It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Trouble with Libertarians

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Perhaps if true Libertarians had been in elected positions, the U.S. wouldn't be in the predicaments they're in.

All mistakes lead into 1000 more later on after the initial lies and errors.

The Progressives are living proof. Masters of errors they are.





posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 07:22 PM
link   
I first heard about libertarians over 30 years ago. They were kind of an intellectual fringe, the people who sat back and looked at both parties and saw how they couldn't solve anything and seemed to be identical in their methods even if their goals were different. Not egg head intellectuals with zero real world experience, but common sense types who looked for real solutions. Now we see that the two major parties are more identical than ever and seem to be working in concert for their own benefit and against both their own members.
Libertarians skew higher age wise than 20 to 30 year old males. You're looking at people in their 40s and 50s and 60s. The ones who weren't ingrained to be lock step in support of either party and who were open minded enough to look elsewhere for answers.
If you want the least informed voters, that would be democrats. Republicans would be a respectable second.
But people in their 20s aren't even involved in the political process. That's a myth pushed on us in the last two elections. Young people don't vote, not anymore than they did 20 years ago. They may be registered, they may have votes cast for them but they don't show up at the polls. Older people vote. 30s, 50s, 50s 60s and especially the elderly, they vote. Elections are fixed, its now easier than ever.
Anyway, its good to see libertarians are now on the radar and are seen as a threat to the establishment and to the political status quo. There's hope.
edit on 19-7-2014 by Dutchowl because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: CB328
Exactly, it's probably largely the parents' fault, but why be real when you can just blame it on the government as an excuse to not pay taxes?

And then call yourself moral.


Ah, but the government enables it. If you can make more money by having more kids and not being married ... how eager are you to do the hard work of cleaning your self up? That's hard work when it's much easier to have that extra kid and continue to neglect them.

And so long as politicians can continue to buy votes by promising more and making people "need" government there is no will to change that system anytime soon.

And how is it moral to pay taxes to a system that is proven to be shoddy at what it's supposed to do?


You're not thinking realistically. How does cutting welfare end poverty? Do you think in the absence of means-tested assistance programs will eliminate the poor (other than by means of starvation)? Poor people existed before welfare. If we want to have less poor people, we need good jobs. Doing away with the social safety net won't create jobs.
edit on 2014-7-19 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

From a 40 something year old libertarian property owner:

I don't have issues with social security. I have issues with social security being a tax instead of an investment. I also know the government will spend far, far more than any other organization while trying to achieve a goal, which means my "tax" is a very poor return just by the nature of their lack of efficiency.

I am not as concerned with "global issues" because I don't live all over the globe. I am more concerned with tending to my own back yard, and letting my neighbors tend to theirs.



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328

Self sufficiency is largely a myth. Humans are social creatures that live in groups (societies). We need to work together and help each other, just like other social animals do.

Libertarians do not dispute this; however, just because we're social "animals" (a revealing position) does not mean a political state is necessary for order and prosperity.

Lions do not have political parties and do just fine.


As for coercion, you can't have a government without any power, which means that some people will have to do things or not do things they don't like. You can call it coercion, but it's just reality.

The equation of natural reality with state coercion is disturbing. Are you saying force is necessary for social cohesion?

I wonder where I've heard that before...
edit on 7/19/14 by NthOther because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 08:28 PM
link   
I am INDEPENDENT I vote as I please to to a party.



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: CB328

Self sufficiency is largely a myth. Humans are social creatures that live in groups (societies). We need to work together and help each other, just like other social animals do.

Libertarians do not dispute this; however, just because we're social "animals" (a revealing position) does not mean a political state is necessary for order and prosperity.

Lions do not have political parties and do just fine.


As for coercion, you can't have a government without any power, which means that some people will have to do things or not do things they don't like. You can call it coercion, but it's just reality.

The equation of natural reality with state coercion is disturbing. Are you saying force is necessary for social cohesion?

I wonder where I've heard that before...


"Lions do not have political parties and do just fine" sounds great but hardly a worthwhile comparison. How about we compare HUMAN societies without states to those with enough of a state that life doesn't suck to those living in a truly authoritarian state?

There are plenty of countries with states that are extremely weak and it is a very very small number of Americans would want to live in any one of them. I'll spare you the typical response of, "what about Somalia!?" but the Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist utopia is a pipe dream for any society of appreciable size. There's a balance.

