Chris Christie attacks libertarians

[Brian4Liberty]

Except that there's no precedent for defining "Libertarian" as "Anarcho-capitalist and nothing else."

Libertarianism is the rejection of the initiation of force. If it means anything else, it's utterly pointless to call anything or anyone libertarian, since it could mean almost anything. If one could believe in initiating force and still be a libertarian, what amount of force makes one unlibertarian?

Lol. It's interesting to watch the extremes in action. On the one hand, we have the anarchists, and at the other extreme, we have the Mark Levin/Sean Hannity types who would say that anyone who has read Atlas Shrugged or believes that "greed is good" is "libertarian".

 

[fr33]

we have the Mark Levin/Sean Hannity types who would say that anyone who has read Atlas Shrugged or believes that "greed is good" is "libertarian".

And those types are the reason liberals bring up Ayn Rand every time the subject of libertarianism comes up. It's annoying.

 

[Alex Libman]

Page 6 of this thread is brought to you by...

Support Ken Kaplan,
NJ LP for Governor!


[Facebook] [Twitter]


​

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

But none of this gets to the important question of how many anarchists can dance on an Objectivist pinhead...

 

[Alex Libman]

Ayn Rand was far smarter than 99% of libertarians. ::ducks::

 

[philipped]

FUCK THAT LAMEO. Libertarians are scaring him shitless cause we run this internet shit while him & his old ass neocon homies can't figure out what a proxy is.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Or is there simply something special about a tariff when compared to any other kind of tax, in your mind?

Free trade is extremely beneficial, and tariffs are extremely damaging. This is not news. This is not knowledge exclusive to libertarianism. Economics has been showing this to be true for 100s of years. It's the one thing in econ all economists can agree on. There's just no question.

One of the best things that could happen to any country would be for its state to declare unilateral disarmament of trade restrictions. Just completely open up trade: no limits, no agreements, just trade. The prosperity unleashed, especially today with the tremendously large world population, would be unprecedented. The ingenuity and special advantages of almost 7 billion people would all go to work improving life for the millions of folks in your country.

Here's a good lecture on it:

http://mises.org/media/2640/Whos-Protected-By-Tariffs

By the way, I am sympathetic to the minarchist point of view, but not if you are going to be an advocate and apologist for taxation like this, FreedomFanatic. Do you want to steal from me? Really? Do you want to shoot me, personally, in the face when I defy your tyrannical laws and import some molasses (or... tea?) without paying tribute to you? Really? Where's the Freedom in that? I thought you were supposedly all fanatical about freedom? Or do you just not care about morality? Logical consistency?

 

[Brett85]

Lol. It's interesting to watch the extremes in action. On the one hand, we have the anarchists, and at the other extreme, we have the Mark Levin/Sean Hannity types who would say that anyone who has read Atlas Shrugged or believes that "greed is good" is "libertarian."

I don't really think that Freedom Fanatic is one of those people though. He's pretty hardcore libertarian, but just not an anarchist. And, I wouldn't say that anyone here fully agrees with Mark Levin and Sean Hannity on the issues. I listen to them every once in a while and probably agree with about 90% of what they say and disagree with 10% of what they say. The areas where I disagree with them are normally on foreign policy issues, when they're beating the war drums against Iran or some other country. I just don't really view these guys as being "enemies." It seems to me like they agree with libertarians on the majority of the issues, but just go off the rails on some foreign policy issues.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I don't really think that Freedom Fanatic is one of those people though. He's pretty hardcore libertarian, but just not an anarchist. And, I wouldn't say that anyone here fully agrees with Mark Levin and Sean Hannity on the issues. I listen to them every once in a while and probably agree with about 90% of what they say and disagree with 10% of what they say. The areas where I disagree with them are normally on foreign policy issues, when they're beating the war drums against Iran or some other country. I just don't really view these guys as being "enemies." It seems to me like they agree with libertarians on the majority of the issues, but just go off the rails on some foreign policy issues.

Yeah, no.

- Drug legalization (repeal laws against vices, e.g. prostitution, restrictions on alcohol, gambling, etc.)
- Abolishment of DHS, FBI, CIA, BATF, DEA, etc.
- Abolishment of Federal Taxation (at the very least)
- End the Fed / Competing Currencies
- Repeal of '32 and '64 gun laws and explosive ordnance
- micro-secession
- Abolish Corporate Welfare
- Free Trade (Repeal NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. etc. and have UNILATERAL TRADE e.g. no restrictions of imports/exports imposed whether quotas, regulatory, or taxation (tariffs))
- IP/Copyright

About the only commonalities would be

- Abolishing things like EPA, DOE
- Homeschooling
- Preventing things getting worse in a few areas (they're extreme reactionaries)

etc.

90% LOL. Don't make me laugh.

 

[compromise]

That would be nice, but I really don't think he's that strong on immigration. He actually seems pretty libertarian on immigration and things like tariffs from what I can tell, despite some libertarians not wanting to claim him.

