The Libertarian Contradiction -a fatal flaw

[nexis]

It is healthy to see a candidate like Ron Paul making strides inside the Republican party, it's good for third party's.

However their is a fatal flaw embedded in the Libertarian stance on issues. Libertarians fail to recognize one major contradiction in their position.

Libertarians promote scaling back on government oversight into private business, yet they want a foreign policy that remains neutral from foreign entanglements.

I would assert that many foreign entanglements we are in and have previously been involved in, are rooted in the interests of private multi-national corporations that have been given safe harbor in the United States and in offshore p.o. boxes.

So how can the United States claim neutrality in foreign conflicts, when it is clear to the world that simultaneously it has been giving safe harbor and no oversight to corporations whom profit from conflicts?

I believe in a free market economy absolutely, but unfortunately large corporate entities which have no liability have been given too much freedom to screw the rest of us for to long now already. If anything yes, we need to rebuild our government to work for us against our corporate masters.

Yet giving more freedom to private entities which have no liability while scaling back our government altogether would be a horrible mistake.

Oh yeah plus they want to take away public land

 

[FreeTraveler]

Corporations are not natural entities, they are state-created fictions. There need to be major changes in the structure of corporations, but it's legislatively doable; no Amendment would be needed. That will be one of the more advanced educational courses Dr. Paul will have to teach in the future.

 

[SeanEdwards]

If the government is weak, decentralized. and focused on protecting individual liberty, then there would be no powerful state organization that is susceptible to being lobbied by corporate interests in defense of corporate objectives.

Government does not protect the people from corporations. Government protects the corporations from the people.

 

[drednot]

It is healthy to see a candidate like Ron Paul making strides inside the Republican party, it's good for third party's.

However their is a fatal flaw embedded in the Libertarian stance on issues. Libertarians fail to recognize one major contradiction in their position.

Libertarians promote scaling back on government oversight into private business, yet they want a foreign policy that remains neutral from foreign entanglements.

I would assert that many foreign entanglements we are in and have previously been involved in, are rooted in the interests of private multi-national corporations that have been given safe harbor in the United States and in offshore p.o. boxes.

So how can the United States claim neutrality in foreign conflicts, when it is clear to the world that simultaneously it has been giving safe harbor and no oversight to corporations whom profit from conflicts?
...

So what?

Why do we care what corporations are doing overseas?

You make it sound like they are US-based terrorists.

If they are somehow doing something in a foreign country that violates the rights of its citizens, that foreign country can stop them locally. There's no way for a corporation to violate individual rights of foreigners while acting only in the US. (Barring wierd cases like intellectual property.)

 

[goRPaul]

Oh yeah plus they want to take away public land

You would rather the gov't take away private land?

Get outta here.

 

[Tdcci]

Oh yeah plus they want to take away public land

If Corporations want to do that they'll have to pay for it at full market price with your consent. The government can snatch it from you for free using Eminent domain.

 

[braumstr]

You fail to recognize that the libertarian would not offer the same safe harbor you mention.

Corporatism is a disease and Dr. Paul has the cure. You should join us.

 

[Ilhaguru]

If Corporations want to do that they'll have to pay for it at full market price with your consent. The government can snatch it from you for free using Eminent domain.

I don't think they can do it for free. They have to pay something, but that's not necessarily market price.

But yes, they can force you out.

 

[gte811i]

Nexis,

"I would assert that many foreign entanglements we are in and have previously been involved in, are rooted in the interests of private multi-national corporations . . ."

Well, you're pretty right there, let's see Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, Haliberton, SAIC, etc, are just a few of the private corporations who push for foreign entanglements, and most recently Iraq. War is good for business. They have all are their lobbyists, pushers, and pimps, on Congress and the Executive branch (meaning the various federal agencies) to doll out more money to them, competing over bids on weapon platforms. They have made billions upon billions of dollars with Iraq. The longer the war goes on the more money they make, if the war stops they know the funding will quickly start to dry up.

"So how can the United States claim neutrality in foreign conflicts, when it is clear to the world that simultaneously it has been giving safe harbor and no oversight to corporations whom profit from conflicts?"

Well for one if you didn't get involved in foreign conflicts it would be harder for private corporations dip in the public trough.

"I believe in a free market economy absolutely, but unfortunately large corporate entities which have no liability have been given too much freedom to screw the rest of us for to long now already. If anything yes, we need to rebuild our government to work for us against our corporate masters."

Interesting thing, if you look back through U.S. history, the ones who push the hardest for government intervention are large corporate entities. Hmm, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense? Well, you see he who has the gold makes the rules. Many times large corporate entities through lobbyists are able to ensure that laws and regulations are passed which they know they can abide by, but that the little smaller companies have no chance at abiding by b/c of the time, money, and resources needed to abide by new regulations. You in effect have government subsidized monopolies. Government passes laws that cause huge barriers to new/small companies while incurring minor costs for companies with deeper pockets.

Nobody likes to use the word b/c it drums up nazisms, but what we are getting closer and closer to in this country is a soft form of facism, government subsidized corporations.

 

[gworrel]

It is healthy to see a candidate like Ron Paul making strides inside the Republican party, it's good for third party's.(

How is it good for third parties? He is not running under a third party. He is running as a Republican.

