financial and automobile bailouts coupled with lower interest rates should help bring the current recession to an end and put the American People back to work. The lower interest rates will make it easier for businesses to get new loans to expand and develop new jobs for the American People. It will also make it easier for consumers to get loans, spend money, and increase consumer demand in society. Increased consumer demand should lead to business expansion and and additional jobs.
    c. A Bright Future: The bailout of our financial institutions and the auto industry will allow America to build a bright future. Foreign competition has devastated the manufacturing industry in America and drastically reduced the standard of living for the American People. We now have a new new national consensus on where we go from here. We must rebuild America by developing energy independence and rebuilding our infrastructure.
    d. Energy Independence. After paying about four dollars a gallon at the gas pump, the American People are determined to pay the price and develop energy independence. Our banks now have the money to loan private industry the capital they need to develop alternative sources of energy including natural gas development, solar energy, wind power, coal gasification, fuel efficient cars, etc.
    e. A new infrastructure. In the last few years, we have received several reports of bridges collapsing while in use, and people getting killed and injured. The American People now want to rebuild the aging infrastructure before it is too late. The financial bailout coupled with the low interests rates will allow government and industry to obtain the capital they need to develop the technology and train the workers to begin repairing the infrastructure
    f. A Revived Automobile Industry. The bailout money must be used to produce the automobiles of the future, not the heavy gas guzzlers that have put us out of business. We should stress the production of light weight fuel efficient cars, hybrids, and the development of the electric car.
    g. A Cleaner Environment. The development of alternative sources of energy, coupled with the production of fuel efficient cars, will drastically reduce carbon emissions and pollution in America
    h. Save Jobs. The automobile bailout will save more than two million jobs in the automobile industry alone. If these jobs are eliminated the ripple effect in other industries will be devastating as more and more American Workers will be laid off.
    i. Taxpayer Protection. The bailout legislation protects the American Taxpayer. The bailout legislation includes the elimination of the “golden parachute” retirement packages and bonuses for the top 25 executives at each of the manufacturers receiving government funds.
    j. Establish a Car Czar. The car czar will be an individual or a committee that will act as a liaison between the government and the auto industry. The Car Czar will coordinate policy between the government and the auto industry to help ensure that that American Automobile industry remains healthy.
    Government bailouts are proven to benefit the economy because they help to keep people working in a tough economy. When the economy is poor and corporations are reducing their workforces, the government has an obligation to keep as many people employed as possible. Government subsidies are a fact of life in the United States, whether they are the supports provided in good times to dairy farmers or the creation of special programs during economic depressions. They provide stability to the economy that allows our national product to weather the ups and downs of a free market economy. By creating so-called bailouts, the government is ensuring that more people will stay employed and continue to pay taxes, purchase consumer products and meet the needs of their families. But they shouldn’t be a free for all for corporations, companies receiving funds have an obligation to open their records to scrutiny to ensure that the goal of keeping people employed is met.
    Bailouts are good, however we need to add something that makes sure the corporation changes their spending plan to cut it. And no bailouts to banks, they own every dollar in America they should be able to provide themselves.
    What’s your solution Mr. Libertarian let them fail and have worse unemployment numbers?
    5) Logical contradictions
    a) OWS. Libertarians supported it. Shouldn’t they be telling the protesters to stop being bums?
    b) Affirmative action. Libertarians criticize it, yet it is a liberal idea (social liberal, economic conservative). Which side are they on due to this logic
    c) Libertarians and secularism. Shouldn’t they be saying to stop separation of church and state as it is “government interference”
    6) Name ONE country where libertarian principles have been applied and they worked.
    Because there is a stupid argument against socialism “It’s never worked!”. It has worked, it’s called Europe in places like Sweden, etc. So name one place where libertarianism has worked

    • Alfonzo Reply

      July 3, 2012 at 11:39 am

      “Then why in 2008 were the bankers allowed to sell houses to people with no proof of income, no proof of job, no proof of economic responsibility and no proof of money. ”

      Because they govt incentivised them with cheap financing from the federal reserve bank. Congress wanted everyone to be able to afford a home, and govt sponsored enterprises like FANNIE and FREDDIE made that possible. You would have never seen a housing boom in a free market. Modern day bubbles are purely a result of poor monetary policy set by govt bureaucracies. The govt caused the 2008 crash, just like they caused the tech bubble, the great depression, and the oncoming govt debt bubble that has yet to pop.

      “And apparently libertarians think the government creates no job”

      The govt creates work. They do not create productive jobs. Money is taken out of the private sector to be directed to the public sector. Those jobs do not create any wealth. I would far rather have private sector policemen, because then they would have to play by the same rules as ordinary citizens. Instead of cops vouching for each other so they can get away with law breaking activity, i’d rather them be held to the same standard as any citizen if they break the law in upholding their duties. Police are legalized gangs, and all too often we see them over stepping their bounds with no consequences. I’m not saying all of them are bad or are not well-intentioned, but there are many many bad apples out there.

      “Bailouts are good to people who need them”

      Absolutely no one should be bailed out by the govt in capitalism. Private profits, private risks. You can not have private profits with socialized losses. Capitalism without fear and failure is like christianity without hell. Sure it wouldve been better if the taxpayers were bailed out instead of the banks, but that doesnt mean it shoudve happened.

      “The Chrysler bailout of 1979 was a huge success. ”

      How do you define success? Of course they were advantaged after receiving it! They got great capitalization and were at a huge advantage over any company that didnt get that extra money. BBut look where they are today. If they had been allowed to go through bankruptcy, they wouldve been bought up by other car companies like ford or GM, and those companies would be stronger and healthier than they are today. Restructuring is an important aspect of business. The businesses that are not performing the best and satisfying market demand effectively are weeded out so the scarce resources can be better allocated to companies that are performing better. Propping up bad companies is bad for EVERYONE.

      “End the Recession. The financial and automobile bailouts coupled with lower interest rates should help bring the current recession to an end and put the American People back to work”

      And where have the low interest rates gotten us so far. We’re smack dab in a depression! We need market set interest rates because it is physically impossible for any one person or organization to know what the price of money should be. It is up for the market to determine accurately.

      “OWS. Libertarians supported it. Shouldn’t they be telling the protesters to stop being bums?”

      I empathize with the OWS movement. I’m in the same boat as them age-wise, and economic outlook wise, but some of the things I have heard them asking for are a gross move in the wrong direction. Our country has deteriorated the past few decades because of how involved the govt is in our everyday lives. Adding more govt to the equation, as many OWS folk advocate will only make the problem worse. When govt has the power to preemptively regulate our lives, people are going to want to have a say in how they regulate. Companies with lots of cash are the best positioned to have the biggest say in how the govt regulates. OWS wants politician to take the money out of politics, but that doesnt address the problem well enough. I want to take the power away form politicians so the companies do not have anything worth lobbying for. It is a backdoor approach that will be far more effective. Remove the inventive and the problem is gone. Making the problem illegal does not remove the incentive.

      “Name ONE country where libertarian principles have been applied and they worked.
      Because there is a stupid argument against socialism “It’s never worked!”. It has worked, it’s called Europe in places like Sweden, etc. So name one place where libertarianism has worked”

      Have you heard anything about Europe in the news recently? I’m guessing you have, but in case you havent heard, everythings a mess over there. The main proponent of this mess has been the centralization of power from the sovereign states to the european union. Another great example of why all socialist states eventually fail. Top-down regulation has only served to cause distortions in the market place, and lead to unwary business environments. There is no country in the world today that is purely libertarian or practices pure capitalism, but it’s not because these are old ’18th century’ ideas or that they don’t work. It’s because it is not in a politician’s best interests to uphold these principles, and because the free market is very very very competitive for businesses, and fierce competition is the reason why so many businesses have turned to the govt to help ‘solve’ these problems through regulation. There are however a lot of Asian countries that are leaning towards more capitalistic economies, such as Hong Kong, Singapore, Indonesia, and Thailand. Hong Kong is a city-state that has no natural resources of their own, yet businesses thrive because the govt stays the hell out of their way. Taxes are low, regulations are low, and people have more economic freedom.

