People Who Piss Me Off: Libertarians

[웃 910]

[luckytxn 2,265]

Socialists have dirty mouths.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

In order to be a proper Libertarian you have to piss everyone off. Think about it...Individual liberty, individual responsibility.

Democrats hate the concept of responsibility and Republicans hate liberty.

[MyLittlePony 340]

Republican here and Obama will have my vote .

[^_^ 5,021]

i love it

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I think this guy is confusing vast right wingers and Libertarians. He's quite off-base on a few things here.

[Danno 1,228]

The problem I have with Libertarians is this myth that they fuel up on that "They want to get back to the Constitution".

The truth is, they too want to redefine what that even means. The so-called liberty they envision where people can do what ever they want in their "private lives" ... is a myth, it never existed, we had more laws "controlling what people did in their private lives" during that time period than ever before.

The other part of the Libertarian movement which is equally alarming is the "every man for himself" attitude most seem to embrace. This is a growing movement in direct response to the polar opposite which reigns supreme thanks to Liberals of which their mantra is, "every person is our burden".

One of the fruits of religion is Charity, both public and private, as we become a less religious nation, I suspect many drawn to the Right will lack this temperance and

as is the case in so many areas of public life, we are becoming more and more divided with a diminishing areas with which to find agreement.

The winds of change are blowing, a decade ago you could hardly find anyone who identified them self as a libertarian, now they are everywhere.

Eight years of Obama will no doubt be a spawning environment for an even greater Libertarian movement.

[xebec 195]

Nothing pisses off people more consistently than smarmy little metrosexual progressives who make youtube videos demonstrating that they have no clue what they are talking about. Is he simply limiting his sophomoric critique to neo-libertarians? Hmmmm. No, he clearly has no idea of what anarcho-capitalists, minarchists, and paleo-libertarians are. More proof that a little education is a dangerous thing.

I think this guy is confusing vast right wingers and Libertarians. He's quite off-base on a few things here.

Edited March 10, 2012 by xebec

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The problem I have with Libertarians is this myth that they fuel up on that "They want to get back to the Constitution".

The truth is, they too want to redefine what that even means. The so-called liberty they envision where people can do what ever they want in their "private lives" ... is a myth, it never existed, we had more laws "controlling what people did in their private lives" during that time period than ever before.

The other part of the Libertarian movement which is equally alarming is the "every man for himself" attitude most seem to embrace. This is a growing movement in direct response to the polar opposite which reigns supreme thanks to Liberals of which their mantra is, "every person is our burden".

One of the fruits of religion is Charity, both public and private, as we become a less religious nation, I suspect many drawn to the Right will lack this temperance and

as is the case in so many areas of public life, we are becoming more and more divided with a diminishing areas with which to find agreement.

The winds of change are blowing, a decade ago you could hardly find anyone who identified them self as a libertarian, now they are everywhere.

Eight years of Obama will no doubt be a spawning environment for an even greater Libertarian movement.

At least you prove Republicans hate liberty

I have never suggested "getting back" to anything. Typically what Libertarians suggest is completely new using the constitution as a basis. Also it is a fallacy to think we want no government. Actually we expect the government to protect our rights and do those things that are best done by government, but not more. Typically the goals of the LIbertarians are distorted and then attacked.

I also do not expect Libertarian goals to be achieved fully anymore than Republican or Democrat goals and ideals are ever met. But what is wrong with an ideal?

For example, I am not opposed to welfare to help our fellow man, as many Republicans are. I AM opposed to welfare with no program to eliminate the NEED for welfare. welfare, YES. Help, YES but at the same time a path to independence which must be followed in order to receive "help". Food stamps PLUS enrollment in school, WIC PLUS a job where one gains experience. Individual liberty and individual responsibility are the GOAL, those that cannotmeet that goal now should be assisted in reaching it, not made dependent in order to get their vote. Not ignored in order that they contribute to other ills.

