Dirty diapers for sale!

[Kulindahr]

Over and over, people here accuse libertarians of abandoning choice, of abandoning responsibility, of "opting out of the system", because we won't choose one of the two major parties.
Republicans want us to help them keep the Democrats from taking over; Democrats holler "It's time for a change!" and insist we help them.

I agree it's time for a change. What we have in Washington right now is like a dirty diaper -- something that demands a change. The Republicans want us to pretend it isn't a dirty diaper, after all, or at least that the other guy's diaper is dirtier.
And they're right, to a point -- what the Democrats have is just another dirty diaper.
They're both peddling dirty diapers -- but Libertarians, along with a handful of other alternate-party adherents, aren't buying.
See, both parties have been shitting on this country for a long time. They've been sitting in their own messes, and each others', and all they have is, well, dirty diapers.

I want a CLEAN diaper!
And that's why I'm a Libertarian.

[Toriko]

The only "people" I hear it from is iman. Everyone else seems content to let him speak for them, I guess.

[Kulindahr]

I've bumped into it from three different people lately... he's just the current torch-bearer.

[tonyboy]

I've supported many of the polictial and social policies of Libertarians for many years. Must admit that I gave more support years ago than recently. The party seems to have quite a collection of 'nuts', yet if the philosophy is boiled down to it's essence it makes a great deal of sense.
Anyone here read a book called 'The Law" by Frederic Bastiat?. It was written as a pamphlet in the 1850's but is a concise explanation of the Libertarian philosphy.
A very short book. Don't know if it is still in print but anyone interested could find a copy in the library or on Amazon.
I wish I knew how their message could be spread further. There is much common sense in what the party says..... I think most people would agree with most points of their message. Especially gay folk.

[General_Alfie]

Over and over, people here accuse libertarians of abandoning choice, of abandoning responsibility, of "opting out of the system", because we won't choose one of the two major parties.

That right? The only person around here beating their lips about so-called "Libertarian" anything is you. And that's fine -- let's just not make a movement out of a molehill, if you will.

[Toriko]

tonyboy, would this be it? http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

[Kulindahr]

I've heard of Bastiat, and seen a few excerpts of the book, quoted here and there. Last I heard it wasn't in print (but should be).

Most people actually DO agree with the Libertarian points in general. The trouble is that most everyone has their little pet programs they don't want to lose, things they want the government to do for them, so they won't leave the parties that promise to get them those things. IMHO, it boils down to cowardice and selfishness.

BTW, that's an inCREDibly cute dude in your avatar -- you, by any chance?

[Toriko]

That right? The only person around here beating their lips about so-called "Libertarian" anything is you.

Uh, consider: http://justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=121264

http://justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=119000

http://justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=114073

... or follow the trail of tears iman leaves behind after each failed attempt that his petty disdain brings against me.

[Toriko]

I've heard of Bastiat, and seen a few excerpts of the book, quoted here and there. Last I heard it wasn't in print (but should be).

Consider that link I offered; still published for everyone on the wondrous world wide web, and free like everything else on the wondrous world wide web!

[General_Alfie]

Now now now -- don't fix the blame, fix the problem. Fact is, so-called "libertarianism" is code for gay Pugs too embarrassed to admit it. Sorry to be the bearer of sad news, but someone has to do it. Oh, yes yes yes, some will "play" Libertarian, but they're just busting balls, that's all.

[Toriko]

Stanford says:

Libertarianism is often thought of as “right-wing” doctrine. This, however, is mistaken for at least two reasons. First, on social—rather than economic—issues, libertarianism tends to be “left-wing”. It opposes laws that restrict consensual and private sexual relationships between adults (e.g., gay sex, non-marital sex, and deviant sex), laws that restrict drug use, laws that impose religious views or practices on individuals, and compulsory military service. Second, in addition to the better-known version of libertarianism—right-libertarianism—there is also a version known as “left-libertarianism”. Both endorse full self-ownership, but they differ with respect to the powers agents have to appropriate unappropriated natural resources (land, air, water, etc.). Right-libertarianism holds that typically such resources may be appropriated by the first person who discovers them, mixes her labor with them, or merely claims them—without the consent of others, and with little or no payment to them. Left-libertarianism, by contrast, holds that unappropriated natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner. It can, for example, require those who claim rights over natural resources to make a payment to others for the value of those rights. This can provide the basis for a kind of egalitarian redistribution.

