The "I hate Mitt Romney" thread :)

[Raijin]

Big Bird = Next Osama Bin Laden to our country ;/

 

[Pingu]

It was the right thing to do Pingu. I hate to say it, but dropping the bombs saved not only thousands of American lives, but also MILLIONS of Japanese lives, in the long run. The Japanese would have refused to surrender, period. It was their mentality at the time. Also, did you know that the Japanese were offered atomic bomb technology before us? They dismissed the atomic bomb technology, and went with the "death ray" idea instead, which they could not implement because it would've taken all the electrical power in Japan at that time to make just one death ray plausible.

There was a plan to drop the bomb on Mt. Fuji, or next to it, with the hopes that it would shock the Japanese people into surrendering. Looking back on it, we should have done that first... but the Japanese were such a strong-willed people, and had such a nationalistic mentality, it was the only way to end the war with as few of casualties as possible we could think of.

Japan did indeed have early access to a (theoretical) atomic bomb since it was their German allies who were spearheading the research of such weaponry lead by a man named Werner Heisenberg. At the time, atomic research still had a long way to go and it was believed that massive quantities of uranium would be needed to create a highly destructive bomb. It was partially because of this that the Japanese passed on this (still theoretical) weapon since they barely had access to any uranium ore to create one and the creation of the Death Ray seemed more plausible.
Heisenberg himself was in Allied captivity when the U.S. detonated Little Boy and Fat Man over Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively as a result of the Manhattan Project. He was being held captive along other German scientists in a bugged house in England. They recorded him saying how he did not understand how the Americans managed to create 2 atomic bombs with so little uranium. It was then that the U.S. decided he was no threat since they had surpassed his knowledge on the subject and released him.
When it comes to the bombing being the right thing... This is where we will have to agree to disagree since I do not believe an atomic strike to have been the right choice. I know I stated how Japanese Imperial culture would've been a major hurdle to overcome, but dropping those bombs when so many other options remained unexplored just never sat right with me.

 

[Mr.Self Destruct]

Romney and his running mate probably suffer from some form of social retardation, saying half of the stuff they do really brings into question their mental health.
"Obama wants to take out 'Under god' in the pledge of allegiance! God comes first in my country!"
"I believe evolution is part of creationism."
"We need to get our NFL refs back. We also need to get rid of Obama."
"I don't care about 47 percent of America."
To be honest I'd rather put my trust into Obama than those two goons who were born with silver spoons in their mouths.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2

 

[Hargood]

BOSTON—For weeks many Beltway insiders had written off the Romney campaign as dead, saying the candidate had dug himself into too deep a hole with too little time to recover. However, with a month to go before ballots are cast, Romney has pulled even with President Obama, and the former Massachusetts governor credits his rejuvenated campaign to one, singular tactic: lying a lot.

“I’m lying a lot more, and my lies are far more egregious than they’ve ever been,” a smiling Romney told reporters while sitting in the back of his campaign bus, adding that when faced with a choice to either lie or tell the truth, he will more than likely lie. “It’s a strategy that works because when I lie, I’m essentially telling people what they want to hear, and people really like hearing things they want to hear. Even if they sort of know that nothing I’m saying is true.”

“It’s a freeing strategy, really, because I don’t have to worry about facts or being accurate or having any concrete positions of any kind,” Romney added.

Romney said he is telling at least 80 percent more lies now than he was two months ago. Buoyed by his strong debate performance, which by his own admission included 40 or 50 instances of lying in one 90-minute period, the candidate said he will continue to “just openly lie [his] ass off” until the Nov. 6 election.
Whether it’s a senior citizen, military family, working mother, businessman, or middle-class American, Romney said, he will lie to every single one of them as often as he can if that’s what it takes to win the presidency.
“The best part is, it’s really easy to lie,” said Romney, who added that voicing whatever untruths come into his mind at any given moment is an easy thing to do because all it requires is opening his mouth and talking. “For example, if someone accuses me of having a tax plan that makes no discernable sense, I just lie and say that I do have a tax plan that makes sense. I also say there is a study that backs up my plan. See that? Simple. None of it is remotely true, of course, but now we’re moving on to the next topic because people are usually too afraid to ask me straight up if I’m lying, because that is apparently not something you ask someone who is running for president.”

Moreover, Romney said, if anyone does accuse him of lying, he will simply say he is not lying, which he noted is just an extension of the overall strategy.

“So, if I’m talking to retirees,” Romney continued, “I lie and say I’ll fight tooth and nail to save Medicare, which causes them to applaud. On the other hand, if I’m talking to the party base, I lie and say we have to cut Medicare, which causes them to applaud. So, you see, my goal here is to get everyone applauding for me, because if everyone is clapping their hands, standing on their feet, and shouting my name, that means they like me and will vote for me.”

Romney’s campaign advisers said that they adopted the strategy of lying a lot after realizing several things: (1) Lying sounds good, especially when the truth sounds bad, (2) the American media doesn’t care if you lie, (3) the American people don’t care if you lie, and (4) it’s okay to lie if you are very, very desperate to become the president of the United States.

“If we’re going to be carried into the White House, it’s going to have to be on a wave of lies,” Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades said. “Most important, Mitt is comfortable when he is lying because then he doesn’t have to say anything bad. And in this last month it’s important that we just let Mitt be Mitt, whoever the hell that is.”

“It’s late in the game, but this campaign has finally found its groove,” Rhoades added. “And that groove is lying. Bald-faced, make-no-apologies, dirty, filthy lying.”