Resistance t Libertarians is always based on distortion becuse the other two parties are not being honest, they are protecting what is theirs, the power they have. It is not for OUR benefit that they oppose Libertarianism.

[Danno 1,228]

At least you prove Republicans hate liberty

I have never suggested "getting back" to anything. Typically what Libertarians suggest is completely new using the constitution as a basis. Also it is a fallacy to think we want no government. Actually we expect the government to protect our rights and do those things that are best done by government, but not more. Typically the goals of the LIbertarians are distorted and then attacked.

I also do not expect Libertarian goals to be achieved fully anymore than Republican or Democrat goals and ideals are ever met. But what is wrong with an ideal?

For example, I am not opposed to welfare to help our fellow man, as many Republicans are. I AM opposed to welfare with no program to eliminate the NEED for welfare. welfare, YES. Help, YES but at the same time a path to independence which must be followed in order to receive "help". Food stamps PLUS enrollment in school, WIC PLUS a job where one gains experience. Individual liberty and individual responsibility are the GOAL, those that cannotmeet that goal now should be assisted in reaching it, not made dependent in order to get their vote. Not ignored in order that they contribute to other ills.

Resistance t Libertarians is always based on distortion becuse the other two parties are not being honest, they are protecting what is theirs, the power they have. It is not for OUR benefit that they oppose Libertarianism.

For the record, I never said Libertarians want NO government, that the line the Libs use when ever anyone mentions cutting anything.

OKay well fine you admit you want to embark on a new experiment, a social experiment and one that is untried.

Now we are getting somewhere.

[james&olya 1,121]

At least you prove Republicans hate liberty

I have never suggested "getting back" to anything. Typically what Libertarians suggest is completely new using the constitution as a basis. Also it is a fallacy to think we want no government. Actually we expect the government to protect our rights and do those things that are best done by government, but not more. Typically the goals of the LIbertarians are distorted and then attacked.

I also do not expect Libertarian goals to be achieved fully anymore than Republican or Democrat goals and ideals are ever met. But what is wrong with an ideal?

For example, I am not opposed to welfare to help our fellow man, as many Republicans are. I AM opposed to welfare with no program to eliminate the NEED for welfare. welfare, YES. Help, YES but at the same time a path to independence which must be followed in order to receive "help". Food stamps PLUS enrollment in school, WIC PLUS a job where one gains experience. Individual liberty and individual responsibility are the GOAL, those that cannotmeet that goal now should be assisted in reaching it, not made dependent in order to get their vote. Not ignored in order that they contribute to other ills.

Resistance t Libertarians is always based on distortion becuse the other two parties are not being honest, they are protecting what is theirs, the power they have. It is not for OUR benefit that they oppose Libertarianism.

As a progressive that almost always votes for democrats over republicans I agree with much of what you say. I would like very much to see a much greater emphasis on personal responsibility in how our social safety net functions, as well as in how tort laws are applied in court by the trial lawyers! I strongly believe that there would be far less of a 'demand' for welfare, disability, or unemployment if those programs required the beneficiaries to put in a reasonable number of hours in some kind of actual work as a precondition to drawing the benefits! On so-called 'social' issues I agree with libertarian views. Why does anyone feel the government has ANY role in regulating what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes? Our constitution, after all, has this thing about a right to "pursuit of happiness"! Whether that involves the gender of someone you want to be intimate with, the chemical composition of what you choose to put into your body, or whatever, it is nobody else's business, certainly NOT the likes of Rick Santorum! Neither political party is entitled to have any 'power'! The majority of those in congress deserve to be voted OUT!

Edited March 11, 2012 by james&olya

[Danno 1,228]

....... Why does anyone feel the government has ANY role in regulating what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes? Our constitution, after all, has this thing about a right to "pursuit of happiness"! Whether that involves the gender of someone you want to be intimate with, the chemical composition of what you choose to put into your body, or whatever, it is nobody else's business, certainly NOT the likes of Rick Santorum! Neither political party is entitled to have any 'power'! The majority of those in congress deserve to be voted OUT!

