Is The GOP Race Over?

Oh, lol. Didn't know you were so young. Sorry. 

Again, trying to look smart by sounding smart and philisophical doesn't make you smart Roy. You most likely are, but you don't need to try so hard while at the same time still managing to not say anything of substance. You're preaching. You're philosophizing. You're not answering, you're not arguing, you're not discussing. You were presented with facts but never dared actually talk about those real issues. Remember, it IS possible to do a good critique of libertarianism, based curiously on some of the things that are lost amidst that pile of self-gratifying verbiage you just used. 

Edited by The T - April 13 2012 at 17:17

It's more the issue that he refuses to respond to questions and facts presented at him while simultaneously refusing to present facts of his own. 

It's obvious that this is not very interesting for you, since you can't contribute one single argument of idea other than the pseudo-marxist justification for a troglodite state that you have just given. You took too much about concepts and empiricism yet fail to ever use facts in anything related to this discussion. What you have just described is the actual system which is a consequence of the same god you worship: popular elections and the rule of a majority easily manipulated by those in power. I think your posts implies that the alternative which would create a fair system where all of those things you mention (the press, etc) are in the possesion or control of the "people"? Or how do you plan to create this better system other than by eliminating as much as possible the source of all power for the rich and wealthy which is the state, as libertarians and alike tend to propose? You talk in slogans, like a politician, pure rhetoric. You have not really said anything else. I remember in the atheist thread you talk a lot about the connection of ideas with reality. You seem to fail to think that way on this subject. You have just described the horrible society we live in. That's all you did. Nice job. You should be a word-painter. 

Bob Dylan may be good at his rock but his politics arenquite idiotic. Democracy DOES rule the world. The rule of the majority has given you what you have. Democracy =/= equality, get that through your head. Democracy just means the rule of the majority, and that's what you currently have. 

You know who makes a much more sensible VP pick than Santorum, or indeed any of the other candidates?

West

He's super-hyper-conservative which should allay fears about Romney's flip-floppiness. He's all up in the military which contrasts nicely with Romney's life of privilege. He's from Florida, which might give them a hometown advantage in that unpredictable and key state. AND he's black which gives them the we're-not-racist vibe they attempted with Cain, only West is not a buffoon. Sure, West is an evil, toxic man, but conservative voters find that appealing.

And yes that's Allen West, not Kanye West.

^If I had a dollar for every time that capitalism was blamed for problems caused by unchecked, overly regulating government, I'd be a democrat presidential candidate... And by the way I'd be just as rich as the republicans anyway. 

I've noticed something and Roy's posts (all of them) are an example of that. Usually people who speak ill of libertarianism speak in slogans and with empty statements that seem to make sense if you just gutturally react to them but that fall apart under serious scrutiny. There's rarely any argument but mostly fear-based ones or gross simplifications of history (taken I guess from the headlines of other's people's articles). I've been there. There ARE critiques of libertarianism that make sense and lead to discussion (we've had some from Dean, Negoba, among others) but most of the are just like I described.

It'd be more accurate to say that Libertarians apologize for freedom. The adoption of capitalism comes naturally

Could you present some facts please rather than just stating misinformed opinions?

Is there war under every form of government? Yes.

Is there poverty under every form of government? Yes.

Is there a longterm crisis of capitalism / decline of the United States? You haven't demonstrated one.


Is capitalism inefficient - i.e. does it stop and start periodically? No, it does not. The business cycle has been well explained by the Austrians. Further, this does not show efficiency. A system could stop and slow occaisonally yet still be more efficient. You could take an economic system which takes everything produced and burns it. This would be incredibly inefficient, yet it would not "stop and start". Your critique is both non-factual and insufficient even if true.




Edited by Equality 7-2521 - April 12 2012 at 13:22

RoyFairbank wrote: Hoover passed a tariff, build a single dam, and took other limited actions in the midst of the worst recession in history. Compare this to Roosevelt's actions, which intervened into every aspect of the American economy. Night and Day. What's the point of Libertarianism? Capitalist countries have always, in the real world, intervened in their economies to a small or large degree, though often not remotely as much as Libertarians seem to think. Such intervention is due to many facts, including the inefficiencies of the capitalist system which causes crises, conflicts and stoppages, the strains of international relations and competition which leads to war, protectionism and commercial conflict, and the staggering imbalances of distribution of wealth that clogs up the system and creates political chaos. Imagining that the means used to compensate for these facts by capitalist governments are the reason for their existing is a utopian illusion, and given capitalism's intrinsic obsession with the freedom to exploit others even with the petty safeguards in place, a rather misanthropic one.

This is a poor attempt to dodge the initial challenge.

RoyFairbank wrote: Epignosis wrote: RoyFairbank wrote: As for his libertarian economics, they have been tried and failed, resulting in this recession. I challenge you to point to a specific period in US history when genuine libertarian economics were tried and describe the specific results. 1920s

Epignosis wrote: How in the world were the 1920s an example of genuine Libertarian economics?

You may try again if you wish. 

Or you may admit that your claim that "Libertarianism has been tried and failed" is false.

(That you think Libertarianism is what got us into this recession is strange: If we have been so Libertarian as a country, then why was Ron Paul never our President?)


Edited by Epignosis - April 12 2012 at 12:30