According to Romney, amidst all the lies, there is only one thing that remains true.
“I literally have no clue where I stand on any single issue at this point,” said Romney, adding that when it comes to women’s rights, gay rights, health care, the middle class, the economy, or the U.S. military, all he knows is how to lie about them. “I understand what other people want. And what I’ve learned, especially in the past week, is that in order to be a viable candidate for the White House, that’s all you really need to know.”
Following the interview, Romney told various reporters that, if elected, he would save the newspaper industry.

I know, I know.... but I still just have to make sure.

Please tell me you know this is a joke and that you know the Onion is a Political Comedy.

(I would Also love that you realize they are makeing fun of "You" in particular.. But I don't need that one really)

I don't want to think anymore ill about American Voters today, I really Don't

 

[Raijin]

I know, I know.... but I still just have to make sure.

Please tell me you know this is a joke and that you know the Onion is a Political Comedy.

(I would Also love that you realize they are makeing fun of "You" in particular.. But I don't need that one really)

I don't want to think anymore ill about American Voters, I really Don't

I'm well aware that everything that comes from The Onion is a joke, and that it's made for comedy, but in this case it's actually the truth. Politicians lie to get votes. Not sure why they're targeting people like me. I know all about the scheme that goes on in the political world.

 

[Andante]

​

Not sure if this video has been contributed to the thread, but I would like to post it regardless. As if we need another reason to laugh...​

 

[Hargood]

I'm well aware that everything that comes from The Onion is a joke, and that it's made for comedy, but in this case it's actually the truth. Politicians lie to get votes. Not sure why they're targeting people like me. I know all about the scheme that goes on in the political world.

sorry, I didn't mean to get to passionate Raijin. I more or less mean that the Joke that was made in that Article is taking that someone says "Romney Lied" then making a Big Article joke out of it


Kind of like this: U.S. Out Of My Uterus vs. We Must Deploy Troops To Jessica Linden's Uterus Immediately | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

The Funny part of the joke is "We Must Deploy Troops To Jessica Linden's Uterus Immediately"

The Topic is an Issue, but the rebuttle is just meant to be funny.

 

[Medea]

I just found this article in American Conservative, that slams on the idea of libertarianism, especially anarcho-capitalism. It's an interesting perspective.

Marxism of the Right | The American Conservative

 

[Medea]

Ugh, I just typed up an entire post and my page accidentally disappeared...

Pearl Harbor - Mother of All Conspiracies

The U.S. sure didn't do a good job fighting against authoritarian communism. It essentially was what it fought against during the Cold War. The only real difference beside their systematic titles was the black market being more tolerable in the U.S.

Not to mention by thinking it could simply "contain" the Soviets, had to have been an obvious mistake to begin with: since the end of WWII, the United States has since had the ability to wipe Russia off the map while the Russians freely carried nukes around the world. Therefore, I cannot help but accept that it was more than likely planned. Not cold. Not warm. Planned.

Damnit, I want to so type much more. Oh well.


In any case:

I don't buy this plot. Not that it isn't impossible... after all, the U.S. was very reluctant to get involved in the war up until that point. But here's the way I look at it: (btw, I'm not a very good descriptive writer, but I always look for a common sense answer to things)

The U.S. did not have a powerful military at that point. Our military might came as a direct result of our being thrown into WWII. Sure, because of our industrial might, we could create a powerful military very quickly, but we were hardly prepared to go to war at that moment. This is the main reason I don't believe the conspiracy. If our government really wanted to "get involved in WWII" with such a plan, wouldn't it have been nice to have a sufficient military before we decided to taunt the Japanese into attacking us? Many people don't realize just how vulnerable our western coast was after Pearl Harbor. The Japanese didn't even know how vulnerable we were, because if they did, they could have began occupying us right after the surprise attack on pearl harbor. Whether they would've succeeded or not is a different issue.

And, as far as the Russians go, do you really think that if it was the other way around, and the Russians had more to gain from WWII, they would've treated us with any less hostility? Russia has never been a true communist state, just as America has never been a true democracy. Russia, to me, under Stalin, was simply a despotism. And during the Cold War, they had the power to wipe us out, too. The reason we never had a nuclear war, is because no one would've won. We would've wiped-out 95% of the world's population, and everybody knew it. We got close when that idiot Reagan was president, but both countries knew that it was the LAST thing anyone wanted. And neither side wanted to get involved in a land war, either. It was a pure stalemate. The reason we won, is because their economy wasn't as stable as ours.

 

[Punz]

Maybe I'm wrong, but shouldn't the President have some type of Military experience under his belt? I know it's not required, but just from a Patriotic stand point. How can a person who hasn't even served in the Armed Forces command our Military? That has always bothered me. Mitt has no experience either, yet he is so Pro-War. Yeah, I know there are other ways to serve your country, but being Commander and Chief with no Military experience just doesn't sit well with me. That's like being a Dragonborn, minus the Shouting.

 

[Omega Dragon]

I don't buy this plot. Not that it isn't impossible... after all, the U.S. was very reluctant to get involved in the war up until that point. But here's the way I look at it: (btw, I'm not a very good descriptive writer, but I always look for a common sense answer to things)[

The U.S. did not have a powerful military at that point. Our military might came as a direct result of our being thrown into WWII. Sure, because of our industrial might, we could create a powerful military very quickly, but we were hardly prepared to go to war at that moment. This is the main reason I don't believe the conspiracy. If our government really wanted to "get involved in WWII" with such a plan, wouldn't it have been nice to have a sufficient military before we decided to taunt the Japanese into attacking us? Many people don't realize just how vulnerable our western coast was after Pearl Harbor. The Japanese didn't even know how vulnerable we were, because if they did, they could have began occupying us right after the surprise attack on pearl harbor. Whether they would've succeeded or not is a different issue.