Huh, "at least two"... Libertarianism is quite similar to 'classical liberalism', back when liberalism wasn't a joke.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/

[Kulindahr]

Yes, Alfie, "someone has to do it" -- someone has to tell people that they're being propagandized to choose between one dirty diaper and another dirty diaper, whose owners are merely arguing over which diaper has more shit on it.
That's why there are Libertarians -- think of us as the laundry service, trying to get everyone's attention that it's time to send all the shit down the drain.

[General_Alfie]

That's why there are Libertarians -- think of us as the laundry service, trying to get everyone's attention that it's time to send all the shit down the drain.

Ad aspera per aspera.

So long as you love your work, that's all that matters, I suppose. Still, it sounds a bit grim.

[Kulindahr]

Ad aspera per aspera.

So long as you love your work, that's all that matters, I suppose. Still, it sounds a bit grim.

It beats peddling dirty diapers.

[turtle]

Yes, Alfie, "someone has to do it" -- someone has to tell people that they're being propagandized to choose between one dirty diaper and another dirty diaper, whose owners are merely arguing over which diaper has more shit on it.
That's why there are Libertarians -- think of us as the laundry service, trying to get everyone's attention that it's time to send all the shit down the drain.

As much as I detest some Democrats (Biden, Kennedy and Feingold, to name a few)and as much as I decry the kind of politics and leadership we have today, there are still very real differences between the major parties.

In fact, those differences embody the main differences which divide us as a nation.

We are divided, and our political parties reflect that division, though perhaps in an ugly way.

Democrats see government as a good thing, the only way the "little guy" can stand up to the "fat cats".

Republicans and Libertarians both see government as a necessary evil, to be kept as limited as possible.

The biggest difference between Republicans and Libertarians is found in their relative honesty. Republicans claim to want limited government, but act contrary to their stated beliefs, being so strongly tempted to try to exert government control over people's moral, intellectual and sexual lives.

Democrats have been tarred with a brush which only their far left wing deserves, that of wishing for a "nanny state" which would "protect" us to death, and, just like their bitterest opponents, are strongly tempted to try to exert government control over people's moral, intellectual and sexual lives.

Most Democrats believe that government exists to protect the rights of the poor and weak in the face of the rich and strong.

In addition to those fundamentals, in today's America, Republicans are the old-fashioned people who cannot let go of the mistaken beliefs of previous generations, and the Democrats want to act on and by more modern new ideas.

Republicans fear science. Democrats embrace it. Simple as that sounds, that is perhaps the most fundamental difference between the parties as they exist today, leading to most of the more particular differences.

A Journalist need only reveal an acceptance of modern science and modern ideas to be labeled "liberal".

As far as I'm concerned, that so-called liberal bias just means the reporter was decently educated, and has a modern understanding of the world.

There are huge and terribly important differences between the major parties.

The last thing we need right now is continued governance by people who hate government. Why did we ever think they would do a good job doing what they hate?

-D

[iman]

This is becoming confusing, now I can't decide if I should become a right wing libertarian or a left wing libertarian, are there centrist libertarians? I guess it does not really matter because becoming a libertarian of any kind ensures that I won't effect anything (It is the affectation that ensures non-effectuation). Maybe I'll cut off my balls while I'm at it.

Has anyone else noticed that the libertarians never offer a good reason to join them other than the fact that they are not D's or R's, not red or blue, but very white. I don't recall a "libertarian" on these boards taking a position that differs substantially from anything that could be found within the two parties.

