patrick.net

Where or when has the libortopian "experiment" worked.

I guess that experiment implies that it has been tried before. OOPS.

In yet another example of Republican unintentional humor, Paul Ryan used to give Ayn Rand novels as Christmas presents, until someone pointed out that his platform conflicted with her beliefs.

"While Rand, an atheist, did enjoy a good Christmas celebration for its cheerful commercialism, she would have scoffed at the idea of public service. And though Mr. Ryan’s advocacy of steep cuts in government spending would have pleased her, she would have vehemently opposed his social conservatism and hawkish foreign policy. She would have denounced Mr. Ryan as she denounced Ronald Reagan, for trying “to take us back to the Middle Ages, via the unconstitutional union of religion and politics.” "

She was also pro-choice.

Vicente says

Like to see Santelli, or either Paul to embrace this.

Since when are Santelli and Paul known to be religious zealots? No that there aren't enough of them, but that's not a good example.

.
.
And now for the REAL NEWS you really been waiting for...
.
.
.

Before going golfing, Obama blames Bush for weak jobs report

BY PAUL BEDARD | JULY 5, 2013

The White House on Friday continued to blame the economy President Obama inherited from President Bush for the weak growth in jobs, issuing a statement citing the "deep hole that was caused by the severe recession that began in December 2007."

Ron Paul has stated he is not a Randian Objectivist
He subscribes to the Austrian school of economics
and is a devout Christian so i wouldnt say Ron Paul is aligned with ayn rand
Dont know much about rick santelli
The paul ryan connection made by curious2 is spot on
Ryan is a big government (he voted for the bailouts) hawkish repubican
People often cite atlas shrugged because its the only book they read over 200 pages without pictures

smaulgld says

The paul ryan connection made by curious2 is spot on

Ryan is a big government (he voted for the bailouts)

Agreed.

bgamall4 says

Then he is not a true libertarian. Libertarians believe in

Who cares? I mean this is more of the same Republicans vs Democrats but really we are all on party bs while providing divide and conquer to the masses. If you agree with the a good portion of the the stances of somebody bringing real change to the crony-capitalist system, then support that person. Who cares if they are Christian, Hindu, agnostic whatever as long as they don't force their beliefs onto others. Who cares whether they are "true" Libertarians or not, there are so many facets of political and economical orientation. Paul and Santelli are certainly socially liberal enough for me so who gives a hoot with which historic person(s) they align themselves in some interview?

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Comptroller says

Obama added that only total deregulation of the financial crimes sector would bring jobs that paid north of $5 a day to America, but America just didn't have the stomach for it and pussied out. He was accompanied by his wife, Michelle, who ate a white infant girl in front of cheering throngs of adoring media representatives.

Do you have a link to verify this?

bgamall4 says

mell says

Who cares if they are Christian, Hindu, agnostic whatever as long as they don't force their beliefs onto others.

Libertarians very much force their beliefs on others. They work with the banksters to deregulate, and they supported Thatcherism, which is the root cause of the housing bubble here as liar loans were imported from the UK.

There they were called self certified loans.

Whatever your definition Libertarians is (I'd avoid clinging to static definitions), you stated above that you think that "then he is not a true libertarian" - so you could support him, right? ;)

bgamall4 says

mell says

Whatever your definition Libertarians is (I'd avoid clinging to static definitions), you stated above that you think that "then he is not a true libertarian" - so you could support him, right? ;)

I support his position on war. I do not support his position which agrees with the libertarians, that banks should be deregulated further. Even Max Keiser thinks that is a crazy idea.

Fair enough.

Strange definition of libertarian being tossed around
I dont associate the "anything that is peaceful" mentality of libertarians or the pledge of not initiating force on others pledge californian libertarian party members make consistent with "forcing their beliefs on others"
Of course you may be right if you consider paul ryan and chris christie libertarians

If her and Nietzsche were still alive, what a presidential ticket that duo would form! I can just picture "god is dead" t-shirts and campaign slogans! And the debtors, what would they do to the debtors?

dublin hillz says

If her and Nietzsche were still alive, what a presidential ticket that duo would form! I can just picture "god is dead" t-shirts and campaign slogans! And the debtors, what would they do to the debtors?

Hehe.

upisdown says

Where or when has the libortopian "experiment" worked.

Haiti.

freak80 says

upisdown
says

Where or when has the libortopian "experiment" worked.

Haiti.

I meant where the Austrian BS/la-la land of econmics was actually applied and the economy managed or tweaked, not what an out of control and chaotic society ends up like.

But, you're right with Haiti. I just wonder why all the libertopians aren't rushing to move there.

smaulgld says

I dont associate the "anything that is peaceful" mentality of libertarians or the pledge of not initiating force on others pledge californian libertarian party members make consistent with "forcing their beliefs on others"

Libertarianism of that noble stripe falls apart when it gets to land claims.

Once you start shooting people / calling the sheriff to remove people on "your" land, so much for peaceful libertarianism.

http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html

http://www.progress.org/revlibc.htm

freak80 says

upisdown says

Where or when has the libortopian "experiment" worked.

Haiti.