That is a fair assessment, I admit it's even one I've not looked at and no one I know of has looked at it that way. However, with the knowledge of the Japanese and their Bushido code, but most especially because of what the Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamato himself said about waking the big bear on that fated day and how he has also talked about how it'd be impossible to conquer America due to our privately-armed citizenry, even if I give FDR the benefit of a doubt about going to war, I'm still unable to let it slide that he didn't provoke it.

Russia has never been a true communist state, just as America has never been a true democracy. Russia, to me, under Stalin, was simply a despotism.

Indeed, I've been careful to describe Russia (I'm sure you'd admit to that); it's the same with Karl Marx: he created his own version of Socialism & Communism. For all intensive reasonings, Stalin was a cold-hearted murderer. I don't care who you are, no one in the last century has been worse than him. I may not necessarily be the friendliest to a communist or socialist and I've even argued against anarcho-collectivism, but I almost hang my head in shame when I see supposedly-communists or socialists trying to defend the state using Stalin-Marxist logic that authoritarianism must be used in order to create an egalitarian society, because they literally are just adding fuel to the fires. I used to debate with someone on a political forum that was a self-avowed democrat-socialist that would use such logic, despite that I actually gave them numerous chances to say otherwise.

And, as far as the Russians go, do you really think that if it was the other way around, and the Russians had more to gain from WWII, they would've treated us with any less hostility?

I accept the possibility it could've been the same both ways. Stalin was quite literally a worse bastard than Hitler, but that's why I think the Cold War could have been planned.

And during the Cold War, they had the power to wipe us out, too.

It's true, during the Cold War the more it dragged on though the easier it became for Russia. Near the beginning however, we still had our own military on Russian soil and I do believe we were still funding their warmachine for the WWII aftermath.

The reason we never had a nuclear war, is because no one would've won. We would've wiped-out 95% of the world's population, and everybody knew it.

I'm not arguing for a nuclear war. But yet I don't think it'd have been implausible for us to raid the Kremlin with a few B-29 Superfortresses (or better yet, B-52 Stratofortresses since they were in development during WWII and just started being put into production by 1950 and used by the air force since 1955) dropping off several conventional dispensers near the beginning of the Cold War.

And again, we were still right there in Soviet Russia's back yard, and even their front yard and home at that, and even General Patton himself warned that Stalin was a far worse enemy than Hitler ever possibly could be, probably even before the U.S. entered WWII. (I know General George S. Patton had a few words to say about Stalin.)

We got close when that idiot Reagan was president, but both countries knew that it was the LAST thing anyone wanted. And neither side wanted to get involved in a land war, either. It was a pure stalemate. The reason we won, is because their economy wasn't as stable as ours.

There you go. That's the only reason that Soviet Russia lost: their economy stagnated - it could no longer support the Soviet war machine - something most people never foresaw coming (which one has to admit is in part due to that many reds in public policy & in the media wanted the USSR to succeed); contrarily to popular myth, Reagan had nothing ado with it. Otherwise, as the war continued to drag on: ignoring their economy, they had started to gain strength in numbers all across the world, and it still goes on today, like in Cuba or North Korea. People like to talk about how Russia has changed (of course, I've to give Putin & Russia credit for handling the Georgian crisis), all that, yet it still acts its former self with America helping it along.

It could also be that hindsight is 20/20, too.

So today, we have Iran, huh? Apparently, as uncovered by Lou Dobbs on CNN, the United States under Bush had at least been indirectly supporting the Iranian nuclear program through a company in Russia that's actually a front for the Iranian regime. (I don't know if it's just that I'm currently torrenting but the original video isn't coming up, but here's the video I do believe.) Odd, ain't it?

I just found this article in American Conservative, that slams on the idea of libertarianism, especially anarcho-capitalism. It's an interesting perspective.

Marxism of the Right | The American Conservative

Hmm, I'll respond to it on here later today.
P.S. I do agree that one that stands for nothing does fall for everything.

 

[Omega Dragon]

Maybe I'm wrong, but shouldn't the President have some type of Military experience under his belt? I know it's not required, but just from a Patriotic stand point. How can a person who hasn't even served in the Armed Forces command our Military? That has always bothered me. Mitt has no experience either, yet he is so Pro-War. Yeah, I know there are other ways to serve your country, but being Commander and Chief with no Military experience just doesn't sit well with me. That's like being a Dragonborn, minus the Shouting.

I can understand the logic behind your statement, but I don't agree: the presidency is about far more than mere war policy; it's also about economic, domestic, & foreign policy too. Just because you're one thing or another means you know about anything else.

Personally, I couldn't care less if you were a flaming pink flamingo from the 28th dimension of the final quadrant of the time-space continuum born of a native Sun, or damn, a Kenyan.I don't even care if you suck it, or get blowjobs; hell you could have a million wives or husbands. I just don't care. Not one bit. What I care about is how authoritarian you're going to be, more than anything else. That's it, because all I ask is: "do unto others as you would have done unto you."

 

[Punz]

I can understand the logic behind your statement, but I don't agree: the presidency is about far more than mere war policy; it's also about economic, domestic, & foreign policy too. Just because you're one thing or another means you know about anything else.

Personally, I couldn't care less if you were a flaming pink flamingo from the 28th dimension of the final quadrant of the time-space continuum born of a native Sun, or damn, a Kenyan.I don't even care if you suck it, or get blowjobs; hell you could have a million wives or husbands. I just don't care. Not one bit. What I care about is how authoritarian you're going to be, more than anything else. That's it, because all I ask is: "do unto others as you would have done unto you."

Oh, I know it's more than just War Policy. I just find it ridiculous that a President can sit on his ass and command a Military force he's never served in.