      • Imrahn Zakahev Reply

        July 4, 2012 at 10:27 am

        “Because they govt incentivised them with cheap financing from the federal reserve bank. Congress wanted everyone to be able to afford a home, and govt sponsored enterprises like FANNIE and FREDDIE made that possible. You would have never seen a housing boom in a free market. Modern day bubbles are purely a result of poor monetary policy set by govt bureaucracies. The govt caused the 2008 crash, just like they caused the tech bubble, the great depression, and the oncoming govt debt bubble that has yet to pop.”
        You dodged my question with that answer, 2nd dodge! You never got the problem. They were given the freedom to. Not because of the bullshit you posted above. They were given the freedom to do so and look how well that worked. Because of the deregulation was the correct answer.
        “The govt creates work. They do not create productive jobs. Money is taken out of the private sector to be directed to the public sector. Those jobs do not create any wealth. I would far rather have private sector policemen, because then they would have to play by the same rules as ordinary citizens. Instead of cops vouching for each other so they can get away with law breaking activity, i’d rather them be held to the same standard as any citizen if they break the law in upholding their duties. Police are legalized gangs, and all too often we see them over stepping their bounds with no consequences. I’m not saying all of them are bad or are not well-intentioned, but there are many many bad apples out there.”
        Money is taken out of the private sector to be given the the public sector. They’re called taxes. Almost every libertarian I met said taxes are theft. Since you clearly said that in your posts below your argument of that fell flat. Saying you want private sector policemen means you just said “I want anarchy”. Because even if they were private they would still be held in higher regard because they protect us from criminals. Saying “Police are legalized gangs” and “I’m not saying all of them are bad or are not well-intentioned” is a) a logical contradiction one minute you say they are thugs next not so much and b) aaand you just lost YOUR credibility, because only a person as ignorant and as stupid as you are would resort to generalization, stereotyping and straw-man arguments to make your points
        “Absolutely no one should be bailed out by the govt in capitalism. Private profits, private risks. You can not have private profits with socialized losses. Capitalism without fear and failure is like christianity without hell. Sure it wouldve been better if the taxpayers were bailed out instead of the banks, but that doesnt mean it shoudve happened.”
        People need help and you clearly do not understand that. Charity will not get people that far you know. I should know, I actually have experience with them. The charity I work with barley gets a few thousand for Tuberculoses medicine funds. If we had government help we could get much, much, further. Capitalism without fear and failure is much better than free-market capitalism because everyone would make mistakes and people would not be put out of a home and they would learn from their mistakes.
        “How do you define success? Of course they were advantaged after receiving it! They got great capitalization and were at a huge advantage over any company that didnt get that extra money. BBut look where they are today. If they had been allowed to go through bankruptcy, they wouldve been bought up by other car companies like ford or GM, and those companies would be stronger and healthier than they are today. Restructuring is an important aspect of business. The businesses that are not performing the best and satisfying market demand effectively are weeded out so the scarce resources can be better allocated to companies that are performing better. Propping up bad companies is bad for EVERYONE.”
        Can you not read, is that part of your problem? according to voices.yahoo.com it clearly stated “The new money allowed the automaker to continue its retooling program. In 1982, Chrysler broke even during a miserable year for auto sales. In 1983 the company made unprecedented profits and paid back the guaranteed government loans. By 1984 the company really took off and sold more than 2 million vehicles, and earned a whopping $2.4 billion. This allowed the company to rehire thousands of workers. Sophisticated production procedures and innovative products were establishing a great reputation for Chrysler.”
        “And where have the low interest rates gotten us so far. We’re smack dab in a depression! We need market set interest rates because it is physically impossible for any one person or organization to know what the price of money should be. It is up for the market to determine accurately.”
        Interest rates need not be market set. Saying interest rates need to be market set is like saying homework rates need to be student set. They need to be set so it benefits everyone. Not just a few. Interest rates need to be low so people can get affordable loans.
        “I empathize with the OWS movement. I’m in the same boat as them age-wise, and economic outlook wise, but some of the things I have heard them asking for are a gross move in the wrong direction. Our country has deteriorated the past few decades because of how involved the govt is in our everyday lives. Adding more govt to the equation, as many OWS folk advocate will only make the problem worse. When govt has the power to preemptively regulate our lives, people are going to want to have a say in how they regulate. Companies with lots of cash are the best positioned to have the biggest say in how the govt regulates. OWS wants politician to take the money out of politics, but that doesnt address the problem well enough. I want to take the power away form politicians so the companies do not have anything worth lobbying for. It is a backdoor approach that will be far more effective. Remove the inventive and the problem is gone. Making the problem illegal does not remove the incentive.”
        Aaaand yet more logical contradictions. You just said in a nice neat little paragraph “They are all bums, they’re irresponsible, they need to stop being that way, it is their fault that the unemployment rate is 8-9%, they choose not to work.”
        “Have you heard anything about Europe in the news recently? I’m guessing you have, but in case you havent heard, everythings a mess over there. The main proponent of this mess has been the centralization of power from the sovereign states to the european union. Another great example of why all socialist states eventually fail. Top-down regulation has only served to cause distortions in the market place, and lead to unwary business environments. There is no country in the world today that is purely libertarian or practices pure capitalism, but it’s not because these are old ’18th century’ ideas or that they don’t work. It’s because it is not in a politician’s best interests to uphold these principles, and because the free market is very very very competitive for businesses, and fierce competition is the reason why so many businesses have turned to the govt to help ‘solve’ these problems through regulation. There are however a lot of Asian countries that are leaning towards more capitalistic economies, such as Hong Kong, Singapore, Indonesia, and Thailand. Hong Kong is a city-state that has no natural resources of their own, yet businesses thrive because the govt stays the hell out of their way. Taxes are low, regulations are low, and people have more economic freedom.”
        Yes I have heard what is going on in Europe. That is going on because of Greece having spending habits that aren’t so great, not because of Socialism. Aside from that people in these Socialist countries Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands have some of the highest standards of living and they are happier than we are. When you use countries/city-states like Hong Kong, Singapore, Indonesia, and Thailand as examples of libertarianism, there is something wrong with you as a human being. They are not libertarian countries. They are conservative considering I have experience with them. They have less personal freedom and more economic freedom. Deregulation=no rules=room to rob=robbing=total fucking financial anarchy. See how in anyway that is efficient? I’m sorry but the free-market does not apply to today’s current conditions. Back then you could trust corporations. Now these days trusting a corporation to not screw us all over is like trusting Casey Anthony to babysit your child and not get the child murdered. Once again you dodged my argument again! In fact with this whole thing you dodged all of them and tried look smart. Typical free-market economist thinks they’re smart because they read an old book.

        • Alfonzo Reply

          July 16, 2012 at 6:53 pm

          “Because of the deregulation was the correct answer.”

          What ‘deregulation’? The net amount of laws has increased every year. Deregulation is more like reregulation.

          “a logical contradiction one minute you say they are thugs next not so much”

          Not all thugs are in gangs and not all gangs contain thugs. See your local dictionary/thesaurus.

          “People need help and you clearly do not understand that. Charity will not get people that far you know. I should know, I actually have experience with them. The charity I work with barley gets a few thousand for Tuberculoses medicine funds. If we had government help we could get much, much, further. Capitalism without fear and failure is much better than free-market capitalism because everyone would make mistakes and people would not be put out of a home and they would learn from their mistakes.”