The Government absolutely has a roll to play in preserving social order. You jump back and forth between State laws and the limits of the Federal Constitution.. as if they are one in the same.

The federal Gov't is limited the states, necessarily not so much.

What I find both humorous and silly is this notion that people can do whatever they want and it's none of anyone else's business.

Meanwhile out of the other side of your mouth you are saying we have a social obligation to pick up the pieces and subsidize the fruit of these freedoms.

Have you any idea what percentage of food stamp recipients are in single headed house holds?

What percentage of people in State and federal prisons grew up with no father?

Look at the fortune we have spent on Fighting and treating AIDS and HIV not to mention the other STD's which are infecting people at numbers that are hard to believe.

SInce Society is burdened with the fall out of peoples lifestyle, Society also has a right and obligation to pass laws which both respect peoples privacy but only to a point.

After all do you want your neighbors to throw gay sex parties in their back yard? Ever lived near a street where Hookers work, not a place you want to raise kids.

I have seen drugs even at an early age cut in half the mental capacity of kids I went to school with and I have seen once decent women do unreal stuff for a hit on a crack pipe.... while the kids were home alone.

This utopia you speak of, where is now so that we might look and see what we have to look forward to?

HeII even Amsterdam is cutting back ...the place has turned to such a sewer.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

As a progressive that almost always votes for democrats over republicans I agree with much of what you say. I would like very much to see a much greater emphasis on personal responsibility in how our social safety net functions, as well as in how tort laws are applied in court by the trial lawyers! I strongly believe that there would be far less of a 'demand' for welfare, disability, or unemployment if those programs required the beneficiaries to put in a reasonable number of hours in some kind of actual work as a precondition to drawing the benefits! On so-called 'social' issues I agree with libertarian views. Why does anyone feel the government has ANY role in regulating what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes? Our constitution, after all, has this thing about a right to "pursuit of happiness"! Whether that involves the gender of someone you want to be intimate with, the chemical composition of what you choose to put into your body, or whatever, it is nobody else's business, certainly NOT the likes of Rick Santorum! Neither political party is entitled to have any 'power'! The majority of those in congress deserve to be voted OUT!

I agree with you in theory on welfare, though I am not a fan of so called "work-fare" that has been suggested by some "If you want welfare, then rake leaves or pick up trash" That os not going to get someone OFF welfare, it is punishment. YES, work, but productive work for business learning a skill or trade or something giving a person a path to higher pay and better jobs, OR education, OR both. I have no objection to helping them and their family WHILE they get their life in order, get educated, get work experience

And of course I am pro-choice on personal matters. I am not gay and have no gay friends and have no desire to have gay friends. I just want to mind my own business and they can mind theirs. I feel no need to "punish" them or treat them badly or deny them rights. I would not want my wife to have an abortion, but I do not tell others what to do in that matter. There a re a lot of things I do not "like" but in order to have freedowm we have to tolerate them, or at least ignore it.

as for medical care, I do not think our federal government is a good entity to control that. Our federal government is not good at it. State government would probably be better. I know it would be here, but we have a very small and intimate state. A very large number of people (percentage) here know their state legislators. My state Senator owns the general store in town, serves coffee to about everyone and is in the store nearly every morning. You have a problem with state government, you go have a cup of coffee with Sam Mazza. It is an advantage to a state with a population that would not make up a good sized city.

If it IS to be done by the Feds then the only logical way is single payer. Anything else just becomes a political morass of favoritism, lobbying, etc. More politics, less healthcare.

