For my Libertarian friends

 

This is not a judgement on the process but I'm not really sure why either major party would want an open primary system.  Hell, they destroyed any chance the Republicans had in 08.  John McCain?!  What a nightmare.

Just cutting war spending isn't enough. I don't think you grasp the whole bankruptcy issue. I'm not saying libertarianism is inevitable; I am saying that it is inevitable that the delusion of our incredible deficit spending is going to come to an abrupt end. We will have no choice but to cut our social programs at that point.

The T wrote: Have you ever been abroad by the way? Or have you studied and analyzed other countries and economic situations and systems? Just a question. You will reply "I don't know what this has to do with anything". I'm just asking out of curiosity. It helps to gain a little perspective, too, if only to re-confirm your beliefs.

I've been abroad many times. Where? Mississippi?  By the way, I expected your answer more like "Yes, I've been, and I didn't like what I saw". 

The T wrote: Now, you say my views are fake just because, well, they don't match yours. You're not saying "your views are wrong", you're saying they are fake.

Yes. Your view that helping the poor through force makes you a good person is so flawed. FLAWED is not the same as FAKE. Please, socialize better.   Again, I'd have no problems with you calling my views "flawed". That doesn't imply a judgement of character and values. Calling them "fake" does.If you want the poor helped, do it. Don't demand that the government take money from people to do it for you.It's not just about the poor (though it partly is). The entire society has a common major interest (self-preservation, well-being) and individual goals for each person. We all work for the latter but through taxes and obligations we also help the former.  

The T wrote:   I will also call your views fake. Fake because you really don't give a sh*t about others and your fake interest in the results that your ideas will have in the rest of the people is evident.  You care only about this "evil government" that you hate so much taking a bite off your paycheck. It's the only thing that bothers you.

I waste a lot of money and time on charity for someone who thinks like that. I supposed that's also motivated by selfishness? Maybe. Feeling good about yourself is a direct consequence of these actions. But I won't bother you there, if the results are good, your inner motivations are irrelevant. (I'm not SAYING you are motivated by selfishness then. That would be calling you "fake" as you're so quick to do. I'm just saying "maybe"). 

Your view of things is so skewed. I don't hate government because of what it does to me, or to my paycheck. I certainly dislike that, but it doesn't make me hate government the way I do. I hate government because it knowingly throws innocents into prison. So privately-owned courts and judicial systems wouldn't ? I hate government because it makes other people's benign behavior a crime and imprisons them for it. So what you want is complete and utter anarchy? Though I agree with some being behaviors that shouldn't be penalized. In the end, remember, just as you say that the government is not an ideal institution because is made of people, I'm saying exactly the same, but in every society system you want to apply you'll always have to deal with people, and their flaws, and their errors and ambitions. Goverment is just more organized.  I hate government because it saps the wealth of the poor while claiming to be championing them Actually your governments like Bush (not saying he was libertarian) do the opposite: channel everything in favor of the rich. . I hate government because it and it alone allows institutions like slavery to exist ????Explain please. . I hate government because it makes war unprovoked.That I agree. What do you think of borders? How should countries protect themselves against agression? Is there a viable way of doing it privately?   I hate government because it commits wholesale massacres.??? I hate government not because of what it does to me. I have the privilege of being a white male, and am treated pretty well historically by government. I hate government because of what it does to the minority, the poor, and those with the least of a voice. Damn Father Equality  That last sentence could make you a serious candidate if you ever run... Strange: does are the ones who would be devoid of their unemployment benefits, their medicare, their medicaid, their retirement, their pid time off, etc etc. Anyway, if that's honest and true, at least I can applaud that, as flawed (notice the word I use?) as I think your views may be.  

The T wrote:  That you can't do anything you want and have to accept that, in a society like ours, we have to FORCE everyone to contribute to the society, not just exist only for their own sake. You don't want the poor to die of hunger? Of course you don't. But a result of your zero-government system would be making the gap even bigger, the richer getting richer, the poorer getting poorer. Maybe you help people, maybe you are mother Theresa reincarnated, but I'm calling your views fake because the well-being of others is far behind in your mind when you propose the ultimate in individualistic systems.

The idea of an individualistic system is to protect the rights of every person. It is the only system which can do so. History has proven this is not the case. I haven't heard of rights being trampled all over Europe in the last years since the war. Your system will just change who tramples rights, and private companies and corporations will be much more eager to do so. So the well-being of others is my utmost concern. The zero-government system would not facilitates this income gap. The gap has been ever increasing in our time of government intervention. Government fosters this, not inhibits this. Explain me (you know a lot of this) how would the zero government system help decrease the gap (or at least give those in the lower levels access to higher levels of income?) 

The T wrote: You know, you should take some classes in social skills, again. If you don't call people "fake" they usually don't call you "fake" back. I know, you will reply "I'm free to say what I think and I will say it no matter what". Yes, you are. You are also quite at odds with social interaction. Trying to sound a little more human (I'm not talking about politics now, but about behaviors) would make you gain a lot. Even your (IMO) cannibalistic views would be better appreciated.