          What you need to understand is that beyond anything else, capitalism is a RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. There need to be winners and losers because we otherwise owuld not know who is the best at meeting consumer demand and who is the best a most efficiently utilizing resources. If two people start fruit stands, and one sells better fruit and cheaper prices, that one is the winner and should be rewarded accordingly. If the govt comes in a gives money to the loser, the guy selling the bad fruit that no one wants at prices no one wants to pay, then WHO IS THE GOVT HELPING? Just the guy who owns the fruit stand. And in doing so they hurt every tax payer, and they hurt the guy who’s running the successful fruit stand. If the govt hadn’t helped the bad fruit guy then more people would have benefited.

          “Interest rates need not be market set. Saying interest rates need to be market set is like saying homework rates need to be student set. They need to be set so it benefits everyone. Not just a few. Interest rates need to be low so people can get affordable loans.

          That is by far, the worst analogy i’ve ever heard. Oh my god. You clearly have no insight into economic of the function of world markets. So let me explain. Money is scarce. Debt is scarce. Savings are scarce. Everyone would benefit from loans at .0001% interest, so why doens’t the government make it happen?! Because it would be downright irresponsible and overall, really really dumb, for real. Interest rates need to be set by the market because of the scarcity of savings. The only thing that can be loaned out is what is saved, and not spend on consumption. Interest rates must fluctuate to reflect the amount of aggregate savings available to be loaned out for investment. They can’t be set with the hopes of “making everyone happy” and “benefiting the little guy” That’s not how it works.

          “That is going on because of Greece having spending habits that aren’t so great, not because of Socialism.”

          But who’s doing the spending. The govt!

          “When you use countries/city-states like Hong Kong, Singapore, Indonesia, and Thailand as examples of libertarianism, there is something wrong with you as a human being. They are not libertarian countries.”

          Dude. Stop fucking with me and putting words in my mouth. You are being (un)intellectually dishonest, and it gets us no where. I neever said they were libertarian countries. I only tried to explain aspects of them that held more closely to the libertarian ideal. There is no capitalism anywhere in the world. Do you know why? Because economic freedom is dangerous to those who currently have power. Those who take advantage of the system through the govt would not stand a chance in the free market. All the guys/gals youve been lamenting about, exploiting their workers and fuckin over their customers can only do so because they have the govt in their front pocket. They have free rein because of a lack of free markets and capitalism, not because of too much capitalism.

          “Deregulation=no rules=room to rob=robbing”

          That is not the same and you know it. Clearly you’ve never owned or run a business, because you do not understand the difference between business regulations and assault.

          • Imrahn Zakahev Reply

            August 5, 2012 at 6:21 pm

            Oh my god. Look ever watch the movie Inside Job. Proves even the slightest bit of deregulation is bad. Which proves my statement: Deregulation=no rules=room to rob=robbing. OK. And no your outdated 18th century theory regarding money, banking and economics isn’t going to work anymore. Wall Street got deregulated and THEY plunged us into the worst recession because they had the room too. kk. And another thing. I will also point to more historical facts. After the great depression the economy was heavily regulated and it FUCKING WORKED. Now in this deregulated economy it is not working. kk. Is that so FUCKING hard to understand?! Look deregulation caused the crisis and that is a fact. You can look it up kk. Letting private unregulated enterprises run thing is by god the worst thing I’ve ever heard of. We all know how it works. Time and time again deregulation and shit economic theory’s have been proven to NOT work. Your idea? Try them again! The banks and corporations are sorry, they won’t do it again. Funny thing is that is what war criminals say. Your theory is suggesting that corporation will never use unlawful means to get money, we all know how that works. Go to free2work.org I have proven my exploitation theory. Deregulation is what caused the rich to move the factory to China, because without the rules telling them “no you can’t do that”, they went “holy shit I can pay people for a lower price in China and maybe exploit them”. By the way my dad is a banker so I have a good idea how economics works. This discussion is over, I’m losing IQ points talking to you. Your free-market ideas are naive, it assumes banks and corporations will be on their best behavior, without regulations recessions happen it’s a historical fact, kk.

            • Alfonzo Reply

              August 28, 2012 at 10:10 am

              “Oh my god. Look ever watch the movie Inside Job. Proves even the slightest bit of deregulation is bad. ”

              Are you seriously citing one hollywood movie as the end-all-bee-all proof that deregulation doesn’t work?

              “Deregulation=no rules=room to rob=robbing”

              That is about as far from the truth as anyone who has never thought seriously about these topics could come up with. We’re not talking about two scenarios in which there is one with laws and one without. You MUST be able to recognize there are a million options in between right? RIGHT? No one is advocating that there be no laws against theft, or fraud. Deregulation is not saying that people are allowed to steal.

              “Wall Street got deregulated and THEY plunged us into the worst recession because they had the room too”

              The period of time that you call deregulation, actually saw more laws put on the books than the prior election cycle. So I dont know WTF you mean when you say DEregulation. The problem is that one you have a system set up base don certain laws, there are going to be lots of imbalances when change those laws, as market adjust to the new rules. So it’s not just a case of deregulate and everything is solved, it’s a matter of HOW you deregulate, or re-regulate. Ofcourse the free market is the most efficient, most fair form of regulation. But you seem to think you know everything, and should be writing the laws, so there’s really no arguing with ham-fisted ignorance is there?

              “After the great depression the economy was heavily regulated and it FUCKING WORKED”

              How do you define “FUCKING WORKED”? Do you call the last 7 decades fucking working? Have you seen where they have gotten us today? An economy built on paper value that has mountains of debt to finance in order to keep everything chugging along. Real great system theyve created here for us to deal with eh?

              “Now in this deregulated economy it is not working”

              I really don’t blame you for not understanding the problems here. Theyre very difficult and complex, there are lots of things I dont understand myself. But your hard headed, arrogant, yelling at the top of your lungs “I GOT IT ALL FIGURED OUT” is quite possible the most asinine thing i’ve ever read on this internet. You don’t have a fucking clue, and the sooner you realize that the better off youll be.

  24. Imrahn Zakahev Reply

    June 26, 2012 at 8:30 am

    At the turn of the 20th century, business could do what it wanted– and it did. The result was robber barons, monopolistic gouging, management thugs attacking union organizers, filth in our food, a punishing business cycle, slavery and racial oppression, starvation among the elderly, gunboat diplomacy in support of business interests.

    The New Deal itself was a response to crisis (though by no means an unprecedented one; it wasn’t much worse than the Gilded Age depressions). A quarter of the population was out of work. Five thousand banks failed, destroying the savings of 9 million families. Steel plants were operating at 12% capacity. Banks foreclosed on a quarter of Mississippi’s land. Wall Street was discredited by insider trading and collusion with banks at the expense of investors. Farmers were breaking out into open revolt; miners and jobless city workers were rioting.

    • Michael John Scott Reply

      June 26, 2012 at 12:22 pm

      Imrahn thanks so much for taking the time to educate us. Your concise description of libertarianism is as I understood it. Many Americans have a tendency to support ideas about which they know nothing. They think in sound bytes and solid evidence eludes them. Thanks again and I hope you become a frequent visitor. We’re always looking for good writers you know :-)

    • Imrahn Zakahev Reply

      June 26, 2012 at 9:24 pm

      Any questions Free-Market economists?

    • Imrahn Zakahev Reply

      June 26, 2012 at 9:32 pm

      The only thing I agree with libertarians is socially. Economically they are asking for a repeat of child-labor, shit in our food, thugs paid to attack labor unions and starvation among the elderly.