As I said in my earlier post; communism and libertarianism both suffer from views of human behavior that do not comport well with reality.
edit on 2014-7-19 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Poor people existed before welfare. If we want to have less poor people, we need good jobs. Doing away with the social safety net won't create jobs.



I agree.... We need to have enough skilled good paying jobs (Not entry Min Wage ones) where any adult with a family could easily get enough training to do. The jobs would have to be of enough pay/benefits to make a comparison of being on welfare/social security disability vs the skilled job to be a no brainer which to choose.

That way minimum wage workforce entry jobs could go back to teenagers and the youth.

You'd think our politicians would have figured this out......instead they want to up the visas of foreigners for high tech jobs rather than retrain our workforce appropriately.

If between Walmart's "Made in America" venture and getting other tech and skilled jobs back to the U.S. we would be in a position to actually get America employed with fairly decent jobs again.

Fully employment brings tax revenues up, the deficit down, entitlements down and GDP up. I'm sure our elected officials will screw it up still.............



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

"The Problem with People Who Think They Know What Libertarians are"

Pretty much sums it up... one of the big mistakes folks, even so called "Libertarians" make, and R's and D's make... is their mind frame can NOT handle un-explained or un-explainable ideas.

"True Libertarians", just like Dems and Reps if you put the term "Traditional" in fron of them... resemble the modern interpretation of "Libertarian" very little.

The Lib Party is a toothless joke mostly... and the amount of "Statism" that is expressed across almost the entire political spectrum these days is rather galling.

Same thing with the idea of philosophical "Anarchism", which... to the Ministry of Information addled brains of the body politic, means "total chaos". (How DARE anyone suggest an individual be allowed to associate and and make agreements with others, so long as they do no harm, without the oversight of authorities!! Why that's total freedom! The outrage!!!")

To most Americans, it is FAR more desirable to obfuscate and propagandize the public masses to the brink of and over the edge into complete economic and societal collapse... and then blame it on "them" (terrorists? each other?), or to just pretend that "yes... it is bad... but that stuff won't happen here..." or, the other favorite... "...it won't happen any time soon... etc".

That is the whole enchilada... ALL discussion of policy, must be prefaced with the proper amount of blaming THEM (the them du jour), BEFORE we decide to have a discussion about simple math, and what is or is not working.

Debt means almost nothing to Americans... their understanding of currency and monetary policy is EXACTLY like "hey... there's still checks in my checkbook... I must have money... I'll just write a check."

This discussion of political parties is quite literally just moving chairs around on the deck of the Titanic, and blaming ALL current problems on "the other"... f*** the mathematics and the facts... and BOTH main parties do it.



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 09:46 PM
link   
I like libertarians. They are one of the last groups in the US that really cares about civil liberties.

No small thing.



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

If someone wastes money, don't give it to them. How is that for pragmatic? Libertarians are actually focused on practicality. They believe when you've made a mistake, instead of keeping making that same mistake you stop making the mistake.

Is Hong Kong a practical city? Is Singapore a practical city. Those cities work. Both of them are border-line libertarian cities. So yes, it is practical. And yes they are packed like sardines in Hong Kong but only because of the population density and no other reason... not because of the near capitalistic society they have.

Honesty is the best policy. It works. Taking people's money without their permission through taxation is dishonest and does not work. It does not give us better education. It does not give us better treatment of the poor. It does not help. The government does almost nothing to help any one. The FDA gives a very false sense of security and now we have all kinds of GMO foods. Consumer Reports and Consumer labs run circles around the FDA any day even with some level of corruption... it can't ever compare to the corruption of the FDA.

Take social security for example. You take 16% of people's money, then give that same amount back 50 years later at 0% interest. That isn't helping anyone. Its a mistake. It hurts more than it helps. There is nothing practical or helpful about social security.

Even recently I thought government employees mean to help people. However, think of a suggestion on how they they could save money. Then give it to your government employees at the next meeting. Notice how they couldn't care less about your suggestion at all regardless of how obvious the money savings would be. So the practical thing to do in this situation would be to avoid giving these power-hungry freaks no money since they waste it.

