You'd have to look in the upper reaches of Alaska or other far away places to find people who actually live on their own without the benefits of collectivist society...
In what way does being a Libertarian require being a backwoods, live-off-the-land type of individual?
...that libertarians suppossedly [sic] find some [sic] offensive and want to avoid.
I have no idea what this clause means. Translation?
I've gone through the whole debate routine with liberatrians [sic]. They're mainly a bunch of idealists who have no grounding in how the real world works.
A political philosophy which advocates personal responsibility, individual freedom, rallies against overreaching government and eschews the 'entitlement mentality' is "idealistic"? ROFL!
For example, if we had libertartian [sic] roads...
What exactly makes a road a libertarian?
...we'd have to pay a toll everytime we turned down a new street, to pay the owners for the use of their roads.
LOL! And you're from New Jersey?
How many people would prefer that method of paying for our roads?
Where did you get the idea that a Libertarian government would put tolls on every road?
Libertarianism in the abstract is a beautiful idea, but it's a utopian idealogy like anarchy that's about as practical as pure communism (the diametrically oppossed philosophy) is in the real world.
Well, the very fact that you're using the adjectives "abstract" and "pure" indicates that you know that the full realization of any political philosophy is virtually unpracticeable. What makes you think that we don't know that?
The real world operates somewhere in between these two extremes.
Right. Now; do you think that the above sentence comes as a surprise to me or any other Libertarian?
Another fallicy [sic] of the libertarian idealogy is the belief in the superiority of the purely "free markets".
You'll have to define "superiority" before you hurl a charge like that. What do you mean?
Big Business and the wealthy elites who own them aren't really interested in "free markets" anyway. They never really have been, they've used the government to protect their industries from competition since the founding of this country.
That's very true. And a real Libertarian, like myself, is as against corporate welfare as we are against welfare for the poor. I don't support the government propping up teetering companies, erecting barriers to trade, or taking protective labor measures any more than I support affirmative action or a federal minimum wage.
You can't have debated libertarianism, let alone claim to understand it, if you didn't know that.
Look at all the federal largese [sic] that they're living off of under the suppossedly [sic] "free market" Republican party under Bush and his cronies in Congress.
"Free market" Republican party?! ROFL!
Big Business loves government subsidies and giveaways.
Of course they do - and so do individuals. To a Libertarian, the government needs to reject the needy whining of both.
It's like being a kid in the candystore.
It is under Democrats and Republicans, that's for sure.
So much for "free markets".
When have we had "free markets"? Are you claiming that Bush Administration policies embody "free markets"?
Free spending government is more like it.
That's for sure. But there's a monopoly shared, gleefully, by Democrats and Republicans alike.
LPS5 |