  25. Imrahn Zakahev Reply

    June 27, 2012 at 6:17 am

    More free-market efficiency.
    OK some investors were looking to turn their money into more money so they go to the Federal Reserve to buy treasury bills which are the safest investment. But in the wake of the .com bust of September 11th the Fed lowers interest rates to 1% to keep the economy strong. 1% is a very low return rate so the investors say “Oh no thank you comrade.”. On the flip side 1% if you borrow money is quite a good rate for interest. That means banks on Wall Street can borrow for only 1% of interest. Add to that surpluses from Japan, China and the Middle East, there’s an abundance of cheap credit. This makes it easy for banks to borrow money. This causes banks to go crazy with leverage. Leverage means you borrow money to amplify the outcome of a deal. Here is an example. So in a normal deal someone with $10,000 buys a car for $10,000. He then sells the car to someone for $11,000 for a $1,000 profit. A good deal! Using leverage someone with $10,000 borrows $990,000. That gives him $1,000,000. Then he goes and buys 100 cars for $1,000,000. He sells the cars for $1,100,000. Then he pays back his $990,000 loan + the $10,000 in interest. After his initial $10,000 that leaves him with $90,000 profit vs the other guy’s $1,000 profit. A f**king great deal! This is a major way how banks make their money. So Wall Street takes out a s**t load of credit, makes great deals and grows f**king rich, and then pays it back. The investors see this and want a piece of the action. This gives Wall Street an idea. They can connect the investors and homeowners through mortgages. Here’s how it works. A family wants a house. So they save for a down payment and they contact a mortgage broker who connects the family to a mortgage lender who gives them a mortgage. The broker makes a nice commission, the family buys the house and they become homeowners. This is good for them because housing prices have been rising. Everything works out nicely. One day the lender gets a call from the investment banker who wants to buy the mortgage. The lender sells it to him for a very nice fee. The investment banker then borrows millions of dollars and buys thousands more mortgages and puts them in a nice box. That means every month he gets the payments from the homeowners of all the mortgages in the box. Then he sends his banker wizards on it to work their magic which is pretty much chopping the box into three slices: safe, OK and risky. Then they pack the slices back in the box and call it a Collateralized Debt Obligation or a CDO. A CDO works like three cascading trays. When the money flows it fills the top tray (safe), it pours into the middle (OK) and the rest is put in the bottom (risky). Where does the money come from? The homeowners paying off their mortgages. If some owners default and don’t pay less money comes in and the bottom tray might not get filled making the bottom tray riskier and the top tray safer. To make up for this risk the bottom tray gets a higher rate of return and the top tray a lower rate of return. To make the top tray safer they insure it for a tiny fee called a Credit Default Swap. They do this so the credit rating agencies will rate the top box as a AAA (safe as can be). The OK slice is BBB still quite good. The risky slice’s rating? B*tch please, they don’t bother to rate it. Because of the ratings he sells the AAA to investors who only want safe investments, the BBB to other bankers and the risky slice to risk takers. The investment banker makes millions and then he repays his loans. The investors are happy because they have found a safe, good investment for their money much better than the 1% at the fed. They are so happy they want more CDO slices. This is where trouble begins. The investment banker calls up the lender wanting more mortgages. The lender makes a phone call to the broker for more homeowners. Here’s the catch! The broker can’t find anyone because every person that can qualify for a mortgage already f**king has one. But they get an idea. When a homeowner defaults the lender gets the house and houses are always increasing in value. Since they are covered if the homeowners default they can start adding risk to new mortgages. That means no down payments, no proof of income and no documentation. And that is exactly what they did. So instead of lending to responsible homeowners (prime mortgages) they lent to people that made George Bush look stable (sub-prime mortgages). And the fuse is lit here. As usual the Mortgage broker connects the family with a lender and a mortgage making his commission, the family buys a big house, the lender sells the mortgage to the investment banker who turns it into a CDO and sells slices to the investors. This works out for everyone and it makes them all rich. No one was worried because when they sold the mortgage to the next guy it was his problem. If the homeowners defaulted they didn’t care, they were selling their risk to the next guy and making millions like playing hot potato with a time-bomb. Not surprisingly the homeowners default and the house is owned by the bank. One of his payments forecloses and that payment turns into a house. No problemo, he puts it up for sale. But more and more of his payments are turning into houses. Now there are so many houses for sale on the market (creating more supply than demand) and housing prices aren’t rising anymore and they plummet like the stability of any Bush plan whatsoever. This creates a peculiar problem for homeowners. As their neighborhood is getting as empty as George Bush’s brain and the housing prices are lowering (like George Bush’s IQ) they get to thinking: Why the f**k am I paying off a $300,000 loan when all the houses are $90,000. So they decide to stop paying even though they can afford to and they walk away from their house. Default rates sweep the country and housing prices plummet (like George Bush’s IQ). Now the investment banker is holding a pile of worthless houses. He calls up his buddies the investors and asks them to invest in the houses. FYI Investment Banker, investors aren’t stupid and will say no thanks to said investment. He tries to sell to everyone else but no one will buy his bomb. He is panicking because he borrowed a lot of money to buy this bomb. Whatever he tries he can’t get rid of it. But he ain’t the on;y one. Investors also bought these bombs. The lender calls the banker trying to sell his mortgage but the banker won’t buy it and the broker gets laid off. The whole financial system is frozen and the bombs explode. That’s not all the investor calls the homeowner and tells him his investment is worthless. That is the story. Then they wonder why we distrust a free-market and why we question the the wealthy, elite, the banks and large corporations. This is what they do just to get a penny not giving a s**t about the people.

    • Francine Reply

      June 27, 2012 at 2:01 pm

      Inrahm…thank you for that post…you could package that in a book entitled “the conservatives econmic meltdown…for dummies”.

      • Imrahn Zakahev Reply

        June 27, 2012 at 5:44 pm

        Actually I am writing a book and I borrowed this from my book. It doesn’t just focus of these issues though.

        • Michael John Scott Reply

          June 29, 2012 at 3:14 pm

          I’d love to get a preview copy of your book so that we can do a review on MMA. Good luck with it.

          • Imrahn Zakahev Reply

            July 2, 2012 at 3:44 am

            Thanks! I need all the luck I can get. I have no idea when it will be finished but I work on it as best as I can.

    • Michael John Scott Reply

      June 29, 2012 at 3:17 pm

      Wow. Why don’t you just send this to us via email? We could make an interesting article out of it. Use the contact link at the top of the page and we’ll give you the publishing address.

    • Alfonzo Reply

      July 3, 2012 at 11:46 am

      “More free-market efficiency.
      OK some investors were looking to turn their money into more money so they go to the Federal Reserve… ”

      Right there. Your whole argument is NULL and VOID. A free market does not have a central bank. Period. A free market has MARKET set interest rates. That is to say, through the process of the market, the cost of financing and borrowing money is determined by the supply of aggregate savings. Your whole position of how wall street got too greedy and levered up too much could not have happened without a central bank, and is not a result of the free market but is the failure of a centrally planned economy.

      • Imrahn Zakahev Reply

        July 4, 2012 at 9:01 am

        “A free market does not have a central bank.”
        Says who? The people that masturbate to Adam Smith’s picture association of America. Where did Adam Smith write that a free-market has no central bank?

        “is the failure of a centrally planned economy”
        Then I suppose South Korea when Park-Chung Hee was in power, he made it worse. Nope. With his centrally panned economy helped South Korea get out of an economy as stable as Michele Bachmann.

        • Alfonzo Reply

          July 16, 2012 at 6:08 pm

          “Says who?”
          It’s in the name. “Free market” If interest rates are set by a centralized authority then they are not determined by the process of the market. Couldn’t be any more simple than that.

          “The people that masturbate to Adam Smith’s picture association of America.”
          Gross dude. Adam Smith is not the end-all be all name in free market capitalism. I’d suggest you get more acquainted with some more modern names.