 

[Omega Dragon]

Now on to the link that was previously posted: Marxism of the Right | The American Conservative

First of all, Marxism of the right sounds more like neoconservatism than anything; Marxism is an inherently authoritarian system while Libertarianism is inherently anti-authoritarian, and this is how there are anarchists of all stripes (some that I've mentioned). But I guess I've to expect that from those that still believe in a false "right v left" paradigm, don't I? No matter.

Furthermore, after typing half of what I've typed out, I decided I'm going to just ignore what I perceive as entirely irrelevant.

Free spirits, the ambitious, ex-socialists, drug users, and sexual eccentrics often find an attractive political philosophy in libertarianism, the idea that individual freedom should be the sole rule of ethics and government. Libertarianism offers its believers a clear conscience to do things society presently restrains, like make more money, have more sex, or take more drugs. It promises a consistent formula for ethics, a rigorous framework for policy analysis, a foundation in American history, and the application of capitalist efficiencies to the whole of society. But while it contains substantial grains of truth, as a whole it is a seductive mistake.

They should find libertarianism attractive, as should all humans. Libertarianism does not put anyone into one cage or another, and instead of the core message being about controlling others like most other political "philosophies", libertarianism instead is about allowing people to live their own life while not being threatful of another individual. Much unlike any rather-authoritarian ideologies, the libertarian philosophy emboldens one's right to self-defense regardless of the aggressor's title or status.

This is no surprise, as libertarianism is basically the Marxism of the Right. If Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism, then libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism. Society in fact requires both individualism and collectivism, both selfishness and altruism, to function. Like Marxism, libertarianism offers the fraudulent intellectual security of a complete a priori account of the political good without the effort of empirical investigation. Like Marxism, it aspires, overtly or covertly, to reduce social life to economics. And like Marxism, it has its historical myths and a genius for making its followers feel like an elect unbound by the moral rules of their society.

This being completely false, as I already mentioned above, and will likewise show more now: libertarianism itself does not claim a free society can run fully on selfishness and/or individualism. Instead, libertarianism claims that people have the right to be what they perceive (rightfully or wrongly) as altruism or being selfish. Libertarianism does not deny the individual's right to enter unto a collective, only that the collective is voluntary.

Rather the problem many conservatives have with libertarians and libertarianism is this: conservatives have for decades have been taught and surrounded by the belief that the state is necessary. Though many, like my old man, believe the government is a great evil and for good reasoning, they fail to understand that the real reasoning behind the state's necessity is, no one has ever given anarchy itself an actual try.

The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple: freedom, though a good thing, is simply not the only good thing in life. Simple physical security, which even a prisoner can possess, is not freedom, but one cannot live without it. Prosperity is connected to freedom, in that it makes us free to consume, but it is not the same thing, in that one can be rich but as unfree as a Victorian tycoon’s wife. A family is in fact one of the least free things imaginable, as the emotional satisfactions of it derive from relations that we are either born into without choice or, once they are chosen, entail obligations that we cannot walk away from with ease or justice. But security, prosperity, and family are in fact the bulk of happiness for most real people and the principal issues that concern governments.

Libertarianism does not make any sort of claim that freedom is the only good thing in life, or the universe.

A family is in fact one of the least free things imaginable, as the emotional satisfactions of it derive from relations that we are either born into without choice or, once they are chosen, entail obligations that we cannot walk away from with ease or justice. But security, prosperity, and family are in fact the bulk of happiness for most real people and the principal issues that concern governments.

It's true that people are forced into families at birth, libertarianism does not deny family rights, or any of the previously-mentioned.

Libertarians try to get around this fact that freedom is not the only good thing by trying to reduce all other goods to it through the concept of choice, claiming that everything that is good is so because we choose to partake of it. Therefore freedom, by giving us choice, supposedly embraces all other goods.

Libertarianism does embrace all goods through choice, as there has never been good without evil. How can a man be good all his life, if he could never do wrong? It's impossible, at least in the human's current condition; no one would know why touching fire is wrong if they never went through it themselves, and no one would understand why murder is wrong if there was none. But because of the evil things people can do, they can learn and choose to do better.

But this violates common sense by denying that anything is good by nature, independently of whether we choose it. Nourishing foods are good for us by nature, not because we choose to eat them. Taken to its logical conclusion, the reduction of the good to the freely chosen means there are no inherently good or bad choices at all, but that a man who chose to spend his life playing tiddlywinks has lived as worthy a life as a Washington or a Churchill.

Whose common sense? How is it that it denies something is good by nature, or evil? How is it a person can be wise if he's forced into it? Every man's being is shown not in the laws he is forced to obey, but his choices and reasonings that he's disobeyed law for. If Washington or Churchill were such good men, it is because they were allowed to be, not forced.

Furthermore, the reduction of all goods to individual choices presupposes that all goods are individual. But some, like national security, clean air, or a healthy culture, are inherently collective. It may be possible to privatize some, but only some, and the efforts can be comically inefficient. Do you really want to trace every pollutant in the air back to the factory that emitted it and sue?

National security is quite really a good definition of an individualistic good, yet many (not all) people can only see it as requiring collective participation because that's what they've been taught. Hell, I have my own reserves about national security in an anarchist society, but I understand I have my reserves due to preconceived notions that I know I've never experienced something else entirely: the government has claimed a monopoly on these things.

For instance, it is impossible for most people to really defend themselves. Why? Law has continued to make it almost impossible to differentiate between a man that murders someone for just whatever reason and an 80-year old grandma that took out her small .22 pistol just to defend herself. Instead, some laws only differentiate based on status, like anyone that instantly hits, shoots, or kills a police officer cannot possibly be acting in self-defense it seems; just like, I think it was a U.S. Marine actually, whose house was falsely invaded or some crap by S.W.A.T., and was killed in self-defense - and you want to tell me I should trust your government to protect me when while holding a monopoly, your system does no better than the Mafia?

