tojo2000 wrote:

phreddy wrote:

Sorry I missed all this last week.  I was at a week-long conference.  At least is was in a nice place.

So the libs on TV changed Tea Party to Tea Bagging in order to embarass the effort to focus attention on the excesses of this administration and Congress.  Well, who is being tea bagged here anyway?  Answer:  Obama, Congress, liberals.  In my world, the person being tea bagged is one who is humiliated.  So, if MSNBC wants to go on and on about tea bagging by conservatives ignorant of hip slanguage, I'm all for it.

Actually, it was the dumbasses that first started organizing the tea parties that started talking about teabagging the White House, which is how the whole joke got started.

Even better.  Sounds as though the organizers understood and perpetrated the joke.

tojo2000 wrote:

Dirckman wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

Okay, then, for example, you'd be fine with private ownership of the roads?

I would be fine with private ownership of the roads and every other concievable thing.  I don't expect anyone letting me use their roads for free and would be more than willing to pay a toll to use those roads.

Well I don't think it would come as any surprise that I disagree with you, but I do wish you'd take the time to think about why that just might turn into a logistical nightmare for all involved.

Many transportation geeks talk about every driver paying for "VMT" (Vehicle Miles Traveled) on the theory that user fees should cover road building and maintenance costs.  Even they do not foresee a time when all, or even most, roads would be privately owned.  While government conceivably could monetize existing transportation assets, selling them all off or leasing them to private entities, it probably would be out of the question politically.  It is already a political bloodbath when toll rates are raised by minor increments by public entities.  Imagine rates for driving on the street where you live being set by a private owner whose objective is to maximize shareholder return rather than to provide a public service at minimum cost.

Then imagine that between your house and your job you must pass through the roads of ten different owners...

Agreed.  The true believers dream of the government reatining ownership of the existing roads and installing equipment to meter how many miles each vehicle is driven, with a tax assessed accordingly.  In their view, the gas tax is misleading because it somehow conceals from drivers the cost pf providing public transportation.  I have never drunk their koolade and don't think the gas tax is so far removed from  the taxpayers that they cannot comprehend, if they think about it at all, what they are paying or why.

The same true believers would like new roads, especially interstates and limited access highways, to be developed through public-private partnerships, in which private entities would have long term concessions (i.e., leases), and would be free to set tolls as they see fit.

headkicker_girl wrote:

Iraq and Yugoslavia come to mind.  As soon as you have ethnic (or whatever) enclaves, people want autonomous states.  It then takes a dictatorship to keep the country together.  Dirck's ideas, like most libertarians, are philosophies.  They cannot stand as a valid means of government.  I would have tacked thid on to someone else's post, but I gotta run.

I never realized how stupid on some things you are.  I am sure that as an attorney you are quite brilliant but fucking hell does politics escape you. 

You do realize that the original intention of the U.S. Constitution was to create, what has now become 50, individual experiments in freedom/liberty?  If Vermont wants to be socialist, let them be fucking Socialists.  If South Carolina wants to install a Theocratic government let them fucking go ahead and do it.  If Texas wants to be a bad ass pure Libertarian state, go right on ahead.  If California wants to roll out more red than just on their carpets then by all means have a ball.

The idea behind a loose federal system and the 9th and 10th Amendments was to eventually show what kind of governments will collapse because they just don't fucking work.  In the meantime, people who want to be fucking jag offs can live where they damn well please to live.  Illinois comes to mind here lately.

HKG wrote:

[So and So's] ideas, like most libertarians, are philosophies.  They cannot stand as a valid means of government.

This has to be perhaps the most unintelligent, asinine thing I have ever seen uttered on this board.  That it comes from someone I would usually give a little more credit to just floors me even more.

All ideas are philosophies until they are put into action.  Big "L" nor small "l" libertarianism has ever been put into action on a large scale.  There is no way you can state that it cannot stand as a valid means of govern[ance] and still be respected in my eyes.

American leftists like to crow that socialism/communism/totalitarianism has never prospered anywhere in the world because it just hasn't been done right.  That is fucking stupid.  Everywhere that a far left government has been installed it has failed.  Or it has had to move towards right leaning ideas to meagerly survive.

Libertarian ideas punish so much less than leftist counterpoints.  Where's the harm in giving some of them a go?  The harm is quite apparent from leftists.  We've seen time and time again how dangerous your type of governing can be.

Scotty wrote:

Libertarian ideas punish so much less than leftist counterpoints.  Where's the harm in giving some of them a go?  The harm is quite apparent from leftists.  We've seen time and time again how dangerous your type of governing can be.

We've seen examples on the right, as well. Most recently here in the United States where corporations have been allowed to pursue their own aims with little oversight or regulation and the results have been catastrophic, to say the least (and I'll note, too, Clinton's role in much of that). Looking back in history, corporate powers have been more than happy to profit from totalitarianism - Bosch, Krupp, Ford, GE to name a few in Germany.

A significant few have also been happy to push the envelope as far as possible in the interest of making money (melamine, anyone?).