          “Then I suppose South Korea when Park-Chung Hee was in power, he made it worse. Nope. With his centrally panned economy helped South Korea get out of an economy as stable as Michele Bachmann
          Ignoring the moral argument to be made in favor of the free market, i’m not saying that a little central planning will always make things worse, initially. It’s impossible for any one person or group of people to have the foresight and the knowledge to plan the designation of resources for an entire country. If the govt redirect scarce resources to one sector, hell yeah that sector is going to flourish, because they now have more materials, more jobs, more action going on. What they ignore are all the other sectors that don’t get those resources, but may have used them more efficiently to meet the consumer’s demands.

  26. Ed Reply

    June 27, 2012 at 1:10 pm

    This post is no different than so many others of it’s type. All it says, in a long winded way, is “I want to be a slave, I just don’t want to be that kind of slave”. Very sad.

  27. Imrahn Zakahev Reply

    June 28, 2012 at 8:04 am

    check this channel out of Vermont’s senator Bernie Sanders:
    www(dot)yo utu be(dot)co m/u ser/Sen at orS and ers /
    (remove spaces)

  28. Imrahn Zakahev Reply

    July 1, 2012 at 4:40 pm

    Libertarianism

    • Michael John Scott Reply

      July 1, 2012 at 7:22 pm

      Did you mean to say something else?

      • Imrahn Zakahev Reply

        July 2, 2012 at 2:40 am

        Actually yes, I am stuck using shit for wifi and I accidentally pressed enter at the wrong time. What I meant to say was:
        Libertarianism is a paradox. They try to tell you that their philosophy is about personal choice yet under their system they would force you to be under the free market. And whenever government does anything do benefit us all they call it totalitarian, apparently they are the only ones to make decisions about our lives. You should take anything these guys say with a grain of salt.

        • Michael John Scott Reply

          July 2, 2012 at 9:31 am

          Thanks. I suspected a computer glitch. Glad to see you back.

          • Imrahn Zakahev Reply

            July 2, 2012 at 3:54 pm

            Sure. Though my connection is as unstable as George Bush so yeah no promises of consistency.

            • Michael John Scott Reply

              July 2, 2012 at 3:54 pm

              Why don’t you just write for us instead of messing with comments?

              • Imrahn Zakahev Reply

                July 2, 2012 at 4:05 pm

                I actually sent in a request to join the team. I love this blog. Didn’t get back though. Shall I try again?

              • Imrahn Zakahev Reply

                July 9, 2012 at 3:09 pm

                Sure I’d love to write for the blog. Could you please send me the link? Thanks much! Imrahn.

        • Alfonzo Reply

          July 3, 2012 at 12:00 pm

          ” they would force you to be under the free market.”

          There is no force in a free market. No one forces you to use a certain product or service. No one forces you to work for a certain company. You have choices, and that is the whole point. Govt is the only entity that can legally apply force to someone. They apply force to businesses through taxation and regulation. They apply force to consumers through business subsidies that artificially inflate the costs of goods and services. They apply force to civilians in other countries with drone strikes. They indirectly apply force to Americans when they meddle in affairs overseas, and insight anger towards the US from people who have had their homes destroyed by said drone strikes and decide to fight back against us. The govt is purely legalized force, which is why the role of govt should be limited as much as possible. They should only be the referee so that you can’t use force on me, and I can’t use force on you. If one of us applies force to the other, the govt is there to rectify the situation and to apply force to those who were wronged.

          “And whenever government does anything do benefit us all they call it totalitarian, apparently they are the only ones to make decisions about our lives.”

          This so drastically misses the point that I almost think you’re trolling. Govt action does not benefit EVERYONE at once, it only benefits some. The govt can only redirect resource, it can not create its own, and there are ALWAYS, I repeat, ALWAYS unintended consequences of heavy handed govt action. The whole point of libertarianism is to NOT make decisions over other people’s lives. It is to let people make their own choices, take their own risks, and reap their own rewards.

          • Imrahn Zakahev Reply

            July 4, 2012 at 8:54 am

            “There is no force in a free market”.
            Last time I checked replacing the economic system and forcing everyone to be under that system is not about choice. You are trying to convince people that your system is about choice. If so then they should be allowed be under what economic system they want. You are in no position to say your philosophy is about choice when you are trying to force people to be under an economic system. And you just dodged my point. You said:
            “No one forces you to use a certain product or service. No one forces you to work for a certain company.”. That was not my point and you know it. And one more thing there will be force in a free-market as well as exploitation. That is what happened at the turn of the 20th century when business was allowed to do what they wanted.

            “Govt action does not benefit EVERYONE at once, it only benefits some.”
            Well I’d like to see what your health plan is. It will be:
            1) Don’t get sick
            or
            2) Pray your insurance company doesn’t ditch you
            Ironically Obama did a good thing by forcing everyone to be insured, that prevents insurance companies from ditching their clients.

            • Alfonzo Reply

              July 16, 2012 at 6:25 pm

              “Last time I checked replacing the economic system and forcing everyone to be under that system is not about choice.”

              A free market would remove the burdens and forces already in place. It would free up resources, lead to more efficient pricing and overall more growth.

              “You are trying to convince people that your system is about choice. If so then they should be allowed be under what economic system they want.”

              Obviously a person can not choose to be in a particular economic system, short of moving to another country. Sadly America, though heading the wrong direction, is still one of the closest countries to capitalism there is, albeit it is still crony capitalistic and not free market capitalistic.

              “You are in no position to say your philosophy is about choice when you are trying to force people to be under an economic system.”

              I’m not trying to force anyone to do anything. I’m merely trying to explain to people the benefits of limited government intervention in the economy and in our lives. Every action the govt takes, takes away scarce resources and productive capabilities from the private sector. The sooner people realize that they can not get something for nothing, and the sooner they realize that all govts grow, and will continue to grow unless they are held to their specific functions, the better.

              “And one more thing there will be force in a free-market as well as exploitation”

              How exactly are you defining exploitation? The role of govt within capitalism is to enforce property rights, contracts, and protect people against fraud. If a businessman enslaves people to work in his factory, obviously he is engaging in a forceful action, and it is then the govt’s job to ensure that those who were wronged get retribution.

              “That is what happened at the turn of the 20th century when business was allowed to do what they wanted. ”

              A free market is FIERCELY competitive. For any business to attract and hold onto a share of the market, they have no choice but to do right by their customers. Otherwise the customers will just move on to another company to get the good or service they are looking for. A businessman can not simply do whatever he wants, he must do what the consumer wants. Otherwise he is not in business.

              “Well I’d like to see what your health plan is. It will be:”

              My health plan is :drumroll pleasssseeeee: a FREE MARKET IN HEALTHCARE. The govt have done enough damage to healthcare and medical prices already! Not allowing insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines is govt fucking up the free market. Allowing drug companies to have patent protection on their drugs, allowing them to limit supply and raise prices is govt fucking up the free market. The FDA’s policies on drug testing are govt fucking up the free market. If anyone thinks that the Affordable Care Act will do anything, except make healthcare more expensive for us as a nation had better open their eyes up quick.

              • Imrahn Zakahev Reply

                August 5, 2012 at 6:58 pm

                From communities.washingtontimes.com
                1. No more Freddie the Freeloaders allowed.
                The individual mandate requires that there are no more free rides on the insurance we all must pay. If you can afford Health Care insurance and don’t purchase it, then you will pay a fee, a penalty, a tax. Yep, call what it will, but you can no longer freeload off the American people. You must pay your fair share. So if you tumble off your motorcycle and smash up your ribs but neglected to ever buy health insurance because you think are invincible or can’t be bothered, guess what? The ride is over. Literally. One way or the other you will pay. If you are among the 85% who have health insurance, you will pay $0 in any tax penalty. If not, starting in January 2014, Freddie the Freeloader will pay 1% of his household income and the tax penalty will increase finally to 2.5% of his income by 2017.