The selfishness/greediness is on liberals end for wanting money that isn't theirs. Voting to give your self money isn't generous. Nobody is more enthusiastic about raising taxes than government employees. I think voting to give your self government benefits is quite selfish.

If you believe social security is good then P-M me and I'll give you 0% if you loan me 16% of your paycheck every week. Oh I see, its good for other people, just not you. Yeah, thought so. The fact is, you think you know what is better for other people than they do. Wrong. That is the universal mistake of the moderate. They actually don't know better.
edit on 19-7-2014 by wayforward because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil

Have to reconstitute industry then.



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

"Granted, not all libertarians want to be Libertarians but I thought I'd point that out."

That's rich... membership in the Libertarian Party is what I use to identify so called libertarians... they wouldn't know the principle of supporting freedom if it hit them in the head.

Most real Libertarians are looking for like minded folks... NOT another party pooper phony political party to displace their disillusionment with the Dems and Reps.

But... you wouldn't know that... because like most of America... you take your ideas about what's what from the "pre-mastication media" which yes, does include much of the so called alternative media... although I'm betting (or hoping) you don't do the same thing with your meals!

That's not your fault... you have been well trained in the U.S. by the "Minions of Bernays".




edit on 19-7-2014 by dasman888 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-7-2014 by dasman888 because: punctuation



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Define "means tested." I think your definition is broken. I see plenty of able-bodied people who live off our tax dollars with no plan beyond their next government paycheck.

They have the means to support themselves but government assistance enables them to not do so.

There is a difference between won't support yourself and truly can't support yourself, and our system doesn't have that line.



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 10:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: pavil

Have to reconstitute industry then.


Yes, and that would mean getting the EPA partially out of the way. Oh, look more government.



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 10:17 PM
link   


You take 16% of people's money, then give that same amount back 50 years later at 0% interest. That isn't helping anyone


It helps everyone in the country, as I explained in my opening post if you would have read it.

It's strange that no one addressed my core issue, which was that the new masses of young libertarians have a flawed worldview due to being insulated from many of the hardships of life. Don't tell me that all libertarians are old when we saw huge crowds or college kids and people in their 20's and 30's at Ron Paul events. I think the older "real" libertarians are not very organized or influential in politics.



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

No they LIKED Mr PAUL because he made sense to them.



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Heh, to me your post smacks of "Get those damn libertarian kids off my lawn!"

You sound like the older generation progressive sort who can't figure out why the younger generation is rebelling against you.

You said they have not a care in the world? I think you've forgotten the college debt almost all of them are going to be saddled with ... on top of increasing health care bills they now must pay, housing costs, lack of jobs, lack of freedom, lack of any realistic chance for a future anything like they see you enjoying. And you forget they're smart enough to understand that you are largely enjoying it at their expense.

And you wonder why they resent you?


edit on 19-7-2014 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: CB328
Libertarians are fools and conservative minds are easy pickings for this idiotic idea. You conservatives are black and white thinkers, for murder(abortion) or for life, for taxes or against taxes, poor people are destroying the country, illegal immigrants are destroying the country, minorities are destroying the country, Muslims want kill all Christians, Obama is evil, BIG GOVERNMENT BAD AND SMALL GOVERNMENT GOOD, UG me caveman. The libertarian has it good so he wants to kick out the ladder so the genetically inferior can wallow in their filth.

Which brings me to my point, THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS!!!!
No one wants to get rid of the government functions that should be cut, because someone is making a ton of money off their existence. No one wants to severely cut defense for example. They only want to cut those things that will allow corporations to further their monopolistic control, pushing us further and further toward fascism. As much we don't like to be controlled by government or anyone, we must understand that if certain forces aren't controlled by government(the people), we will destroy our planet, we will poison and kill our citizens, giant companies will completely control our little government and our lives.


edit on 20-7-2014 by fripw because: typo



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 12:13 AM
link   
a reply to: CB328


It's strange that no one addressed my core issue, which was that the new masses of young libertarians have a flawed worldview due to being insulated from many of the hardships of life.


Maybe Libertarians know more than you know ?

Maybe they know how to keep out of poverty and off the Government suck-in vacuum projects that always fail with no clear cut solutions.

Maybe Libertarians know and understand the "Hardships" and how to avoid the traps and snares.

The Progressives always react after the fact and when it's too late.

Hence their dilemma and much to their chagrin.





new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join