Yeah, Rand definitely isn't a paleoconservative.

Most libertarians oppose tariffs, so there is a clear answer on that issue.

 

[compromise]

Yeah, no.

- Drug legalization (repeal laws against vices, e.g. prostitution, restrictions on alcohol, gambling, etc.)
- Abolishment of DHS, FBI, CIA, BATF, DEA, etc.
- Abolishment of Federal Taxation (at the very least)
- End the Fed / Competing Currencies
- Repeal of '32 and '64 gun laws and explosive ordnance
- micro-secession
- Abolish Corporate Welfare
- Free Trade (Repeal NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. etc. and have UNILATERAL TRADE e.g. no restrictions of imports/exports imposed whether quotas, regulatory, or taxation (tariffs))
- IP/Copyright

About the only commonalities would be

- Abolishing things like EPA, DOE
- Homeschooling
- Preventing things getting worse in a few areas (they're extreme reactionaries)

etc.

90% LOL. Don't make me laugh.

They don't ever talk about those issues because those issues are largely irrelevant at the moment in general political discourse. If they ever became major issues, I'm sure they may disagree with Traditional Conservative on them, but as far as the current issues and bills go (providing foreign policy is excluded), they probably are in line with us most of the time.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

They don't ever talk about those issues because those issues are largely irrelevant at the moment in general political discourse. If they ever became major issues, I'm sure they may disagree with Traditional Conservative on them, but as far as the current issues and bills go (providing foreign policy is excluded), they probably are in line with us most of the time.

Philosophizing mid-stream.

Putting on blinders and only talking about the particular minutia of this particular day, this particular hour, and never considering ideas, bigger picture, etc., is why these talk radio buffoons stink and why their shows are insufferable and mind-numbingly boring. They can rail and rail about Obama's incursions into health care and never once for a moment talk about Bush's incursions into health care, nor Bob Dole's before that, nor the virtues or vices of Medicare, Medicaid, and the rest in general. They're just partisan hacks and water carriers. Bo-o-o-o-o-o-o-ring.

 

[cajuncocoa]

They don't ever talk about those issues because those issues are largely irrelevant at the moment in general political discourse. If they ever became major issues, I'm sure they may disagree with Traditional Conservative on them, but as far as the current issues and bills go (providing foreign policy is excluded), they probably are in line with us most of the time.

They're not major issues because the average uneducated American citizen doesn't understand how each and every one of those issues negatively affects them. If we had an open dialogue (i.e., someone who will have the cojones to bring them up in the first place) maybe they could learn and things could really get better. As it is now, being afraid to discuss this stuff only allows for us to get better at a snail's pace, if at all.

 

[KingNothing]

Libertarianism is the rejection of the initiation of force. If it means anything else, it's utterly pointless to call anything or anyone libertarian, since it could mean almost anything. If one could believe in initiating force and still be a libertarian, what amount of force makes one unlibertarian?

Well, you might think it means that but here in America we speak English and the words that comprise the English language have definitions. For instance:

Libertarianism
Noun
An extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens.


"minimal state intervention," not "no state intervention."

 

[cajuncocoa]

Well, you might think it means that but here in America we speak English and the words that comprise the English language have definitions. For instance:

Libertarianism
Noun
An extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens.


"minimal state intervention," not "no state intervention."

From Dictionary.com:

Libertarianism

lib·er·tar·i·an [lib-er-tair-ee-uhn]

noun

1. a person who advocates liberty, especially with regard to thought or conduct.

2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will (distinguished from necessitarian ).


adjective

3. advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.

4. maintaining the doctrine of free will.



Look at definition #1..."conduct" includes aggression.

 

[Brett85]

Yeah, no.

- Drug legalization (repeal laws against vices, e.g. prostitution, restrictions on alcohol, gambling, etc.)
- Abolishment of DHS, FBI, CIA, BATF, DEA, etc.
- Abolishment of Federal Taxation (at the very least)
- End the Fed / Competing Currencies
- Repeal of '32 and '64 gun laws and explosive ordnance
- micro-secession
- Abolish Corporate Welfare
- Free Trade (Repeal NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. etc. and have UNILATERAL TRADE e.g. no restrictions of imports/exports imposed whether quotas, regulatory, or taxation (tariffs))
- IP/Copyright

About the only commonalities would be

- Abolishing things like EPA, DOE
- Homeschooling
- Preventing things getting worse in a few areas (they're extreme reactionaries)

etc.

90% LOL. Don't make me laugh.

I said that I probably agree with about 90% of the things they say, not 90% of their positions. They never really talk about issues like drugs and prostitution, which would be things that I would disagree with them on.