How are large corporate entities screwing the rest of us? A large corporation cannot force you or anyone else to buy their product unless they succeed in garnering a government granted monopoly. Fraud is illegal and corporate directors have gone to jail for such violations.

No liability? Corporations have been sued into bankruptcy and oblivion over product liability and negligence issues.

Corporations must serve their customers, their shareholders, and their employees or they go out of business. What must stop is government handouts and favoritism to some corporations. Many government programs are thinly veiled handouts to various industries.

How much of our overseas entanglements are for the benefit of the military industrial complex? Corporations are not the problem. Over-sized government is the problem. Reducing the government to the size envisioned by the writers of the constitution will force businesses to compete on the strength of their products and services.

Each of us can vote with our dollars which corporations we choose to support. Only government can impose itself in your life even when you vote against it.

 

[Knightskye]

Libertarians promote scaling back on government oversight into private business, yet they want a foreign policy that remains neutral from foreign entanglements.

I would assert that many foreign entanglements we are in and have previously been involved in, are rooted in the interests of private multi-national corporations that have been given safe harbor in the United States and in offshore p.o. boxes.

List examples of this, please.

 

[Cleaner44]

It is healthy to see a candidate like Ron Paul making strides inside the Republican party, it's good for third party's.

However their is a fatal flaw embedded in the Libertarian stance on issues. Libertarians fail to recognize one major contradiction in their position.

Libertarians promote scaling back on government oversight into private business, yet they want a foreign policy that remains neutral from foreign entanglements.

I would assert that many foreign entanglements we are in and have previously been involved in, are rooted in the interests of private multi-national corporations that have been given safe harbor in the United States and in offshore p.o. boxes.

So how can the United States claim neutrality in foreign conflicts, when it is clear to the world that simultaneously it has been giving safe harbor and no oversight to corporations whom profit from conflicts?

I believe in a free market economy absolutely, but unfortunately large corporate entities which have no liability have been given too much freedom to screw the rest of us for to long now already. If anything yes, we need to rebuild our government to work for us against our corporate masters.

Yet giving more freedom to private entities which have no liability while scaling back our government altogether would be a horrible mistake.

Oh yeah plus they want to take away public land

Welcome to the forums my fine Liberal friend. You have stated your position that large corporations often screw us over but this in no way demonstrates a contridiction of Libertarians. I suggest you get a better understanding of Libertarians than what you learn by listening to Thom Hartman.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Abolish corporate personhood! ( fabricated and granted by government while the sheeple slept )

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

It is healthy to see a candidate like Ron Paul making strides inside the Republican party, it's good for third party's.

However their is a fatal flaw embedded in the Libertarian stance on issues. Libertarians fail to recognize one major contradiction in their position.

Libertarians promote scaling back on government oversight into private business, yet they want a foreign policy that remains neutral from foreign entanglements.

I would assert that many foreign entanglements we are in and have previously been involved in, are rooted in the interests of private multi-national corporations that have been given safe harbor in the United States and in offshore p.o. boxes.

So how can the United States claim neutrality in foreign conflicts, when it is clear to the world that simultaneously it has been giving safe harbor and no oversight to corporations whom profit from conflicts?

I believe in a free market economy absolutely, but unfortunately large corporate entities which have no liability have been given too much freedom to screw the rest of us for to long now already. If anything yes, we need to rebuild our government to work for us against our corporate masters.

Yet giving more freedom to private entities which have no liability while scaling back our government altogether would be a horrible mistake.

Oh yeah plus they want to take away public land

Want me to tell you about the flaws of socialism? You whiny crack baby. Libertarianism is both a political philosophy and a personal philosophy

personal: no right to infringe on what people do with their lives, all that blah

political philosophy: tax cuts, personal freedom, giving power back to the people

too bad socialism blinds you, you are unable to comprehend anything that isn't tied with the socialist propaganda that has been fed to you over the years.

There also two kinds of libertarians:

right theorists: they believe that you have no right to initiate force...EVER.

consequentialist: sometimes you have to initiate force. The media has pretty much made me a consequentialist, I wouldn't object to violence towards media

 

[ToryNotion]

It is healthy to see a candidate like Ron Paul making strides inside the Republican party, it's good for third party's.

However their is a fatal flaw embedded in the Libertarian stance on issues. Libertarians fail to recognize one major contradiction in their position.

Libertarians promote scaling back on government oversight into private business, yet they want a foreign policy that remains neutral from foreign entanglements.

I would assert that many foreign entanglements we are in and have previously been involved in, are rooted in the interests of private multi-national corporations that have been given safe harbor in the United States and in offshore p.o. boxes.

So how can the United States claim neutrality in foreign conflicts, when it is clear to the world that simultaneously it has been giving safe harbor and no oversight to corporations whom profit from conflicts?

I believe in a free market economy absolutely, but unfortunately large corporate entities which have no liability have been given too much freedom to screw the rest of us for to long now already. If anything yes, we need to rebuild our government to work for us against our corporate masters.

Yet giving more freedom to private entities which have no liability while scaling back our government altogether would be a horrible mistake.

Oh yeah plus they want to take away public land

Let them use their profits to buy their own armies.