                2. Obamacare will reduce the deficit.
                Everyone talks about the deficit, but lately no one seems able to make it shrink. Until now. Here’s a way: Obamacare. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that in 2011 Obamacare will reduce tour federal deficit by $210 billion over the next decade, saving about $1 trillion over its second decade. To repeal the law, as Republicans tried to do in 2011, would increase the deficit by $230 billion over the next 10 years, adds the CBO estimates.

                3. Health care costs for young Americans won’t skyrocket.
                Right now thanks to Obamacare, young adults have insurance. Without the law, the cost of buying an equivalent health care plan would have risen dramatically even as the younger generation struggles with the effects of the Great Recession.

                4. Millions of jobs will be created.
                Yep, jobs, up to 4 million of them over the coming ten years, according to a 2010 Center for American Progress report. How? Obamacare reduces the cost of health care, making it cheaper for businesses to hire. The law is expected to create between 250,000 and 400,000 jobs a year and likely will help create more than 200,000 manufacturing and 900,000 in the service sector by 2016.

                5. It will be cheaper for employers to provide health care.
                America’s small businesses are under tremendous pressure as health care costs soar, and these costs are usually passed on to us the consumers. Each car sold by GM contains $1,200 in health care costs for the company workers, according to David Brodwin of the American Sustainable Business Council. And that cost is part of the sticker price. Thanks to Obamacare, small businesses are already receiving tax credits written into the law to help insure their employees, and the bill has already offered more than $4.7 billion in reinsurance payments to those companies which provide health care to retirees who aren’t yet eligible for Medicare.

                • Michael John Scott Reply

                  August 6, 2012 at 9:28 pm

                  Well written indeed Imrahn! Thanks.

                  • Imrahn Zakahev Reply

                    August 21, 2012 at 8:24 am

                    Edited and better version:
                    Top 7 reasons why Obamacare is good for America:
                    Why Obamacare is good for America
                    1) The mandate requires that we all pay the insurance or we pay a tax, penalty or fee. Call it what you will (Fox News will call it communism or socialism, I’m not kidding they will, Bill O’Reilly compared the law to communist China, when this law is not even close to universal healthcare, communism or socialism), this means no free loading; you must pay your fair share. If you are among the 85% of Americans who have health insurance you will pay 0% in any fee, tax or penalty. If not starting January 2014, the freeloaders will pay 1% of their household income and the penalty will increase to 2.5% in 2017.
                    2) The deficit is one of the most talked about things in America today, and the Democrats and Republicans can’t agree on virtually anything, let alone make a decision that they all agree on to reduce the deficit. Here’s a way Obamacare can help. The law will save $210 Billion on the first decade and $1 trillion on the second decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. If the law is repealed it will increase the deficit by an estimated $230 billion, according to the CBO.
                    3) The health costs of young Americans won’t be expensive. Because of the law young Americans have insurance. Without the law the cost of buying an equivalent health plan would have been very expensive.
                    4) The law will help job growth, due to reducing health costs, thus making it cheaper for employers to hire. It is expected to create 250,000 and 400,000 jobs a year. It will also help create more than 200,000 manufacturing jobs and 900,000 service jobs by 2016. Republican backlash was attempted and they said it was a “job killing law” and they cited a figure of 650,000 jobs. PolitiFact’s Truth-O-Meter has since proven the statement as false.
                    5) It will save businesses a ton of money. By reducing healthcare costs and by giving businesses tax breaks in to the law. Business will have more money. By giving tax credits to the real job creators (the small businesses and startups, not the Republican definition) job creation among other good things will happen.
                    6) You won’t be denied coverage if you have a pre-existing condition and you won’t be dropped when you get sick. Insurance companies hate the law, presumably because the Federal Government is now curbing their ability to abuse their power.
                    7) It still leaves healthcare in the hands in the private sector, leaving the healthcare industry to pursue profit, which is really the basis of capitalism, it just makes sure people don’t pay obscene amounts of money for it. Whereas if we switched to universal healthcare, waiting periods would be longer and while people might still get healthcare, it might not be all that good.
                    P.S. Can you please get me on the team?

                • Alfonzo Reply

                  August 28, 2012 at 10:15 am

                  If even one of those things comes true I will buy you a steak dinner. If you really want to know what a bill out of Washington will do you only have to say the exact opposite name of the bill. The Affordable Care act will do nothing but make medical costs skyrocket, for everyone, within the decade.

                  • TheModerateCentrist Reply

                    October 1, 2012 at 10:07 am

                    I actually agree with this guy on this one. Sorry Alfonzo. I think the law will help reduce healthcare costs because in the first reason he stated no more freeloaders allowed because they get taxed. Look at it this way:
                    John has no insurance. He gets hit by a motorcycle. He has no medicaid. He can afford insurance. The hospital takes care of him, but then they’ve got this problem now. John didn’t pay any money, thus they lose money treating him. No problem, they just raise the costs of healthcare so that they make up for any lost money treating John.
                    By forcing you to have insurance they are actually lowering the costs for everyone because with the new law:
                    John not wanting to get taxed anymore decide to buy his insurance. John somehow pisses off the wrong guy and gets shot in the balls (sucks to be him today) and with the insurance he bought, pays his hospital bills. That means the hospital won’t have to raise costs to make up for any money they lost to John treating him.
                    But it’s not enough. We also need to reduce lawsuits.

  29. Imrahn Zakahev Reply

    July 5, 2012 at 10:13 am

    Libertarians are so blindly convinced that their free-market would work today. It won’t. The free-market is seriously suggesting that the wealthy, elite, corporations and banks seriously have the best interest of the working people in mind and that questioning their practices and that regulating them means that you are a socialistic moron who hates America. We need a mix of socialism and capitalism. I agree with capitalists that a market economy is a good thing and that will make growth. I agree with socialists that the workers need a bigger say in how things are done, that the workers should have some sort of control over the means of production, that the workers interests need to be represented, that the workers get help, that we need to provide for basic needs, that the wealth of society needs to be used for the benefit of society not for the benefit of a few, that we need to stop workers being exploited and that we need to have a more equal distribution of wealth, so the gap between rich and poor isn’t so damn huge.

    • Alfonzo Reply

      July 16, 2012 at 6:32 pm

      “The free-market is seriously suggesting that the wealthy, elite, corporations and banks seriously have the best interest of the working people in mind and that questioning their practices and that regulating them means that you are a socialistic moron who hates America.”

      Those who advocate a free market suggest the undeniable truth that every person is greedy. Every person wants things to make their lives better. But what keeps the businessman’s greed in check? Why doesn’t he raise the prices of his goods ten-fold to make more profit. Afterall, he’s greedy and wants to maximize revenues! The answer is the fear of losing his customers. Fear is what keeps greed in check. The fear of losing your employees to a competitor keeps the businessman from paying his/her workers to little or working them too hard. Fear from lawsuits keeps the businessman from selling unsafe products that could harm his customers. When the govt steps in and starts removes the fear, then people can act more greedily. Why did the banks make so many mortgage loans to people with bad credit? Because the govt had their back. They insured all bank deposits via the FDIC, and they provided cheap financing via FANNIE and FREDDIE. If the banks had been playing with THEIR OWN money, those bad loans would have never been made for fear they wouldn’t be paid back.

      • TheModerateCentrist Reply

        August 21, 2012 at 8:32 am

        Alfonso, you are right on some parts but deregulation of the financial industry almost caused the crash of the economy, that is why we need regulation. We need smarter regulation and not excessive regulation. However govt intervention is not always a good thing. We need to find a compromise point and practical solution to this issue.

        • Alfonzo Reply

          August 28, 2012 at 10:18 am

          It’s easy to say we need smarter regulation. But how do some bureaucrats know what is the smartest thing to do. Especially when they have NO experience in many of the industries they are regulating. The people who know what is best are the ones PARTICIPATING in the marketplace. The people who are trying to serve their customers so they can beat their competitors know what their clients want and how they can best meet the demand. It is impossible to predict the unintended consequences of bad regulations. It’s why removing glass-steagal caused such a mess. There were unintended consequences when they enacted it, and there were unintended consequences when they removed it. The less the govt interferes in the voluntary interactions of people in the marketplace the better off everyone will be.