And I'm not a hardcore libertarian on national security issues, so I'm not in favor of abolishing the CIA and FBI. Even George Washington had spies. So yeah, an anarchist would disagree with Hannity and Levin quite a bit more often than a minarchist or paleoconservative.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I said that I probably agree with about 90% of the things they say, not 90% of their positions. They never really talk about issues like drugs and prostitution, which would be things that I would disagree with them on.

And I'm not a hardcore libertarian on national security issues, so I'm not in favor of abolishing the CIA and FBI. Even George Washington had spies. So yeah, an anarchist would disagree with Hannity and Levin quite a bit more often than a minarchist or paleoconservative.

How the hell can you bring up George Washington in regards to the CIA and FBI when the CIA and FBI are not that old...I don't even. Somehow we got from 1776 to 1908 without any incarnation of FBI, and then is this particularly so important as to warrant 'hardcore libertarianism'.

The Bureau of Investigation (BOI) was created on July 26, 1908, after Congress had adjourned for the summer.[17] Attorney General Bonaparte, using Department of Justice expense funds,[17] hired thirty-four people, including some veterans of the Secret Service,[20][21] to work for a new investigative agency. Its first chief (the title is now known as director) was Stanley Finch. Bonaparte notified Congress of these actions in December, 1908.[17]

The bureau's first official task was visiting and making surveys of the houses of prostitution in preparation for enforcing the "White Slave Traffic Act," or Mann Act, passed on June 25, 1910. In 1932, it was renamed the United States Bureau of Investigation. The following year it was linked to the Bureau of Prohibition and rechristened the Division of Investigation (DOI) before finally becoming an independent service within the Department of Justice in 1935.[20] In the same year, its name was officially changed from the Division of Investigation to the present-day Federal Bureau of Investigation, or FBI.

^ LOL. Sounds, jiffy and oh-so-needed.

As for the CIA, those assholes have only been around since the 40s, and I can't imagine how they could have attributed any more disastrous consequences not only for the US, but for the World writ large. Apparently, you're under this misguided idea that the CIA has provided positive benefits for us mundanes, but all I see are the consequences of the CIA's actions all around, and make no mistake, they're directly responsible for 9/11, Iraq War I/II, and all sorts of other shenanigans.

 

[Brett85]

How the hell can you bring up George Washington in regards to the CIA and FBI when the CIA and FBI are not that old...I don't even. Somehow we got from 1776 to 1908 without any incarnation of FBI, and then is this particularly so important as to warrant 'hardcore libertarianism'.



^ LOL. Sounds, jiffy and oh-so-needed.

As for the CIA, those assholes have only been around since the 40s, and I can't imagine how they could have attributed any more disastrous consequences not only for the US, but for the World writ large. Apparently, you're under this misguided idea that the CIA has provided positive benefits for us mundanes, but all I see are the consequences of the CIA's actions all around, and make no mistake, they're directly responsible for 9/11, Iraq War I/II, and all sorts of other shenanigans.

I think that the CIA should be reformed, just not abolished. They should get back to their original mission of gathering intelligence overseas. I brought up George Washington just to point out that gathering intelligence overseas isn't some kind of "tyrannical" government policy.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I think that the CIA should be reformed, just not abolished. They should get back to their original mission of gathering intelligence overseas. I brought up George Washington just to point out that gathering intelligence overseas isn't some kind of "tyrannical" government policy.

Aware me on what Government agency collected intelligence (aka spied) on overseas countries during Washington's tenure? Back then America didn't give a shit what other countries were doing/thought because we had no interest or business in those countries affairs in the first place, and being that we were a nation of rifleman we were always ready for conflict. We seemed to survive up until 1908 without a FBI, and up until 1947 without a CIA. Please, tell me again how we would be subsumed if we were to get rid of these pungent agencies. As far as the CIA, I can't believe you believe that idea that all they were ever doing was gathering intel and passing it along. They've been in the coup, blood, and death business since they were created. Who do you think deposed the Shah in the 50s, not even a decade after they were created.

In September 1947, the National Security Act of 1947 established both the National Security Council and the Central Intelligence Agency.[65] Rear Admiral Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter was appointed as the first Director of Central Intelligence, and one of the first secret operations under him was the successful support of the Christian Democrats in Italy.[66]

The National Security Council Directive on Office of Special Projects, June 18, 1948 (NSC 10/2) further gave the CIA the authority to carry out covert operations "against hostile foreign states or groups or in support of friendly foreign states or groups but which are so planned and conducted that any U.S. government responsibility for them is not evident to unauthorized persons."[67]

LOLLERS LOLLERS. Yeah, reform an institution built on coups and meddling in affairs. Uwotm8?

 

[AuH20]

I think that the CIA should be reformed, just not abolished. They should get back to their original mission of gathering intelligence overseas. I brought up George Washington just to point out that gathering intelligence overseas isn't some kind of "tyrannical" government policy.

The CIA should be dissolved and it's responsibilities should be transferred to Defense Intelligence. FBI is more of a necessary evil however.