[james&olya 1,121]

And of course I am pro-choice on personal matters. I am not gay and have no gay friends and have no desire to have gay friends. I just want to mind my own business and they can mind theirs. I feel no need to "punish" them or treat them badly or deny them rights. I would not want my wife to have an abortion, but I do not tell others what to do in that matter. There a re a lot of things I do not "like" but in order to have freedowm we have to tolerate them, or at least ignore it.

If it IS to be done by the Feds then the only logical way is single payer. Anything else just becomes a political morass of favoritism, lobbying, etc. More politics, less healthcare.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The Government absolutely has a roll to play in preserving social order. You jump back and forth between State laws and the limits of the Federal Constitution.. as if they are one in the same.

The federal Gov't is limited the states, necessarily not so much.

What I find both humorous and silly is this notion that people can do whatever they want and it's none of anyone else's business.

Meanwhile out of the other side of your mouth you are saying we have a social obligation to pick up the pieces and subsidize the fruit of these freedoms.

Have you any idea what percentage of food stamp recipients are in single headed house holds?

What percentage of people in State and federal prisons grew up with no father?

Look at the fortune we have spent on Fighting and treating AIDS and HIV not to mention the other STD's which are infecting people at numbers that are hard to believe.

SInce Society is burdened with the fall out of peoples lifestyle, Society also has a right and obligation to pass laws which both respect peoples privacy but only to a point.

After all do you want your neighbors to throw gay sex parties in their back yard? Ever lived near a street where Hookers work, not a place you want to raise kids.

I have seen drugs even at an early age cut in half the mental capacity of kids I went to school with and I have seen once decent women do unreal stuff for a hit on a crack pipe.... while the kids were home alone.

This utopia you speak of, where is now so that we might look and see what we have to look forward to?

HeII even Amsterdam is cutting back ...the place has turned to such a sewer.

Great logic and by that logic we need to BAN smoking, alcohol, fatty foods, sugary drinks, make everyone wear a helmet...for anything. I bet you are against that,right? The cost of AIDS and STDs are horrible but the cost of smoking...no problem. Right? How did I guess? You want to control the behavior you do not like. Typical Republican/Democratic plan.

I am not against families, certainly not. I am about the most family oriented guy you will meet and a strong believer in two parent households. Political party membership is not required. The benefits of which have been reinforced in my own family. Our welfare system now punishes families, punishes single mothers that get married. It is very easy to look at the figures and see that single parent families are a contributor to the need for welfare and that lack of education is also. So we see what the solution is but we do nothing about it. But our welfare system is not designed to help people, it is designed to cultivate votes from people dependent on the system and the politicians that will continue it.

When a persons BEST opportunity in life is welfare, when the BEST they can do for their family is welfare, we have a serious problem. The system needs to be designed to be self eliminating. You cannot participate if you are not working toward getting off welfare. You have to give people the tools to make a better life than welfare. Yes, Danno, I know. Some people are lazy ne'er do wells. Of course. But the SYSTEM has to provide a way out, currently it does not. You cannot neglect the system because a few people are determined not to do well. It is OK if people fail in life. It happens. But the system has to be the best it can be so they CAN fail all on their own and not be pre-determnined to fail.

Do you want your neighbors having straight sex parties in their backyard? I mean, c'mon Danno, sometimes this is just too funny. Gay sex parties? Does your state have a law against outdoor gay sex parties in backyards and not against straight sex parties in backyards? You see. Laws about what other people do in their bedroom ultimately affect what YOU do. You do not like what gay people do sexually and I am sure some people don't like what my wife and I do sexually...so what? Some people do not like that you married a foreign woman and would stop that also. Some people want to ban you from grilling a steak in your backyard because of air pollution, but would probably be OK with a gay sex party in your backyard.

Danno, I live in a state where you can marry anyone, or anything for all I know (or care) and there has been no disaster among families here, no reduction in traditional marriage, families are still the same, no affect on my life at all. It is a safe and clean and great place to raise children, I can hardly think of a better place, actually. Of course there are people on welfare, too many actually. This is not because of gay marriage.