[Toriko]

This is becoming confusing, now I can't decide if I should become a right wing libertarian or a left wing libertarian, are there centrist libertarians? I guess it does not really matter because becoming a libertarian of any kind ensures that I won't effect anything (It is the affectation that ensures non-effectuation).

Are their centrist, left- or right-wing conservatives? Are the same said for liberals? Are the Democrats effecting any change? What's really substantially different under the Republican rule? Is your hyperbole, irrationality, and disdain for libertarianism effecting much change, other than revealing how bitter you can be towards a bunch of Americans that, aware or not, hold libertarian positions?

Maybe I'll cut off my balls while I'm at it.

You have them?

Has anyone else noticed that the libertarians never offer a good reason to join them other than the fact that they are not D's or R's, not red or blue, but very white. I don't recall a "libertarian" on these boards taking a position that differs substantially from anything that could be found within the two parties.

That could be explained by the fact libertarians are found within either party, dependent on either their desire for economic or social reasons having the higher priority. It isn't as if either party is successful and, if all the libertarians would stop listening to baseless rhetoric like which you spout here and drop their nutjobs too (like the crazies found in the Democratic Party and running the Republican Party), unity under one banner would prove the dismal end to both the current parties. It is sad, however, how your shame and scare tactics work well enough to keep the two party false dichotomy going, perpetuated of course by the parties themselves that do much to keep any competition from actually making it to effect change.

[Kulindahr]

That could be explained by the fact libertarians are found within either party, dependent on either their desire for economic or social reasons having the higher priority. It isn't as if either party is successful and, if all the libertarians would stop listening to baseless rhetoric like which you spout here and drop their nutjobs too (like the crazies found in the Democratic Party and running the Republican Party), unity under one banner would prove the dismal end to both the current parties. It is sad, however, how your shame and scare tactics work well enough to keep the two party false dichotomy going, perpetuated of course by the parties themselves that do much to keep any competition from actually making it to effect change.

It can also be explained by the fact that both parties have to pay lip service to liberty. That they don't believe in it is shown by their continued accumulation of laws -- something particularly obnoxious from the Republicans, seeing as Lincoln, sort of the ultimate Republican, warned against the proliferation of laws.

I think this love of more and more laws related to what Turtle said:

{QUOTE=Turtle]The last thing we need right now is continued governance by people who hate government. Why did we ever think they would do a good job doing what they hate?[/QUOTE]

That's exactly backwards. It's common knowledge that it really isn't possible to obey the law these days, there are so many. Our problem is that we have far, far too much government, not that we don't have enough. Though of course if we take the notion of loving government after the fashion of a fireman needing to love fire, a la Backdraft, he may have a case: it takes a love of something to comprehend its dangers, it's mortal threat. Do we count George Washington a great president? He certainly hated government, warning that it was a voracious beast, fed at our peril. Do we count Thomas Jefferson a great president? He also hated government, passionately asserting that it should be wiped out every generation or so and begun over.
People who hate government are exactly what we need right now: only such people will have the guts to go through all the old laws and eliminate outdated, inapplicable, foolish, burdensome, and unconstitutional ones. Only such people will actually have the courage to dismantle all the pieces of the growing police state, pieces put in place by Republican and Democrat alike.
If you need an analogy to get the picture, what we need in Washington are surgeons: government has become a cancer on our society, a disease masquerading as its own cure. It has to be killed before being revived. To apply another analogy, it has become like a corn plant with the corn rotting in the ear; the only solution is to cut it down, take the few healthy kernels, and re-plant.

[iman]

^The question remains: What laws do want to get of? What laws or policies are you for? If you guys would ever take a firm position on anything, maybe you would convert someone.

[turtle]

That's exactly backwards. It's common knowledge that it really isn't possible to obey the law these days, there are so many.

If that is common knowledge, then I must be uncommon, because I certainly do not know that.

The only laws I have broken in years and years are the speed limit and Marijuana laws, and I could easily obey those if I chose.

What laws do you find impossible to obey? What laws are in conflict with each other?