          • TheModerateCentrist Reply

            August 31, 2012 at 8:57 am

            I think we find common ground here. We should make sure that the regulators had experience in the in the industry before they regulate.

      • TheModerateCentrist Reply

        August 23, 2012 at 4:14 am

        Another thing, Alfonzo. Without regulations you are gambling with business men and you leave a lot of factors out. I read this online it’s from open.salon.com:
        “A great example of why we still need regulation is the rejection of a settlement between Citigroup and the Securities Exchange Commission by Judge Jed Rakoff in a case where Citigroup profited by short selling a financial product that it had promoted and knew to be highly questionable, while the investors in the security lost millions. In this case Citigroup took in about $160 million dollars in profit while investors lost nearly $700 million dollars. Even though Citigroup had agreed to pay $285 million dollars in a settlement, Rakoff ruled that the settlement was “neither fair, nor reasonable, nor adequate, nor in the public interest.” Rakoff essentially felt that the suggested settlement would let Citigroup off the hook while denying “the court, and the public some knowledge of what the underlying facts are.”

        It’s important to note that the investors in this questionable financial instrument were not your garden variety individual who gets a phone call during dinner from a low level stock jockey. They were what the law refers to as “sophisticated investors”, that is financial professionals charged with a fiduciary responsibility to know what they are buying, selling and suggesting as investments to their clients. Thus if even the pros could be waylaid by an unscrupulous Citigroup what does that say about the dangers that lurk in the financial markets for the average soul just looking to enhance his financial future without getting cleaned out in the process? With this case in mind and the memory of the financial debacle, borne of lax regulation, that we went through in 2008, does anyone still think that a wholesale removal of economic regulation is truly a sound idea? I doubt it.”. Are there regulations that are fucking up business, hell yeah. But is an unregulated economy the answer. No. Also, imagine if you couldn’t regulate minimum wage? You’d have McDonalds paying employees $1/hr, making killer profits. The employees leave and McDonalds is out of business. With minimum wage laws, McDonalds pays their employees reasonably for that line of work and they have a business (and we have an economy). Another reason we need regulation is because insurance companies were infamous for dropping patients when they got sick and for denying coverage to those who had pre-existing conditions and they didn’t tell you how much went to premiums. Now with Obamacare that is all gone.

        • Alfonzo Reply

          August 28, 2012 at 10:35 am

          From the Citigroup example, it appears that they just committed fraud. Lying about a product for financial gain. This is something that the victim should have legal recourse against. The problem here is that the court system is so weighted towards those with the most money to fund their lawyers, instead of equal application of the law for all classes. No one is saying there should not be laws against fraud and theft. Someone who robs another or lies to them to make a buck should feel the full consequences of their wrongful actions. But I think the best way to deal with something like this isn’t to make industry regulations about how Citi can set up and market products, it is to hold them fully liable through the court system for what theyve done.

          As for the minimum wage. It should be completely abolished. It robs young and unskilled workers from the chance to gain important on-the-job skills when they are young, so that they are more able to compete in the tough labor market. McDonald’s cant just start paying all their employees $1 an hour and rake in the profits. The labor market doesn’t work like that. If people are willing to work for that $1 per hour then that shows what the real wage of the job SHOULD be. If they can’t hire anyone at $1/hr, but people are willing to do the job at $3.5/hour then that is where the supply of labor meets the demand for jobs. Govt regulating what the base pay should only keeps more workers from being hired. Two workers at $3.5/hr are twice as productive as 1 worker at $7/hr. This means a more efficiently run restaurant that can be more productive. This means that in the end the customers can get cheaper prices. Now even the poorest people are benefiting from having SOME income, even if it is $1/hr, because input costs are lower, then output costs can be lower.

          “Another reason we need regulation is because insurance companies were infamous for dropping patients when they got sick and for denying coverage to those who had pre-existing conditions and they didn’t tell you how much went to premiums.”

          A free-market in healthcare would be a much better alternative. If an insurance company is not living up to their contract then that is cause for govt to get involved, so the other individual party can get some recourse and force the insurance company to make good on their agreed upon arrangement. We all agree that medical costs are too high, and that’s the main problem that needs to be dealt with. But why don’t we look at what the govt has done to make medical costs to high for us the first place. How about regulations that don’t allow insurance companies to sell their services over state lines? Surely that can only be GOOD for the individual consumer right? How about the laws the govt put in place in the 1930s so that people could get health services from their employer because the govt was capping the level of wages an employee could receive. No unintended consequences there huh? Will the ACA do some good for some people? Sure. But there is no way that the govt can make backroom deals with insurance companies, and expect to get more out of them than what they would be forced to provide in a competitive free market environment.

          • TheModerateCentrist Reply

            August 31, 2012 at 8:56 am

            Alfonzo I agree with you on the insurance companies on state lines thing. I mean what is the big deal if an insurance company wants to operate over state lines? I also see where you’re coming from on the minimum wage part, but hey some people rely on it. I think we should be more flexible on it so that if a company can’t afford that minimum wage, then they have another legal option to fall back on. Maybe $5.50/hr? IDK. As for the employer insurance it should either be up to the company to decide or employee opt-in optional. Also I’d like to congratulate you on getting your old profile pic back on a side-note. As for World Peace I think I would agree with you on that one. Commerce and trade is the best way for peace.

          • Cathy Reply

            December 12, 2012 at 5:10 pm

            Alfonzo, your posts are very well written and a pleasure to read. You win, hands down. Maybe in time, Imrahn Zakahev and the others will come around.

            • TheModerateCentrist Reply

              January 12, 2013 at 9:25 pm

              I will admit I find Alfonzo interesting. I think he should run for president.

            • TheModerateCentrist Reply

              January 12, 2013 at 9:26 pm

              I will admit I find Alfonzo interesting. I think he should run for president. I also find Imrahn Zakahev to be sincere but, not informed.

    • William Hoang Reply

      October 14, 2012 at 3:58 pm

      Of course wealthy corporations don’t have your best interests at heart, they have their best interests at heart, but in a free market to make lots of money you need to help people by giving them a product they want at an affordable price, so what if a company makes super profits what are they doing wrong exactly? What do workers need help for? They’re not forced to work, if their wages are too low why are they working then? How are workers being exploited? If a worker is willing to work for a lower wage than you are how is it fair to price them out of the market with a minimum wage?

      • Francine Reply

        October 14, 2012 at 5:10 pm

        The corporations are so greedy that they would take advantage of their workers because they don’t give a shit about people. Everybody would be so desperate for work they would take those low wages and long hours because they have children to feed.
        I have a business, a meat business, and I must follow regulations and buy from reputable venders. No regulations? I could buy pigs and cows from the poorly run farm in the next town and after some e-coli gets in the mix, I could sicken millions…..and who would know?
        You dreamers won’t understand business unti you are living under one of our crumbling bridges making $3.00/hr, with your hungry uneducated children and listening to your congressman boast that this is the wealthiest country on the globe. Then you will know you were played for a dupe. And you will have deserved everything that you get.

  30. TheModerateCentrist Reply

    August 21, 2012 at 8:20 am

    I agree with most of this article. I just love how libertarians and conservatives are so uneducated (most of the time any way). For example the problem is not how much money we are spending, rather the issue is where is it being spent on. Instead of being spent on bullshit wars in Afghanistan or the Middle East, we should be spending it on the welfare system or on some shit helping recovery. Speaking of welfare we need to return to Clinton-era welfare. The PRWORA, was the best thing in the history of welfare. Sorry we can’t just leave the poor to churches and charities. We would never get that far simply speaking. The left makes good points such as helping people and the right make good points such as fiscal responsibility. See combined, they WORK! And libertarians and conservatives are right on some regulations. We need smarter regulations not excessive regulations. Furthermore to keep peace we need trade, not free trade (except with our close allies). Once we trade and have commerce we keep peace. We need to work towards practical solutions by combing ideas and working towards progress.