Ugh don't take the high ground like you don't attack my character routinely.Ok ok. I never pretend I don't make mistakes (I make too many). Now if you ever admitted that you're such a charm sometimes, I never would do what you say I do.   I'm calling your views fake see? , erroneous, they don't espouse what you think they do. I'm attacking your knowledge of the situation I can take and understand this ; it's not a character attack.choose the right words then.  But I'm free to say what I think and will say it no matter what.TOTALLY. 

The T wrote: Tel me: how can a free market be perfect if it doesn't start from zero? What I mean is: society is already screwed up. Some people control 80% of the wealth and resources, the other 20% (being positive) have nothing in comparison. Wouldn't a perfect market require that at least from the start all parts compete in equal condition? A 100% free market would only help to make the powerful. A 100% free market requires a 100% free financial system I guess. A system where greed helps create fictitious wealth and all that we have seen in the last  crisis. Do you really want corporations and wall street to have full liberty to do as they please?

The fictitious wealth we saw in the last crises was the result of governmental monetary and fiscal policy. Wall street and corporations should have full liberty to do anything that does not infringe upon the rights of others, just like everyone else. Create fictitious wealth is what Wall street did, not the government. Explain to me why it was the other way around (in a few words. If you did earlier, I can't rad the whole damn thread). I don't know what your first point is really. I just don't understand how you can start a 100% free-market system when society is already so unbalanced that the market is "free" only to those who can really access it already. 

The T wrote: Who will make sure there are at least some workers' rights? Are we going back to the times when people had to work 16 hours a day for miserable wages? Who will stop big corporations from doing with their workers as they please? Oh, wait. "Workers are free to work elsewhere in a 100% free market". Yes, of course. At the expense of corporations, they will never find anything where they're not exploited.

You might want to look back at history. If you think that government shortened the workweek you're highly mistaken. But it was though laws that rights were recognized, not thanks to any big corporations' initiative. In Industrializing nations we will see long work weeks as capital is still low. When capital becomes accumulated in industry, leading to more production per worker, wages/hour rise/lower as a result. Government didn't change this; capital accumulation did. Workers have the same rights as every individual.But they are in a position of weakness next to the giant corporation. Rights have to be protected for everyone but protections for the weak have to be enacted.  It is the sole role of government to protect those rights. 

Your dystopian scenario has no economic backing. If that were the case why don't we see it now?Why don't we see your 100% free market system now? As far as I know, we see systems more similar to what I support (again, NOT communism) than to what you support in the real world. Why doesn't everyone earn minimum wage if the only thing keeping slave prices away is the government? The market regulates this. But a FULLY free market it is not. It is regulated.  Why is the minimum wage level below the market equilibrium for nearly every industry? Why does the rise in real wages historically predate rises in the minimum wage? As I said, regulation must be there to protect the weakest links in the chain. Yes, not everybody would abuse a fully free system. But many would. And that's where we need regulation (including this one). If there were no minimum wage and regulations for time off and etc, yes, most people would avoid jobs that wouldn't provide all of that, but many people wouldn't have a choice but be exploited in such a way. 

The T wrote: Who should print money in a libertarian society? Just a side question.

I support a 100% gold standard, not a fiat currency with a central bank. Once this is implemented anyone will be free to provide a currency.I don't understand too much of this really. Could you (or anybody) explain to me why and the mechanics of such a change? 

The T wrote: ] Should we still have courts and judges? Should private, for-profit corporations administer justice and run jails?

Yes we still have courts and judges. Privately owned? For profit???

The T wrote: Equality, try to understand, in regards to me, and other people who defend some kind of government, that everything is not white or black. There ARE shades of grey. I don't want communism. I don't want government telling me what to eat and where to go (like in true communist countries like Cuba, or the ever-communizing Venezuela which is going in that direction). We want SOME government because is necessary. Because we are not alone. Because a dog-eat-dog world is not an ideal.

You have to demonstrate something is necessary before you say so. I don't believe it is. Yes in some areas in life there is a grey area. For example, within my libertarian frame work there is clear grey area for the writing of acceptable laws. I'm not claiming there is a 100% right answer to everything. But in some instances there is. When given the choice between having institutionalized slavery and not, there is no grey area. The same is true of the free market. Your concept of institutionalized slavery is something I can't grasp. Who is the slave? Who is the slave-owner?

The T wrote: I forgot: are you politically active? I know you will not tell us what is that you do ("I'm free and I don't have to tell you anything" will be the answer) but that's interesting. Good for you. At least you're trying.

Later on sir, later on. First: let's get a career (a degree, finally) and work for a few years in a country that gives much more options than mine (again, mine is an underdeveloped second/third world country with potential but with awful politicians). Second: right now my country has taken a more-than-appreciated-by-me left turn, and it could get "leftier" (which would mean things close to what Equality really fears) which I also don't like or approve of. 

I love this country (the US). I just think it could be so much better (which country couldn't? Maybe a few)... I'll give my best to this country and then years later if it's possible I'll try to give the same to my own... 

Don't people think this election system is rather ridiculous?