I realize that Fascism and libertarianism are not the same thing - although I have as much desire to live in a libertarian state as I do a Fascist one - but the common ingredient is a marketplace where profiteers are allowed free reign. I really don't need Monsanto or Archers Daniel Midland determining farm policy anymore than they do already, and that's far too much. I don't need a private developer determining which roads should be kept up and which ones should be abandoned. I don't need communications companies tapping my phones, or placing financial limitations on my bandwidth use, nor do I want justice meted out by people whose first priority is the bottom line as opposed to actual justice.

Oh, come on Orange. Worst thread ever? Most tedious, perhaps. Most long winded, definitely. Worst? That seems a little strong.

Taint wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Libertarian ideas punish so much less than leftist counterpoints.  Where's the harm in giving some of them a go?  The harm is quite apparent from leftists.  We've seen time and time again how dangerous your type of governing can be.

We've seen examples on the right, as well. Most recently here in the United States where corporations have been allowed to pursue their own aims with little oversight or regulation and the results have been catastrophic, to say the least (and I'll note, too, Clinton's role in much of that). Looking back in history, corporate powers have been more than happy to profit from totalitarianism - Bosch, Krupp, Ford, GE to name a few in Germany.

A significant few have also been happy to push the envelope as far as possible in the interest of making money (melamine, anyone?).

I realize that Fascism and libertarianism are not the same thing - although I have as much desire to live in a libertarian state as I do a Fascist one - but the common ingredient is a marketplace where profiteers are allowed free reign. I really don't need Monsanto or Archers Daniel Midland determining farm policy anymore than they do already, and that's far too much. I don't need a private developer determining which roads should be kept up and which ones should be abandoned. I don't need communications companies tapping my phones, or placing financial limitations on my bandwidth use, nor do I want justice meted out by people whose first priority is the bottom line as opposed to actual justice.

Ignore O+.  I have to agree with what you say in essence; though I think there is room for left leaning libertarianism as a solution.

Scotty wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

Iraq and Yugoslavia come to mind.  As soon as you have ethnic (or whatever) enclaves, people want autonomous states.  It then takes a dictatorship to keep the country together.  Dirck's ideas, like most libertarians, are philosophies.  They cannot stand as a valid means of government.  I would have tacked thid on to someone else's post, but I gotta run.

I never realized how stupid on some things you are.  I am sure that as an attorney you are quite brilliant but fucking hell does politics escape you. 

You do realize that the original intention of the U.S. Constitution was to create, what has now become 50, individual experiments in freedom/liberty?  If Vermont wants to be socialist, let them be fucking Socialists.  If South Carolina wants to install a Theocratic government let them fucking go ahead and do it.  If Texas wants to be a bad ass pure Libertarian state, go right on ahead.  If California wants to roll out more red than just on their carpets then by all means have a ball.

The idea behind a loose federal system and the 9th and 10th Amendments was to eventually show what kind of governments will collapse because they just don't fucking work.  In the meantime, people who want to be fucking jag offs can live where they damn well please to live.  Illinois comes to mind here lately.

HKG wrote:

[So and So's] ideas, like most libertarians, are philosophies.  They cannot stand as a valid means of government.

This has to be perhaps the most unintelligent, asinine thing I have ever seen uttered on this board.  That it comes from someone I would usually give a little more credit to just floors me even more.

All ideas are philosophies until they are put into action.  Big "L" nor small "l" libertarianism has ever been put into action on a large scale.  There is no way you can state that it cannot stand as a valid means of govern[ance] and still be respected in my eyes.

American leftists like to crow that socialism/communism/totalitarianism has never prospered anywhere in the world because it just hasn't been done right.  That is fucking stupid.  Everywhere that a far left government has been installed it has failed.  Or it has had to move towards right leaning ideas to meagerly survive.

Libertarian ideas punish so much less than leftist counterpoints.  Where's the harm in giving some of them a go?  The harm is quite apparent from leftists.  We've seen time and time again how dangerous your type of governing can be.

Scotty - I know it must be hard work to get so many things wrong.

If South Carolina wants to install a Theocratic government let them fucking go ahead and do it.

For one who extols the virtue of the Constitution, it seems strange that you are not aware of the establishment clause (or more properly the anti-establishment clause).  Do you think it only limits the power of the federal government, and leaves the states free to impose religion?  While Scalia and Thomas have suggested this interpretation in dissents, they remain in a small minority.  Most legal scholars accept that the establishment clause (and the free exercise clause) are incoporated into section 1 of the 14th Amendment ("No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"). 

The idea behind a loose federal system and the 9th and 10th Amendments was to eventually show what kind of governments will collapse because they just don't fucking work.

Interesting assertion.  Too bad it has nothing to do with history or reality or even the language of those two Amendments.

American leftists like to crow that socialism/communism/totalitarianism has never prospered anywhere in the world because it just hasn't been done right.

Which "American leftists"?  Where do you get your shit from?  You generalize and stereotype to the point of absurdity.  Why do you equate leftists with socialists, communists and totalitarians?  It is a gross distortion.  How many "American leftists" do you think yearn for totalitarianism anyway?  How many do you think are communists?  Socialists?  You use the terms so loosely that it weakens your argument.