Haiti never had anything like a libertarian government. The Duvalier dictatorship (Papa Doc, Baby Doc) was not libertarian at all. The current theocratic "democracy" is little better, but I'm glad you mention Haiti because it illustrates a different point. Year after year, decade after decade, Haiti is the #1 aid recipient per capita of any country on earth. These subsidies have had tragic consequences, most obviously the recent cholera epidemic caused by UN peacekeepers. They have also had consequences that remind me of Homeboy's enthusiasm for Obamacare subsidies. I am unsure how to explain this without certain people going nuts and projecting all sorts of statements onto me that I never said, but if you listen to actual Haitians, they can explain how the "aid" is - to put it mildly - a mixed blessing. People trying to build up little businesses (see how I went out of my way to avoid some overused phrases that have been corrupted) complain that they get crowded out by "free" aid, with the result that the economy devolves into corruption and working for aid agencies. Also the aid agencies create other issues, e.g. baby-selling where Protestant fundamentalists "rescue" babies from a poor Catholic country and sell them to poor Protestants instead. I think you may have selected Haiti as a way to insult libertarians, or Haitians, but in fact Haiti has nothing to do with libertarianism and instead illustrates the laws of unintended consequences that maximalist government enthusiasts tend to overlook.

Ok, so Haiti is a bad example.

Is there an example of a place where libertarianism is working now?

bgamall4 says

Schiff then says people will do the right thing and that he is not racist. I don't believe a word of it.

Do you honestly believe that if that would be legal the US would suddenly have a swath of racist restaurants? Come on! Also there is a very easy workaround for the very few who would like to discriminate by race (or gender like the infamous golf clubs), they can make their store/restaurant a private club with membership fees and deny service to whomever they want, although these clubs have been contested and sued in court regularly with mixed outcomes. This is really a fabricated scenario, but despite all your outrage this stance has validity in a similar sense to freedom of speech and provides a counterbalance to morality imposed by the government (thought/hate crime etc.) Don't ever forget our important friend Voltaire... ;)

freak80 says

Is there an example of a place where libertarianism is working now?

I've never heard of a successful purely libertarian or communist place. These philosophies and ideals aren't really policies, but they can inform discourse. As Winston Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." Marx wrote, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." That's an ideal, not a policy. I wish that we could re-examine certain policies (e.g. the drug war) from the perspective of these ideals, rather than getting caught up in the whole 'punishing defiance' fighting that only benefits the revenue recipients. Why must we have endless war all over the world, what are our goals really? Maybe something in human nature lends itself to fighting all the time, but part of the process of civilization is overcoming that, and part of that process depends on articulating goals like reciprocity, liberty, etc.

Humans love to fight. Why else would I spend so much of my time on patnet? ;-)

freak80 says

Why else would I spend so much of my time on patnet?

I've learned a lot on PatNet. It brings together a really interesting mix of people who might not otherwise communicate with each other. The fighting gets tedious, and there must be a cure for SIWOTI syndrome, but I do learn a lot.

bgamall4 says

Do you honestly believe that there would not be pockets of racism? Come On!

Yes, I do believe there will be pockets - but they exist already, this law is just forcing them to wear lipstick ;)

bgamall4 says

Your assumption is that man is good. If man is good we can get rid of referees in sports or cops on the beat.

That's not my assumption. But my assumption is that an act of crime is not the same as an act of disassociation, neither is the act of free speech. People should have the right to behave discriminatory by race, gender, religion or other traits, the question is to what extent. As these historically and emotionally charged words are always somewhat subject to interpretation, I consider a government imposing strict laws on its citizens and committing civil rights violations in the name of "fighting evil" the much bigger threat than giving those discriminatory pockets a certain degree of freedom within the freedom to express themselves. It happened multiple times that governments started out with changes on a small scale and then developed into full-fledged fascist/oppressive behemoths while riding the "morality train".

bgamall4 says

You should read my ebook on Amazon, Libertarianism, the UK Big Bang, and How They Ruined America. :)

Maybe I should ;)

Lol! ... just love getting that goose all wild up ...

your mascot represents your personality perfectly..

Are you going to vote for her ?

bgamall4 says

mell says

Yes, I do believe there will be pockets - but they exist already, this law is just forcing them to wear lipstick ;)

Pockets of racism where you are turned away from restaurants or grocery stores are unacceptable and the law should exist to stop them.

They can still refuse service to anyone by saying they don't like their face (if they are smart enough to figure that one out). What about (golf) clubs only accepting men, are you going after them next? What about churches? Are you not supporting any politician on any of their stances just because they differ from you on this one topic? Seems very myopic to me. But if this is your biggest concern in today's world then I can understand your position ;)

bgamall4 says

You have to admit that sports are a place where no laws are being broken yet regulation is applied. And of course, with the Wall Street crowd, the attempt is to destroy the regulation, like Glass-Steagall, and then the banksters can say they are keeping the law when they rob people.

I'm not against all regulation, for traditional banking I'd prefer a very simple solution. One dollar lent must be backed by one dollar of collateral, no fractional lending allowed IF you want to call yourself a bank and participate in the FDIC. Entities are free to do whatever they want in the banking/investment business as long as it is clear to the customer which one is a traditional bank and which one is not. No complicated regulation necessary. No bailouts except for FDIC insurance for banks complying with the 'one dollar' rule who act as traditional banks. Also there was clear fraud committed even without all the regulation, it was simply not prosecuted, i.e. the rule of law was abolished.