  31. TheModerateCentrist Reply

    August 31, 2012 at 9:03 am

    As much as I think we need regulations we still need to get rid of the bullshit ones that destroy business. We need to make sure that we don’t fuck up business, but at the same time make sure the businesses don’t abuse their power and destroy the economy.

  32. TheModerateCentrist Reply

    August 31, 2012 at 9:05 am

    Look at the end of the day people, we may disagree, but all that matters is that we’re Americans.

  33. TheModerateCentrist Reply

    August 31, 2012 at 9:14 am

    There needs to be a mixed economy one with a public sector and one with a private sector. That private sector needs to be active and competitive, but that private sector needs to be regulated in a reasonable manner. Rules and regulations are needed in an economy, we could do away with some of the bullshit ones, but still we need the rules and regulations.

    • William Hoang Reply

      October 14, 2012 at 3:48 pm

      Where is this argument for regulation coming from? I mean markets are the best regulator, if you are involved in bad business e.g. approving risky loans, your business fails and goes under. What happens when Govt intervenes? OH LOOK they get bailed out. What happens when central banks manipulate interest rates? OH LOOK we get recessions and depressions and stagflation, having a mixed economy is great right? As for capitalism, being successful in a free market economy is all about producing what the consumer wants, the ones that cater best to the consumers preference make the most money e.g. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. As for forcing the free market on people, that was one of the most stupidest comments I’ve ever read, the free market is the absence of force dumbass.

      • TheModerateCentrist Reply

        October 27, 2012 at 11:37 am

        “Where is this argument for regulation coming from?”
        From common sense and observation. Ever notice how when the govt gets off the backs of Wall Street, financial shit happens?
        “I mean markets are the best regulator, if you are involved in bad business e.g. approving risky loans, your business fails and goes under.”
        Well what about this then?
        Microsoft without regulation would continue its anti-business practices in Europe. Some such as John D. Rockefeller will use their abilities in the oil business to undercut competition and drive them out of business. Allowing builders to do away with the safe building codes allowed Hurricane Andrew in South Florida to destroy houses and buildings built after 1981 while those built before that date survived without damage. Effective regulation of business activity is desired and needed to protect both the companies and the consumer. Companies need a level playing field to compete against other companies. The consumer needs a level playing field in order to make informed buying decisions.
        “What happens when central banks manipulate interest rates? OH LOOK we get recessions and depressions and stagflation”
        1) Actually I can kindly correct you on that one. We had a recession every 20 years before a central bank. We had to be bailed out during those times by someone like the Rockefellers. NO THANK YOU! The reason the Fed “manipulates” interest rates is so that banks don’t suddenly raise them on customers. I am too lazy to explain so look at this: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Fed
        2) Recessions used to be a common occurrence under “free-markets” because the businesses during a boom would expand too much, creating more supply than demand, thus causing a recession. A solution to this is to tax more during boom periods and cut taxes during a bust period.
        Anyway moving on to your next strawman:
        “OH LOOK they get bailed out”
        I did not in any way, shape or form say I was for TARP or the secret Fed bailouts. In fact let me put this in here for the record: I am opposed to bailouts. In fact let me give you a once-in-a-life time opportunity to cure bailouts. It’s called: regulating business properly, so they don’t get into trouble in the first place. The only time a business should ever get bailed out is if there is evidence the government caused some misdeeds to said business.
        “As for forcing the free market on people, that was one of the most stupidest comments I’ve ever read, the free market is the absence of force dumbass.”
        Are you blind? That social democrat Imrahn Zakahev said that.

  34. Fred Reply

    October 4, 2012 at 6:01 pm

    I don’t speak for all libertarians, but I’m not stupid, selfish or mean. I don’t think there’s an ideology out there that could be applied both literally and successfully because the world is not ideal. I think the path our country is on right now can be corrected by applying libertarian principles, namely: mind your business and don’t spend money you don’t have. I don’t want libertarianism applied to the extreme.

    I think equating all libertarians with anarchists outright is a straw man argument and nothing more. It’s an unnecessary distraction from the big red and blue elephant in the room that, in my opinion, is destroying our country.

    • William Hoang Reply

      October 14, 2012 at 3:51 pm

      If you apply the core of Libertarian principles to everything (the non initiation of force) then that means that you should not have Govt. But i agree that giving more freedom to the citizens of a country is a step in the right direction

    • TheModerateCentrist Reply

      October 27, 2012 at 10:23 am

      Equating Libertarianism with Anarchism/Anarcho-Capitalism is a strawman. They are completely different ideologies. And as an Independent I agree the two parties are destroying the country.

  35. E.A. Blair Reply

    April 2, 2013 at 11:09 pm

    Could I please be spared the mandatory video of a dog having a thermometer shoved up its ass?

    • Michael John Scott Reply

      April 3, 2013 at 9:10 am

      LOL…it’s time to change those videos I think.

    • Michael John Scott Reply

      April 3, 2013 at 9:16 am

      Fixed…..No more dog with thermometer in ass, unless you turn on the video of course :-)

  36. Archibalder Reply

    April 28, 2013 at 6:07 pm

    I believe that individual v. collective is really a false dichotomy.

    Wouldn’t health care for all be about the individual because we are guaranteeing individuals the right to health care?

    Isn’t the right to property about the collective because it requires organized, large-scale enforcement? Otherwise people could just take what ever they want from whoever they wanted.

    All policies that help individuals help the collective, all policies that help the collective help individuals. Arguing about whether to focus more on the individual or the collective is a waste of time and can make two sides seem very different when they are in fact almost exactly the same.

    Instead of individualism or collectivism how about we recognize that everything can be expressed in both sets of terms and just be pragmatists?

  37. jj Reply

    May 1, 2013 at 3:33 pm

    Since when conservatives or the republican party represent libertarians? In all the discussion here I have not read a reference to Gary Johnson or Penn Jillette, public personalities more aligned to the philosophical views of libertarianism. How many of you lefties are even aware of Classical Liberalism and the wealth or similitudes it shares with libertarianism?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classicall_liberalism

  38. kendallmccumber Reply

    June 24, 2013 at 2:05 am

    Wether I agree with you or not aside starting your argument with calling something (stupid) is typically a good way to invalidate your argument or at least bring your legitimacy in to question but also the above described really only focuses on libertarian economics as there are other concepts like personal freedom which is why iam a libertarian but I do agree that complete and total capitalism as some libertarians would advocate is inherently flawed especially the way that republicans or tea party members have morphed libertarianism however Hayek which is considered one of the influential to modern libertarianism actually advocated for universal health care and to a degree government regulation just limited reasonable although I don’t remember the exact book or essay I just hope people will see that the current state of libertarianism is not the the same as classic and I also hope the party in particular will get out of the bed of the republicans just to win and focus on what real libertarianism actually advocates

  39. Giovanni Reply

    July 3, 2013 at 3:50 pm

    Why is it that most criticisms of libertarianism are naked straw man arguments?

    This blog is just horrifying, intellectually:

    “In our time, especially here in America, libertarianism has morphed into something ugly. It has become the philosophy of choice of the Republican party, and a justification for an attitude that is stupid, selfish and mean.”

    Why don’t corporations donate funds to libertarian candidates? Why do they instead donate to the Democrat and Republican campaigns?

    The passage you cited explains libertarianism, not liberalism, of which libertarianism used to be called (classical liberalism).

    This blog is just a mess. The comments are embarrassing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>