On your core point about giving libertarian ideas a whirl, I have less objection.  At least it would not face a constitutional problem as would a theocratic government in South Carolina.  However, I suspect that many American leftists would have less problem with the idea than self-styled American conservatives, who after all want the theocratic society that is anathema to libertarianism.

Fled wrote:

Scotty wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

Iraq and Yugoslavia come to mind.  As soon as you have ethnic (or whatever) enclaves, people want autonomous states.  It then takes a dictatorship to keep the country together.  Dirck's ideas, like most libertarians, are philosophies.  They cannot stand as a valid means of government.  I would have tacked thid on to someone else's post, but I gotta run.

I never realized how stupid on some things you are.  I am sure that as an attorney you are quite brilliant but fucking hell does politics escape you. 

You do realize that the original intention of the U.S. Constitution was to create, what has now become 50, individual experiments in freedom/liberty?  If Vermont wants to be socialist, let them be fucking Socialists.  If South Carolina wants to install a Theocratic government let them fucking go ahead and do it.  If Texas wants to be a bad ass pure Libertarian state, go right on ahead.  If California wants to roll out more red than just on their carpets then by all means have a ball.

The idea behind a loose federal system and the 9th and 10th Amendments was to eventually show what kind of governments will collapse because they just don't fucking work.  In the meantime, people who want to be fucking jag offs can live where they damn well please to live.  Illinois comes to mind here lately.

HKG wrote:

[So and So's] ideas, like most libertarians, are philosophies.  They cannot stand as a valid means of government.

This has to be perhaps the most unintelligent, asinine thing I have ever seen uttered on this board.  That it comes from someone I would usually give a little more credit to just floors me even more.

All ideas are philosophies until they are put into action.  Big "L" nor small "l" libertarianism has ever been put into action on a large scale.  There is no way you can state that it cannot stand as a valid means of govern[ance] and still be respected in my eyes.

American leftists like to crow that socialism/communism/totalitarianism has never prospered anywhere in the world because it just hasn't been done right.  That is fucking stupid.  Everywhere that a far left government has been installed it has failed.  Or it has had to move towards right leaning ideas to meagerly survive.

Libertarian ideas punish so much less than leftist counterpoints.  Where's the harm in giving some of them a go?  The harm is quite apparent from leftists.  We've seen time and time again how dangerous your type of governing can be.

Scotty - I know it must be hard work to get so many things wrong.

If South Carolina wants to install a Theocratic government let them fucking go ahead and do it.

For one who extols the virtue of the Constitution, it seems strange that you are not aware of the establishment clause (or more properly the anti-establishment clause).  Do you think it only limits the power of the federal government, and leaves the states free to impose religion?  While Scalia and Thomas have suggested this interpretation in dissents, they remain in a small minority.  Most legal scholars accept that the establishment clause (and the free exercise clause) are incoporated into section 1 of the 14th Amendment ("No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"). 

The idea behind a loose federal system and the 9th and 10th Amendments was to eventually show what kind of governments will collapse because they just don't fucking work.

Interesting assertion.  Too bad it has nothing to do with history or reality or even the language of those two Amendments.

American leftists like to crow that socialism/communism/totalitarianism has never prospered anywhere in the world because it just hasn't been done right.

Which "American leftists"?  Where do you get your shit from?  You generalize and stereotype to the point of absurdity.  Why do you equate leftists with socialists, communists and totalitarians?  It is a gross distortion.  How many "American leftists" do you think yearn for totalitarianism anyway?  How many do you think are communists?  Socialists?  You use the terms so loosely that it weakens your argument.

On your core point about giving libertarian ideas a whirl, I have less objection.  At least it would not face a constitutional problem as would a theocratic government in South Carolina.  However, I suspect that many American leftists would have less problem with the idea than self-styled American conservatives, who after all want the theocratic society that is anathema to libertarianism.

Thanks Fled.  To me it is utterly assinine that someone actually believe that states have the right to establish their own form of government.  It's like those crazy Repuplic of Texas fuckers who think that Texas is a sovereign state and illegally annexed.  His post just proved my point...if each state were allowed to go its own way there would be fucking chaos.

And I still see libertarianism as a philosophy and not a political system.  It's basically anarchy light.  Were it ever allowed to have a shot at existence, libertarians would be the first calling for some government intervention.  The wild west was essentially a libertarian state and look how well that worked out for the weak.  Not everyone wants to have to tote a gun in order to have basic humans rights and to keep from getting fucked over by those who would use any excuse to fuck anyone else over.  Libertarians say they will leave others alone and expect others to do the same to them, but that's just not how people are.  Without government intervention the US would still be running sweatshops with child laborers, or factories with unsafe conditions....and we'd keep buying shit like nothing was amiss because as long as it doesn't effect us, we don't give a shit.  That's the heart of libertarianism.

Fled wrote:

Thanks, Sofie, for bringing it all back home.

De nada, Fleddie.