Libertarians rightly concede that one’s freedom must end at the point at which it starts to impinge upon another person’s, but they radically underestimate how easily this happens. So even if the libertarian principle of “an it harm none, do as thou wilt,” is true, it does not license the behavior libertarians claim. Consider pornography: libertarians say it should be permitted because if someone doesn’t like it, he can choose not to view it. But what he can’t do is choose not to live in a culture that has been vulgarized by it.

This is incredibly false. Even the conservative should remember that the ability to pursue one's happiness cannot ever guarantee it. No one would be forced to live in a culture he doesn't agree with, and he shouldn't. But that's never anyone else's responsibility but their own. If I don't like the things you do, that doesn't give me the right to arrest you for it. If one of my Atheist friends decided that Christianity should be banned because of any number of reasons, and that he has you arrested despite having done nothing wrong to anyone else, you would probably feel wronged yourself.

So if we're going to have government, why should it be up to conservatives what laws are law? Why not just support the Shariah law and get it over with? Or why not just enforce some ancient pagan laws and rituals? Like I don't know, even require a blood ritual for every couple in order to be married.

This is not just an accidental failing of libertarianism’s believers but an intrinsic temptation of the doctrine that sets it up to fail whenever tried, just like Marxism.

Yet, people are practicing libertarianism every day even when they don't know it; worldwide, despite (or sometimes, even in spite of) the authoritarian state models surrounding their lives trying to control their lives, people are building trade, making transactions, and just acting out of their best interest. People aren't breaking the law because of punishments, but because they don't think it's right or in their best-interest, while yet there are plenty of governments breaking their own laws.

Libertarians need to be asked some hard questions.

The whole lot of people need to be asked questions, but I digress.

What if a free society needed to draft its citizens in order to remain free?

For the most part of human history, it seems the biggest motives for war have come from state-centered ideologies. But again, the alternative has never been tried, either. Why? Because government claims a monopoly over it.

What if it needed to limit oil imports to protect the economic freedom of its citizens from unfriendly foreigners?

If a private individual feels the need to limit oil imports, how would he not be free to disuse their services? Furthermore, if you feel the need to limit oil imports and then use the state to do so, what makes you think these "unfriendly" foreigners won't match with policies of their own?

What if it needed to force its citizens to become sufficiently educated to sustain a free society?

Boy, how did we ever learn anything without government being there for us? How is it that any man was ever motivated without the government to do and be better than he was? I don't know, bro, that's a hard question.

No, it's quite easy: there is a variety of ways people can sustain sufficient intelligence & wisdom without government being there. This really is the biggest problem with all sorts of groups that I have, and that's because there are examples in day-to-day life itself of people learning on their own!

What if it needed to deprive landowners of the freedom to refuse to sell their property as a precondition for giving everyone freedom of movement on highways?

Kinda like how houses get torn down and the lots get turned into business just because they can rake in more taxes? Should then we not just remove everyone from their house and require them to live in an inn so they can pay more?

What if it needed to deprive citizens of the freedom to import cheap foreign labor in order to keep out poor foreigners who would vote for socialistic wealth redistribution?

If someone wants to build up a coop factory or a commune, why shouldn't they be allowed to? Both employer and employee should be allowed the right to negotiate and renegotiate their contract, and if it fails, they should just walk away. What matters is the voluntariness of the situation.

In each of these cases, less freedom today is the price of more tomorrow. Total freedom today would just be a way of running down accumulated social capital and storing up problems for the future. So even if libertarianism is true in some ultimate sense, this does not prove that the libertarian policy choice is the right one today on any particular question.

Furthermore, if limiting freedom today may prolong it tomorrow, then limiting freedom tomorrow may prolong it the day after and so on, so the right amount of freedom may in fact be limited freedom in perpetuity. But if limited freedom is the right choice, then libertarianism, which makes freedom an absolute, is simply wrong. If all we want is limited freedom, then mere liberalism will do, or even better, a Burkean conservatism that reveres traditional liberties. There is no need to embrace outright libertarianism just because we want a healthy portion of freedom, and the alternative to libertarianism is not the USSR, it is America’s traditional liberties.
Libertarianism’s abstract and absolutist view of freedom leads to bizarre conclusions. Like slavery, libertarianism would have to allow one to sell oneself into it. (It has been possible at certain times in history to do just that by assuming debts one could not repay.) And libertarianism degenerates into outright idiocy when confronted with the problem of children, whom it treats like adults, supporting the abolition of compulsory education and all child-specific laws, like those against child labor and child sex. It likewise cannot handle the insane and the senile.

It seems to me that not one of the given cases prove that the conservative is right about libertarianism, especially not empirically. Whether anything has been of monolithic proportions or not, not only has at every point in history: suspending one's freedom in an authoritarian body of citizenry has never resulted in increasing liberty, but also, and just as importantly, it has been the inability to make choice that has made society even worse And you still have an authoritarian society that has to feed upon everything else. Government in an object form would be like a leviathan where while you try to limit or control it instead of outright destroying it, it seems to have only stronger; best-case scenario, government is built on arbitrary values of "what is for the good of society..."

Libertarians argue that radical permissiveness, like legalizing drugs, would not shred a libertarian society because drug users who caused trouble would be disciplined by the threat of losing their jobs or homes if current laws that make it difficult to fire or evict people were abolished. They claim a “natural order” of reasonable behavior would emerge. But there is no actual empirical proof that this would happen.

Do you mean like how people have boycotted a variety of companies for one reason or another? Or how companies won't employ people based on their tattoos? People do get rejected for a variety of reasons that companies seem to perceive as being the wrong image, so why or how would drugs be any different?

