"Freedom" thread or something

dtguitarfan wrote: Finnforest wrote: I don't think the movement has changed much at all.  Liberts have always believed the same things they believe these days....you just have people practicing the art of "defining your enemy", paint conservs as extreme, etc.  Nothing new. Welcome back, btw So are you saying that Libertarians have never held this "government has no right to make any rules - everything should be free" attitude, or that they've always had it?  Because I can name a few people on this forum who seem to have this "how dare they make rules!  Free market will naturally make the right things happen!" attitude.  Actually, my brother in law is one - guy is nuts and doesn't even know it.  Thinks if we just take all the rules away, everything will magically be wonderful somehow.  I guess he thinks society was wonderful back when cavemen bonked women on the heads and dragged them back to their caves to you know what them in the hoo has.

I'm just saying that they haven't changed as much as that anus Maher thinks they have.  My first experience with Liberts was 25 years ago, and these guys used to talk about the same basic concepts as Anton/Pat/Logan talk about here.  Different topical subjects of course based on what was happening back then vs now, but the same fundamentals.  I'm saying the media loves to portray anyone not following their PC narratives as "extremist" which makes me chuckle.  I'm not sure how you and Doc and Slart can even watch American media without noticing how absolutely in the tank they are for your ideals and thinking.  Almost everything broadcast is through the lefty/statist/socially liberal filter.  I mean, enjoy it, in many senses you have done very well in "the ideolgy battles."  You're still wrong about alot of it in my eyes, but you've been outperforming for sure.  Great messaging, media handling, outreach.  Impressive, and I'm sincere about that.

Getting back to the topic, What I will say about this young crop like the guys here is that they are more articulate and open than those older Libert guys I knew, smarter, and more able to interact due to the internet.  I think their future is bright as eventually our current spending habits are not going to be sustainable, and younger folks I believe will begin to listen to smaller govt proponents, esp once they ditch all of us dinosaurs and our outdated ways

Calling Paul Ryan a Libertarian is not a good starting point I would say.

Also, I just can't stand Maher anymore. On top of disagreeing with many of his politic views (which are: statism for everything except my right as rich guy to smoke weed and leave CA if taxes get too high), I think he's the biggest religious bigot there is that people don't realize is one.

Finally, though the right-left dichotomy is kind of false as MoM always says, I think there IS a left. About a right, I'm not so sure.

Finnforest wrote: Yeah I know you feel that way doc, respectfully, i think its just the opposite.  We've moved way left on social issues....spending, environment, regulation, tons of stuff. Dems were very conservative in the 60s.  The country is just far more liberal than it ever has been.

The "left" and "right" are both after the same thing: control.  They are both authoritarian at their core.  You can argue that "well, they want to control and regulate different thing" but that's a bogus argument because, as I've pointed out time and time again, social and economic liberties are inseperable.  There is no room on you "left to right" spectrum for libertarians, anarchists, or anyone who believes that people have no right to rule over other people.

dtguitarfan wrote: Heh heh... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/06/bill-maher-libertarianism-paul-ryan-rand-paul-video_n_3028244.html This is EXACTLY what I have against modern libertarianism.

Problem is....I agree.
I said from day one all the mainstream GOPers (especially ones that were around under wubya) that are suddenly "libertarian" are all phonies. I honestly scoff that people with brains (though I guess closed minds) thought Romney would bring any of that stuff (not that he wanted limited gov anyway).
Paul Ryan was a joke. He was no different at all, he just wants to cut the same benefits Republicans hate but OH LORD we can never touch the sweet military. He also voted for massive deficits and the auto bailout....real winner eh?

And by the movement trying to become mainstream (Rand Paul) he's given up too much. Now he has blown much of his original support and will still never be a GOP candidate, and if he does it'll be by abandoning too many ideals.
 Libertarianism has been hijacked


Edited by JJLehto - April 10 2013 at 17:48

The Doctor wrote: The country as a whole has moved quite a bit to the right, Jim.  The Republicans of today are much farther to the right than they were 40 years ago, and the Democrats are also much farther to the right than they were 40 years ago.  Ex: Obama is nowhere near as liberal as FDR was.  Heck, Obama is nowhere near as liberal as Eisenhower was.

Yes, this is why I do respect you. I disagree but I respect.
You are sincere in your beliefs and see reality. Not just regurgitating party line...I assume because you see Democrats are a joke to anyone who believes in leftism.
Again I disagree with your beliefs and feel that technically....it's you guys who are on the "right" (sorry) since that has been the position of central power and distrust in people and we are liberals as that supported individualism, markets and people.




Edited by JJLehto - April 10 2013 at 18:42

The T wrote: Finally, though the right-left dichotomy is kind of false as MoM always says, I think there IS a left. About a right, I'm not so sure.

Anyway I actually came here just to talk about what we all know, the economy is in the sh*tter hopelessly.
Another half a million of given up looking for work but on the flip side, it helped unemployment drop to 7.6%!

Sure Obama has deficit spent a lot but honestly how much has gone to 'real' stimulus?
Maybe wrong but seems largely things have just been keeping banks afloat and asset prices propped up.
I still can't help but feel myself shift around the spectrum but always in the end I gotta take the limited gov route, maybe we just need the sh*t to hit the fan. Let housing/asset prices fall (well that's a given) let the failures fail, just let this bottom out.
While I can't say I adhere to the Austrian School, esp guys like Mises and Rothbard, I do see a lot of they what they said since the 80s and our fiat money/fed/government/FIRE economy carousel...just creating fake bubbles endlessly that push the "economy" along with its madness.

I hate to say it publicly since my use of "street economy" is laughed at but yeah, I just could not accept things were improving as they said.
I feel a bit vindicated too, looked into and found at least 3 official reports over the last year talking about a drop in unemployment due to people giving up. The March 13 report said the labor force (working and looking) is the lowest level since 1979!! We've gone pre Reagan here for gods sake!

I think a good chunk of the unemployment fall has been people simply abandoning it all together. I read that "real" unemployment may be 11-14% right now.

That is the 15 trillion dollar question Jim. For years I've heard about the coming inflation, maybe very severe, and it hasn't happened yet. I've also heard that inflation is understated but who knows. We can absorb a lot of $$ but I'm inclined to agree, eventually it will have negative impact. And I was wrong, I somehow forgot we had 3 rounds of QE so yeah that's a lot of stimulus


Edited by JJLehto - April 11 2013 at 18:01

If you consider Forbes a credible source (maybe biased but I don't think they'd fudge numbers too badly) they say there's been a net gain of about 800,000 jobs in 4 years. Pitiful definition of a recovery.

Yeah, I'm no economist and liberals may rage at the "street" logic but as ya said, there can't be absolutely no result of all the printing and it never made sense to me anyway. Well before the recession things were getting so tight we were near choked, and after it hit we took major actions to reduce our spending and our personal finances are tight as ever. And this was all despite the "2-4%" inflation they like? Hell, 09 was deflationary and 10 was under 2% yet prices seemed unrelenting. Either it's understated or that "low" inflation target is more harmful than they think. But yeah, it doesn't add up to me!

Zero Hedge is anonymous but that guy really knows his stuff on topics us laymen don't...and he believes inflation is indeed understated, which would have numerous impacts.


Edited by JJLehto - April 11 2013 at 19:10