Whatever they are, they must effect some other part of society than that in which I find myself. I know people who don't like certain laws, but it is not impossible for them to obey them if they choose.

-D

[Toriko]

Many superfluous laws are on the books of which many might not be aware. It isn't farfetched that many break the law because of ignorance, and aren't brought to justice because the police force are ignorant of the law as well or have decided not to enforce them.

Here's a website, somewhat aptly named, that bolsters kulindahr's position: http://www.dumblaws.com/

[conrad]

Speaking of the laws which aren't obeyed: If you will look closely, there are laws on the books which have never been enforced because they were passed for political effect--that is, to satisfy some group whose votes are important to those in power. But, those very lawmakers have not been very active in oversight and have been very happy to ignore the lack of enforcement of the very laws they once approved. The Constitution requires that the Executive shall "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" but the President"s budget requests indicate, for instance, that Bush is more interested in going after taxpayer fraud among the lower income folks than the more massive fraud at the the upper income levels. One can agree eagerly with the Libertarian desire to eliminate those laws that are not enforced but which remain on the books "just in case" a well-publicized prosecution at some future date could prove politically advantageous.

[Kulindahr]

Many superfluous laws are on the books of which many might not be aware. It isn't farfetched that many break the law because of ignorance, and aren't brought to justice because the police force are ignorant of the law as well or have decided not to enforce them.

Here's a website, somewhat aptly named, that bolsters kulindahr's position: http://www.dumblaws.com/

THere are also laws on the books that are vague and sloppy enough that a law officer can use them to arrest or cite anyone for almost anything. My favorite around here is 'creating a public nuisance', which in practice works out to anything that a laws officer doesn't like. When judges convict for such things, it creates precedent for those 'reasons', thus expanding the law to cover more and more. Another example in Oregon is the law requiring a permit from the Oregon Water Resources Board before diverting the flow of any stream in the state. Effectively, it outlaws building dams in creeks on the beach, a common activity for kids -- and warnings are being issued for that very activity! A similar one is the requirement for an excavation permit from the Land Use Board for any excavation on or abutting public land -- and again, warnings are being given for digging holes on the beach, which are a sort of necessity for building sand castles! Warnings may not seem like much, but accumulate enugh unchallenged warnings and you have a basis for actual convictions -- and once again a basis for a law officer to issue a citation or make an arrest if someone upsets him/her.

[Kulindahr]

If that is common knowledge, then I must be uncommon, because I certainly do not know that.

The only laws I have broken in years and years are the speed limit and Marijuana laws, and I could easily obey those if I chose.

What laws do you find impossible to obey? What laws are in conflict with each other?

Whatever they are, they must effect some other part of society than that in which I find myself. I know people who don't like certain laws, but it is not impossible for them to obey them if they choose.

-D

You've probably broken lots you don't even know exist.

Here's one example of two laws in conflict: in Oregon, it is against the law to fail to pull over and let an emergency vehicle pass. It is also against the law to operate a motor vehicle in a bicycle lane. So when an emergency vehicle comes by on one of the numerous miles of Oregon roads where the shoulder is a designated bicycle lane, you have no choice but to break one law or the other -- and the state police do in fact issue tickets in those situations, gladly explaining that no matter what you did, you would have gotten a ticket.
Another goody is a building code requirement that a pipeline be at least four feet from a foundation. In a situation where an existing building is closer than four feet to the neighboring property, the owner needing a pipeline has a choice between disobeying that law or disobeying the law that syas he can't put his pipeline on a neighbor's property.
Another: it is illegal in Oregon to leave trash on the beach in an area you've used. If you settle into an area and pick up trash that was there before you, and part of the trash is an item that can be considered "drug paraphanalia", you WILL be cited, if caught, for possession of drug items -- or if you leave it, for leaving trash on the beach. And if you call and tell the police that you've found drug paraphanalia, they'll tell you it isn't their responsibility to come collect such a thing, YOU have to bring it to a police station if you're concerned -- but if you take it to a police station, then you're in possession....
Another: you're required to obey speed limits, right? I know a dude who got a ticket for doing 40 in a 30mph zone, even though the sign saying 30 was in the ditch and hidden by weeds!
I could continue, but I think that's plenty.