Furthermore, this means libertarianism is an all-or-nothing proposition: if society continues to protect people from the consequences of their actions in any way, libertarianism regarding specific freedoms is illegitimate. And since society does so protect people, libertarianism is an illegitimate moral position until the Great Libertarian Revolution has occurred.

I don't even remotely get this conclusion whatsoever.

And is society really wrong to protect people against the negative consequences of some of their free choices? While it is obviously fair to let people enjoy the benefits of their wise choices and suffer the costs of their stupid ones, decent societies set limits on both these outcomes.

What is "decency" but another arbitrary limit set by men of power? Why should you, or any other person, be allowed to decide the definition of a decent society? I could very well say the opposite, mind you: the most immature people are those that believe they need to limit one's choices outside of their own selves.

People are allowed to become millionaires, but they are taxed. They are allowed to go broke, but they are not then forced to starve.

People get taxed regardless of whether they're millionaires - it's just those at the top are able to pass theirs down; being forced to starve would be taking your food that you've earned with the fruits of your labor without due process.

The libertopian alternative would be perhaps a more glittering society, but also a crueler one.

This is a hugely straw-man based statement.

Libertarians do not accept everything will be a one-big-happy utopia. No, what we do accept is this: we're all humans, we all sin enough to make devils look like saints, but we also do enough good to make angels look like devils. So what then, if man is perfect or imperfect? What makes you fit to be ruler over me, and not me over myself? Strength? Numbers? Or do you claim to be an angel, a heavenly being?

Empirically, most people don’t actually want absolute freedom, which is why democracies don’t elect libertarian governments. Irony of ironies, people don’t choose absolute freedom. But this refutes libertarianism by its own premise, as libertarianism defines the good as the freely chosen, yet people do not choose it. Paradoxically, people exercise their freedom not to be libertarians. The political corollary of this is that since no electorate will support libertarianism, a libertarian government could never be achieved democratically but would have to be imposed by some kind of authoritarian state, which rather puts the lie to libertarians’ claim that under any other philosophy, busybodies who claim to know what’s best for other people impose their values on the rest of us. Libertarianism itself is based on the conviction that it is the one true political philosophy and all others are false. It entails imposing a certain kind of society, with all its attendant pluses and minuses, which the inhabitants thereof will not be free to opt out of except by leaving.

False.

First of all, libertarianism isn't about the electorate or popularity contest every four years. Actually, people turn to libertarianism a lot because they're just sick-'n'-tired of the system itself as libertarianism is the only philosophy that actually accepts the reality of man's nature: that we can be greater than any filthy angel, or worse than any beautiful devil. (Pun intended: I hate angels and everything about them.)

Secondly, libertarianism doesn't need to be established by an authoritarian government. No, you can keep your failed state system, and we'll even work within your framework, but at the end of the day it's because of those like this author whom want to convert every society in their own, that we have no choice but to work in the current framework to abolish it.

It's also incredibly illogical to assume that by being asked to be left alone when you've not harmed someone that somehow you're imposing your views on them.

A major reason for this is that libertarianism has a naïve view of economics that seems to have stopped paying attention to the actual history of capitalism around 1880. There is not the space here to refute simplistic laissez faire, but note for now that the second-richest nation in the world, Japan, has one of the most regulated economies, while nations in which government has essentially lost control over economic life, like Russia, are hardly economic paradises. Legitimate criticism of over-regulation does not entail going to the opposite extreme.

A naive view? The libertarian view of economics has primarily been based on the human factor, that people will do what they do and that they'll compete to live.

Libertarian naïveté extends to politics. They often confuse the absence of government impingement upon freedom with freedom as such. But without a sufficiently strong state, individual freedom falls prey to other more powerful individuals. A weak state and a freedom-respecting state are not the same thing, as shown by many a chaotic Third-World tyranny.

One needs to prove there is such thing as a freedom-respecting state to begin with. But aside from that, countries in the 3rd-world are tyrannic based on how the 1st-world nations have treated them really. If maybe the U.S., U.K., U.S.S.R., and whoever else (eg. French/Spanish/Italians/etc.) didn't try to intervene in the cultures they knew nothing about, we could possibly have fewer enemies and more freer states. Not to mention, that in a majority of these "weak" states, you're dealing with a fairly-strong authoritarian government all the same.

Libertarians are also naïve about the range and perversity of human desires they propose to unleash. They can imagine nothing more threatening than a bit of Sunday-afternoon sadomasochism, followed by some recreational drug use and work on Monday. They assume that if people are given freedom, they will gravitate towards essentially bourgeois lives, but this takes for granted things like the deferral of gratification that were pounded into them as children without their being free to refuse. They forget that for much of the population, preaching maximum freedom merely results in drunkenness, drugs, failure to hold a job, and pregnancy out of wedlock. Society is dependent upon inculcated self-restraint if it is not to slide into barbarism, and libertarians attack this self-restraint. Ironically, this often results in internal restraints being replaced by the external restraints of police and prison, resulting in less freedom, not more.

This contempt for self-restraint is emblematic of a deeper problem: libertarianism has a lot to say about freedom but little about learning to handle it. Freedom without judgment is dangerous at best, useless at worst. Yet libertarianism is philosophically incapable of evolving a theory of how to use freedom well because of its root dogma that all free choices are equal, which it cannot abandon except at the cost of admitting that there are other goods than freedom. Conservatives should know better.

Self-restraint is not using government to restrain yourself. Being responsible doesn't mean having government make your choices for you. Learning what is right does not mean not being able to learn what is wrong.

 

[Raijin]

Someone should ship her off to the middle east for a while so she can learn some manners, her place in the pack, and some respect. It's exactly what a racist little girl needs.

 

[Hargood]

Someone should ship her off to the middle east for a while so she can learn some manners, her place in the pack, and some respect. It's exactly what a racist little girl needs.