[tonyboy]

tonyboy, would this be it? http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

Yes that is it. Thank you for the link.

[iman]

Kulindahr - that is the most pathetic and petty recitation of adolescent urban myths I've ever seen. And you post them as a reason to become a libertarian? Sand castles, litter, stream diversion (that law exists in every state), situations requiring a variance, and your bogus example of pulling over in the bike lane (there is a difference between driving in the lane and pulling over, like a road shoulder).

You don't like the public nuisance law, you are a public nuisance! MODS, arrest this man.

ICO7- Is this why you became a libertarian?

I am becoming convinced that libertarianism is caused by some psychological disorder, it has nothing to do with politics or philosophy. Talk about sand castles!

[Kulindahr]

Kulindahr - that is the most pathetic and petty recitation of adolescent urban myths I've ever seen. And you post them as a reason to become a libertarian? Sand castles, litter, stream diversion (that law exists in every state), situations requiring a variance, and your bogus example of pulling over in the bike lane (there is a difference between driving in the lane and pulling over, like a road shoulder).

You don't like the public nuisance law, you are a public nuisance! MODS, arrest this man.

ICO7- Is this why you became a libertarian?

I am becoming convinced that libertarianism is caused by some psychological disorder, it has nothing to do with politics or philosophy. Talk about sand castles!

They aren't urban myths -- they're examples of why people I KNOW have been cited and arrested. As for the bike lane, I know three people, including my dad, who have been given tickets varying from $165 to twice that for operating a motor vehicle in a bicycle lane when they pulled over for an emergency vehicle. My dad asked what would have happened if he hadn't pulled over, and the cop grinned and told him he would have been cited for failing to yield to an emergency vehicle.
These aren't bogus -- they're actually happening!
I didn't post them as reasons to be libertarian, but as examples of the disease that comes from abandoning the libertarianism this country was founded on. The two prevailing major parties are both sick with the disease of totalitarianism and worship of the state -- THAT's the reason for being Libertarian, besides the fact that America as conceived by the Founding Fathers was pure libertarian.
When you see a cop hand out a warning for digging ahole for sand to make a sand castle... you won't laugh any longer. I don't know what sort of protected, sheltered, hidden-from-reality world you live in; you need to meet some actual life.

[Toriko]

I am becoming convinced that libertarianism is caused by some psychological disorder, it has nothing to do with politics or philosophy. Talk about sand castles!

You being convinced of this is less to do with what is said as much as what you've preconceived. From the beginning your disdain for libertarianism has been apparent and none of this has had to do with an interest in understanding and all to do with a desire to attack libertarianism based on what you think it is. All that matters to you, in regards to your question to me, is that I've long embraced libertarianism, something for which you do not care to know anything about so as to threaten your irrational disdain, and I do not owe you of all people an explanation as to why I embraced the philosophy.

You are online. You know of Google. You seem to have time on your hand that you can go take a few philosophy and political science courses, which I implore for you to do, but my expectations are low enough that I won't be surprised that you'll do nothing but find some other random sentence in some delusional hope to exploit to your advantage. Perhaps you can throw off that not-so-subtle religious right-esque fear of knowledge and expand your horizons on your own.

[Kulindahr]

Anyone who can't grasp "You own yourself" needs more than a few philosophy and poli-sci courses -- a trip clear back to Aristotle's Rhetoric, a course in set theory or just basic geometry including sets, and one in basic logic would be required first.

[shades]

I do not know the specific law, but there are certain fireworks which you can legally purchase in Ohio, but you must agree to take them to another state such as West Virginia (within 48 hours) where it is legal to use them. This is is done by signing a form.

I realize that this is a safety issue, but this is another example of contradictory laws.

[General_Alfie]

You being convinced of this is less to do with what is said as much as what you've preconceived. From the beginning your disdain for libertarianism has been apparent and none of this has had to do with an interest in understanding and all to do with a desire to attack libertarianism based on what you think it is.

It's a lot like knitting -- yes, I suppose one could learn that, too. on Google, but why bother? It's an old ladies' thing.

[iman]

I think it is very unfortunate that we can have so many self styled libertarians on these boards and yet no can advocate for libertarianism, no one can articulate a position, no one can even say why they are a libertarian.

I have to conclude that libertarianism for most people is just an affectation, an excuse to not take responsibility for themselves and the times they live in.

[Toriko]

It's a lot like knitting -- yes, I suppose one could learn that, too. on Google, but why bother? It's an old ladies' thing.

Google is an "old ladies' thing"?

[Toriko]

I think it is very unfortunate that we can have so many self styled libertarians on these boards and yet no can advocate for libertarianism, no one can articulate a position, no one can even say why they are a libertarian.

I have to conclude that libertarianism for most people is just an affectation, an excuse to not take responsibility for themselves and the times they live in.

Interesting that you announce your conclusion now, as if it isn't something you already made up and 'concluded' long before without any fact or understanding. Positions have been articulated, but I don't have to justify why I have embraced the philosophy nor, to the likes of you, is it even necessary to advocate libertarianism. You have long since come to your fallacious conclusions and, after attacking it and me for months, now try to make me out to be the bad guy because I don't waste my time putting forth a convincing argument for you, who must think he knows libertarianism well enough to denounce it, attack it, and do a really bad parody of it.

[Kulindahr]

I do not know the specific law, but there are certain fireworks which you can legally purchase in Ohio, but you must agree to take them to another state such as West Virginia (within 48 hours) where it is legal to use them. This is is done by signing a form.

I realize that this is a safety issue, but this is another example of contradictory laws.

Heh -- fireworks....
It's illegal in Oregon to even POSSESS fireworks on a state beach or in a state park without written permission of the head ranger. This last summer, there was a location approved for selling fireworks... but you couldn't leave it without crossing through a state park!
Okay, that's more stupidity than anything, but it's indicative of the problem: there are too many laws for even those who are to enforce them to be aware of. If THEY can't, then what I said before (supported by a study by a major law school), it is virtually impossible for an ordinary citizen to know what's a law and to keep from breaking it.
Oh -- a friend got cited this summer for possession of fireworks on a state beach: he was picking up trash someone else had left! When he asked the officer if he should have left it alone, the officer flatly said that then he'd have gotten a ticket for leaving litter on the beach.

[Kulindahr]

I think it is very unfortunate that we can have so many self styled libertarians on these boards and yet no can advocate for libertarianism, no one can articulate a position, no one can even say why they are a libertarian.

I have to conclude that libertarianism for most people is just an affectation, an excuse to not take responsibility for themselves and the times they live in.

Dude, you are an affront to literate society!
You can only conclude that because you ignore 3/4 or more of what is posted; only what agrees with you gets through, and the rest is labled as a "psychological disorder".
I'm tired of being nice, here. The stubborn refusal to even read, to apply your brain and think, to acknowledge or pay attention to what others have written, is disgusting. I have tutored courses at the graduate level, and if you showed in one of those the level of non-comprehension and sheer refusal to think that you show here, I'd tell you to get out and go take remedial reading.
I've stated over and again, as has IC07, the reason for being a libertarian: liberty. Real Americans value it; neither excuse for a major party is interested. As the Poles who stood up for Poland when that seemed foolish were the real Poles, refusing to collaborate with either the Russians or the Germans, depending on who was tyrannizing them at the moment, Libertarians are the true Americans, believing in liberty and refusing to join either imperialist batch of authoritarians who claim to love America and cry that the others hate it.
If you're enthusiastic about the whole Democrat agenda, then you're an authoritarian, prying, nitpicking, bureaucrat-loving, pro-crime groupie... if you onlky are interested in gay marriage, you're in the same category as those who are Republicans because they're only interested in keeping upper-class old white men in charge. But you can't even see beyond your hysteria!
One more time, and read slowly:

It's about LIBERTY.