Wow thats pretty stupid of her to say. I actually laughed at "I Promise I'm not racist but..."

It's like saying "I promise I'm not racist, but I don't like those Black people" LOL!!

 

[Pingu]

Someone should ship her off to the middle east for a while so she can learn some manners, her place in the pack, and some respect. It's exactly what a racist little girl needs.

''I'm not racist, I just make spiteful remarks based on someones skincolour.''

Kudos to this little ignoramus for the most.. ''creative'' reasoning I've seen in quite some time.

 

[Raijin]

When will it stop already?

snopes.com: Obama's Wedding Ring

 

[Medea]

Now on to the link that was previously posted: Marxism of the Right | The American Conservative

First of all, Marxism of the right sounds more like neoconservatism than anything; Marxism is an inherently authoritarian system while Libertarianism is inherently anti-authoritarian, and this is how there are anarchists of all stripes (some that I've mentioned). But I guess I've to expect that from those that still believe in a false "right v left" paradigm, don't I? No matter.

Furthermore, after typing half of what I've typed out, I decided I'm going to just ignore what I perceive as entirely irrelevant.



They should find libertarianism attractive, as should all humans. Libertarianism does not put anyone into one cage or another, and instead of the core message being about controlling others like most other political "philosophies", libertarianism instead is about allowing people to live their own life while not being threatful of another individual. Much unlike any rather-authoritarian ideologies, the libertarian philosophy emboldens one's right to self-defense regardless of the aggressor's title or status.



This being completely false, as I already mentioned above, and will likewise show more now: libertarianism itself does not claim a free society can run fully on selfishness and/or individualism. Instead, libertarianism claims that people have the right to be what they perceive (rightfully or wrongly) as altruism or being selfish. Libertarianism does not deny the individual's right to enter unto a collective, only that the collective is voluntary.

Rather the problem many conservatives have with libertarians and libertarianism is this: conservatives have for decades have been taught and surrounded by the belief that the state is necessary. Though many, like my old man, believe the government is a great evil and for good reasoning, they fail to understand that the real reasoning behind the state's necessity is, no one has ever given anarchy itself an actual try.



Libertarianism does not make any sort of claim that freedom is the only good thing in life, or the universe.



It's true that people are forced into families at birth, libertarianism does not deny family rights, or any of the previously-mentioned.



Libertarianism does embrace all goods through choice, as there has never been good without evil. How can a man be good all his life, if he could never do wrong? It's impossible, at least in the human's current condition; no one would know why touching fire is wrong if they never went through it themselves, and no one would understand why murder is wrong if there was none. But because of the evil things people can do, they can learn and choose to do better.



Whose common sense? How is it that it denies something is good by nature, or evil? How is it a person can be wise if he's forced into it? Every man's being is shown not in the laws he is forced to obey, but his choices and reasonings that he's disobeyed law for. If Washington or Churchill were such good men, it is because they were allowed to be, not forced.



National security is quite really a good definition of an individualistic good, yet many (not all) people can only see it as requiring collective participation because that's what they've been taught. Hell, I have my own reserves about national security in an anarchist society, but I understand I have my reserves due to preconceived notions that I know I've never experienced something else entirely: the government has claimed a monopoly on these things.

For instance, it is impossible for most people to really defend themselves. Why? Law has continued to make it almost impossible to differentiate between a man that murders someone for just whatever reason and an 80-year old grandma that took out her small .22 pistol just to defend herself. Instead, some laws only differentiate based on status, like anyone that instantly hits, shoots, or kills a police officer cannot possibly be acting in self-defense it seems; just like, I think it was a U.S. Marine actually, whose house was falsely invaded or some crap by S.W.A.T., and was killed in self-defense - and you want to tell me I should trust your government to protect me when while holding a monopoly, your system does no better than the Mafia?



This is incredibly false. Even the conservative should remember that the ability to pursue one's happiness cannot ever guarantee it. No one would be forced to live in a culture he doesn't agree with, and he shouldn't. But that's never anyone else's responsibility but their own. If I don't like the things you do, that doesn't give me the right to arrest you for it. If one of my Atheist friends decided that Christianity should be banned because of any number of reasons, and that he has you arrested despite having done nothing wrong to anyone else, you would probably feel wronged yourself.

So if we're going to have government, why should it be up to conservatives what laws are law? Why not just support the Shariah law and get it over with? Or why not just enforce some ancient pagan laws and rituals? Like I don't know, even require a blood ritual for every couple in order to be married.



Yet, people are practicing libertarianism every day even when they don't know it; worldwide, despite (or sometimes, even in spite of) the authoritarian state models surrounding their lives trying to control their lives, people are building trade, making transactions, and just acting out of their best interest. People aren't breaking the law because of punishments, but because they don't think it's right or in their best-interest, while yet there are plenty of governments breaking their own laws.



The whole lot of people need to be asked questions, but I digress.



For the most part of human history, it seems the biggest motives for war have come from state-centered ideologies. But again, the alternative has never been tried, either. Why? Because government claims a monopoly over it.



If a private individual feels the need to limit oil imports, how would he not be free to disuse their services? Furthermore, if you feel the need to limit oil imports and then use the state to do so, what makes you think these "unfriendly" foreigners won't match with policies of their own?



Boy, how did we ever learn anything without government being there for us? How is it that any man was ever motivated without the government to do and be better than he was? I don't know, bro, that's a hard question.

No, it's quite easy: there is a variety of ways people can sustain sufficient intelligence & wisdom without government being there. This really is the biggest problem with all sorts of groups that I have, and that's because there are examples in day-to-day life itself of people learning on their own!



Kinda like how houses get torn down and the lots get turned into business just because they can rake in more taxes? Should then we not just remove everyone from their house and require them to live in an inn so they can pay more?