[sparky95]

Um Kulindahr, you seem to be making an awful lot of assumptions about non-Libertarians. For example, if you are not a Libertarian you must be a Republican or worse, Democrat. There are other parties out there too, for example the Greens, and many people are not affiliated with any particular party. You also seem to assume every one is an American living in the United States. Some of us are in fact neither. As well you seem to be selling you politics with the assumption that all of our life experiences are similar to yours. For those of us who are not living in relatively affluent areas, with ready access to a large amount of resources both natural and man made, tend to find the "every man for himself" aspects of your philosophy quite threatening. For some people it may in fact lead to starvation.....

[iman]

OK - I'll make it worth your while, if someone can tell me why they are a libertarian I'll find a beach they can shoot fireworks on or I'll spring for a Wendys Old Fashion Combo. You can even Super Size it!

[Kulindahr]

Um Kulindahr, you seem to be making an awful lot of assumptions about non-Libertarians. For example, if you are not a Libertarian you must be a Republican or worse, Democrat. There are other parties out there too, for example the Greens, and many people are not affiliated with any particular party. You also seem to assume every one is an American living in the United States. Some of us are in fact neither. As well you seem to be selling you politics with the assumption that all of our life experiences are similar to yours. For those of us who are not living in relatively affluent areas, with ready access to a large amount of resources both natural and man made, tend to find the "every man for himself" aspects of your philosophy quite threatening. For some people it may in fact lead to starvation.....

I'm aware of the otjher parties -- but none have been participating, so I don't bother. The Democrats and Republicans involved in all this have made it a dichotomous world, refusing to allow even ONE alternative. Though in some posts I have pointed out the Constitution and Reform parties, and probably others.

"Affluent areas"??
I live in an area that has, over the time of the last two presidents, had one of and often the worst unemployment rates in the state, in a state that has been in the bottom quarter of the national economy. I have done this while being occasionally homeless, and not infrequently on one meal a day. My "access to resources" rests on the amount of extra money I have, which is more often than not a negative number, or on the generosity of others.
And the most generous people during that period have been Libertarians who don't have that much themselves, and an Independent who votes Libertarian more that either Republican or Democrat.
"Every man for himself" is ultimately a statement of fact; we only paper over it. It's worth noting that with the more government efforts to help the poor and such, the more we see wealth concentrated in the hands of a tinier and tinier portion of the population. I';ve even seen figures from economists that indicate poverty is worse now that we have programs for it than when the United States was, de facto, a libertarian country, with "every man for himself".
But ultimately the argument for libertarianism is that every man in fact owns himself (herself), and that ANY system of government which treads on that is tyrannical -- exactly the position of the Founding Fathers of the country. There are only two possible postions: either "You own yourself", or someone else owns you. The Republicans and Democrats, and the Greens, BTW, uphold the second answer... though in different ways. Libertarians uphold the first.

[Kulindahr]

OK - I'll make it worth your while, if someone can tell me why they are a libertarian I'll find a beach they can shoot fireworks on or I'll spring for a Wendys Old Fashion Combo. You can even Super Size it!

Bullcrap.

You aren't interested in hearing it or reading it, just in chanting slogans and insults and calling any reasons "psychological disorders".

The evidence is that the reasons have been given, multiple times, from various directions, in a variety of terms, and you continue to pretend there haven't been any. You're either blind, obtuse, or just being an asshole.

Iman, you are evidently so stuck in your authoritarian nanny-state worldview that you can't see out of it. The only alternatives you can conceive of are just variations on authoritarianism. Effectively, you are, or have made yourself, colorblind to liberty, and thus to reason and calm explanation of what it means and why it is important.

The explanations have been given -- send me and IC07 coupns; we'll go to Wendy's ourselves.

[sparky95]

Perhaps you should actually read my posting Kulindah. I said that not all of us are Americans or in America. To call it a Dem/Rep World is incorrect as we do not have those parties in other places. And yes compared to the extremes of poverty in some places for example, south east Asia, Africa, Your state is quite luxurious, even if your life has not been so. The simple fact that you can afford to have access to a computer (and electricity,and clean water) puts you in a much better postion than a considerable portion of the worlds population. So before you declare that Libertarianism is the only solution perhaps you should consider that what may end up working nicely in your area may be a living hell for others.

[snapcat]

Alfie, which Applebee's did you say was hosting the Libertarian Convention this year?

I wonder if they'll have two-for-one appetizers again!

Yum!

[maltese]

Perhaps you should actually read my posting Kulindah. I said that not all of us are Americans or in America. To call it a Dem/Rep World is incorrect as we do not have those parties in other places. And yes compared to the extremes of poverty in some places for example, south east Asia, Africa, Your state is quite luxurious, even if your life has not been so. The simple fact that you can afford to have access to a computer (and electricity,and clean water) puts you in a much better postion than a considerable portion of the worlds population. So before you declare that Libertarianism is the only solution perhaps you should consider that what may end up working nicely in your area may be a living hell for others.

Now, Sparky, we've seen the establishment of a whole sub-forum to keep the US-centric accusations from being bandied about. The whole thread, from the original post, relates to American politics - so it seems appropriate to discuss relative economic success within the framework of the area run by those parties.

[iman]

^Maybe we need a Libertarian Forum also, a no flame zone where people won't ask embarassing questions like; WTF DO YOU BELIEVE IN?

[maltese]

^Maybe we need a Libertarian Forum also, a no flame zone where people won't ask embarassing questions like; WTF DO YOU BELIEVE IN?

Why, would you be able to read it were in a separate forum and written in capitals?

[Kulindahr]

^Maybe we need a Libertarian Forum also, a no flame zone where people won't ask embarassing questions like; WTF DO YOU BELIEVE IN?

First we need a remedial reading forum, where people can be taught to not ask stupid questions because they don't understand what they read except when it says what they want to hear.
Then you could come back and realize what's been told you over and over -- the answer to your question has been given multiple times, and you just call it a "psychological disorder".

BTW -- I bounced "You own yourself" off my psychologist, given what you said, and he responded that the statement is an excellent summary of the basis for mental health. So I asked what if someone couldn't grasp the concept, and the good doc relpied, "I'd say he has problems".

[Kulindahr]

Perhaps you should actually read my posting Kulindah. I said that not all of us are Americans or in America. To call it a Dem/Rep World is incorrect as we do not have those parties in other places. And yes compared to the extremes of poverty in some places for example, south east Asia, Africa, Your state is quite luxurious, even if your life has not been so. The simple fact that you can afford to have access to a computer (and electricity,and clean water) puts you in a much better postion than a considerable portion of the worlds population. So before you declare that Libertarianism is the only solution perhaps you should consider that what may end up working nicely in your area may be a living hell for others.

I covered that!

Please note that it is to the extent that societies have been libertarian that there has been progress in the world. Liberty is what brings prosperity, learning, etc.

[General_Alfie]

Alfie, which Applebee's did you say was hosting the Libertarian Convention this year?

I wonder if they'll have two-for-one appetizers again!

Yum!

The one off of Rt. 220 in booming Altoona, PA.

[iman]

Why, would you be able to read it were in a separate forum and written in capitals?

OK Maltese, you asked for it! Where do you stand on the fireworks on the beach issue and pulling over in the bike lane and the BIG Question: Cheese or No Cheese?

[iman]

BTW -- I bounced "You own yourself" off my psychologist, given what you said, and he responded that the statement is an excellent summary of the basis for mental health. So I asked what if someone couldn't grasp the concept, and the good doc relpied, "I'd say he has problems".

So you go to a psychologist? That's a good start. Sometimes a second opinion is advisable. Good Luck.