If someone wants to build up a coop factory or a commune, why shouldn't they be allowed to? Both employer and employee should be allowed the right to negotiate and renegotiate their contract, and if it fails, they should just walk away. What matters is the voluntariness of the situation.



It seems to me that not one of the given cases prove that the conservative is right about libertarianism, especially not empirically. Whether anything has been of monolithic proportions or not, not only has at every point in history: suspending one's freedom in an authoritarian body of citizenry has never resulted in increasing liberty, but also, and just as importantly, it has been the inability to make choice that has made society even worse And you still have an authoritarian society that has to feed upon everything else. Government in an object form would be like a leviathan where while you try to limit or control it instead of outright destroying it, it seems to have only stronger; best-case scenario, government is built on arbitrary values of "what is for the good of society..."



Do you mean like how people have boycotted a variety of companies for one reason or another? Or how companies won't employ people based on their tattoos? People do get rejected for a variety of reasons that companies seem to perceive as being the wrong image, so why or how would drugs be any different?



I don't even remotely get this conclusion whatsoever.



What is "decency" but another arbitrary limit set by men of power? Why should you, or any other person, be allowed to decide the definition of a decent society? I could very well say the opposite, mind you: the most immature people are those that believe they need to limit one's choices outside of their own selves.



People get taxed regardless of whether they're millionaires - it's just those at the top are able to pass theirs down; being forced to starve would be taking your food that you've earned with the fruits of your labor without due process.



This is a hugely straw-man based statement.

Libertarians do not accept everything will be a one-big-happy utopia. No, what we do accept is this: we're all humans, we all sin enough to make devils look like saints, but we also do enough good to make angels look like devils. So what then, if man is perfect or imperfect? What makes you fit to be ruler over me, and not me over myself? Strength? Numbers? Or do you claim to be an angel, a heavenly being?



False.

First of all, libertarianism isn't about the electorate or popularity contest every four years. Actually, people turn to libertarianism a lot because they're just sick-'n'-tired of the system itself as libertarianism is the only philosophy that actually accepts the reality of man's nature: that we can be greater than any filthy angel, or worse than any beautiful devil. (Pun intended: I hate angels and everything about them.)

Secondly, libertarianism doesn't need to be established by an authoritarian government. No, you can keep your failed state system, and we'll even work within your framework, but at the end of the day it's because of those like this author whom want to convert every society in their own, that we have no choice but to work in the current framework to abolish it.

It's also incredibly illogical to assume that by being asked to be left alone when you've not harmed someone that somehow you're imposing your views on them.



A naive view? The libertarian view of economics has primarily been based on the human factor, that people will do what they do and that they'll compete to live.



One needs to prove there is such thing as a freedom-respecting state to begin with. But aside from that, countries in the 3rd-world are tyrannic based on how the 1st-world nations have treated them really. If maybe the U.S., U.K., U.S.S.R., and whoever else (eg. French/Spanish/Italians/etc.) didn't try to intervene in the cultures they knew nothing about, we could possibly have fewer enemies and more freer states. Not to mention, that in a majority of these "weak" states, you're dealing with a fairly-strong authoritarian government all the same.



Self-restraint is not using government to restrain yourself. Being responsible doesn't mean having government make your choices for you. Learning what is right does not mean not being able to learn what is wrong.

Yes. I just wanted to present the anti-libertarian right-wing point of view, since many libertarians consider themselves conservatives, and also because many liberals get the wrong impression that libertarianism is an accepted faction of the republican party. It isn't.

I didn't agree with a lot of it either. When they said things like drug-users and sexual deviants find the idea of libertarianism attractive, it was just asinine. Conservatives always use these kind of attacks on anyone that disagrees with them politically. The more extreme among them accuse liberals (my own affiliation) of being "queers" and "pot-smokin' hippies", while "Wide-Stance" Larry Craig is soliciting sex from male strangers in public restrooms. We're all hypocrites in our own little way, it's just that I think the hypocrisy runs a little deeper in the republican party, because they promote "family values" and religious influence in politics.

 

[Medea]

Maybe I'm wrong, but shouldn't the President have some type of Military experience under his belt? I know it's not required, but just from a Patriotic stand point. How can a person who hasn't even served in the Armed Forces command our Military? That has always bothered me. Mitt has no experience either, yet he is so Pro-War. Yeah, I know there are other ways to serve your country, but being Commander and Chief with no Military experience just doesn't sit well with me. That's like being a Dragonborn, minus the Shouting.

I agree that it may be better for a president to have a little military experience, but it really isn't needed. The president is surrounded by some of the best military advisers in the world. That's what the president's cabinet is for. Whether you think that the military is somehow influencing the president, for good or evil, is another matter based on opinion. All that is required to become president is that you are born in the U.S., and that you are 35 years old. If it was also required that you also have military training, there's a chance we could become a militocracy, kind of like what you see in Starship Troopers.

Even our modern day generals are mostly just politicians that never fought on the front lines. In the military ranks, generally everyone from colonel on up are more administrative. Captains on down do the fighting in the field, and most of them would prefer that their generals stay behind their desks. The Marines are different, as they pride themselves on the fact that everyone is trained as a rifleman, and can fight. Generals like Patton were different too, because Patton actually wanted to be on the front lines, but if Patton had become president it would have been an absolute disaster for the U.S. He was too headstrong, and while a man like that would be useful for causing enemy lines to crumble, he would've been a terrible politician. I'm not saying all military officers would make bad presidents, though.

You also have to remember that many kids with rich parents could send their sons/daughters to school, to become an officer in the military, simply because they want to get into politics later on down the line. Those people never see one day of real combat, and become running jokes with troops who actually fight our battles.