Libertarians Are Such A Dangerous Lot!

roadrunner2012

Four hours in the mod queue for a news link
Troll
The question libertarians just can’t answer - Salon.com
And then there is Mauritius.
According to the Heritage Foundation, the U.S. has less economic freedom than Mauritius, another small island country, this one off the southeast coast of Africa. At number 8, Mauritius is two rungs above the U.S., at number 10 in the global index of economic liberty.
The Heritage Foundation is free to define economic freedom however it likes, by its own formula weighting government size, freedom of trade, absence of regulation and so on. What about factors other than economic freedom that shape the quality of life of citizens?
How about education? According to the CIA World Fact book, the U.S. spends more than Mauritius—5.4 percent of GDP in 2009 compared to only 3.7 percent in Mauritius in 2010. For the price of that extra expenditure, which is chiefly public, the U.S. has a literacy rate of 99 percent, compared to only 88.5 percent in economically-freer Mauritius.
Infant mortality? In economically-more-free Mauritius there are about 11 deaths per 1,000 live births—compared to 5.9 in the economically-less-free U.S. Maternal mortality in Mauritius is at 60 deaths per 100,000 live births, compared to 21 in the U.S. Economic liberty comes at a price in human survival, it would seem. Oh, well—at least Mauritius is economically free!
Even to admit such trade-offs—like higher infant mortality, in return for less government—would undermine the claim of libertarians that Americans and other citizens of advanced countries could enjoy the same quality of life, but at less cost, if most government agencies and programs were replaced by markets and for-profit firms. Libertarians seem to have persuaded themselves that there is no significant trade-off between less government and more national insecurity, more crime, more illiteracy and more infant and maternal mortality, among other things.
It’s a seductive vision—enjoying the same quality of life that today’s heavily-governed rich nations enjoy, with lower taxes and less regulation. The vision is so seductive, in fact, that we are forced to return to the question with which we began: if libertarianism is not only appealing but plausible, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?
 

Upsmule

Well-Known Member
Should people who think this way even be allowed to live in "Civilized Society"?

Why Libertarianism Is So Dangerous - YouTube

I doubt even a die hard libertarian would even suggest that there should or that there can be "no government." As always the founders had it right. The only good government (a necessary evil) is limited government. It's sole purpose is to defend and protect its citizenry. Otherwise there'd be anarchy or Marshall law at best.

Also, a great quote by Trudell. He probably mistakenly, or purposefully I don't know, describes what many believe to be the true account of the current condition of mankind recorded in the book of Genesis. That it all came about as the result of a lie, (Genesis 3).

But there is a remedy -

"Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid." --John 14:27
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
I doubt even a die hard libertarian would even suggest that there should or that there can be "no government." As always the founders had it right. The only good government (a necessary evil) is limited government. It's sole purpose is to defend and protect its citizenry. Otherwise there'd be anarchy or Marshall law at best.

Also, a great quote by Trudell. He probably mistakenly, or purposefully I don't know, describes what many believe to be the true account of the current condition of mankind recorded in the book of Genesis. That it all came about as the result of a lie, (Genesis 3).

But there is a remedy -

"Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid." --John 14:27

So, don't know many radical libertarians do ya?
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
The question libertarians just can’t answer - Salon.com
And then there is Mauritius.
According to the Heritage Foundation, the U.S. has less economic freedom than Mauritius, another small island country, this one off the southeast coast of Africa. At number 8, Mauritius is two rungs above the U.S., at number 10 in the global index of economic liberty.
The Heritage Foundation is free to define economic freedom however it likes, by its own formula weighting government size, freedom of trade, absence of regulation and so on. What about factors other than economic freedom that shape the quality of life of citizens?
How about education? According to the CIA World Fact book, the U.S. spends more than Mauritius—5.4 percent of GDP in 2009 compared to only 3.7 percent in Mauritius in 2010. For the price of that extra expenditure, which is chiefly public, the U.S. has a literacy rate of 99 percent, compared to only 88.5 percent in economically-freer Mauritius.
Infant mortality? In economically-more-free Mauritius there are about 11 deaths per 1,000 live births—compared to 5.9 in the economically-less-free U.S. Maternal mortality in Mauritius is at 60 deaths per 100,000 live births, compared to 21 in the U.S. Economic liberty comes at a price in human survival, it would seem. Oh, well—at least Mauritius is economically free!
Even to admit such trade-offs—like higher infant mortality, in return for less government—would undermine the claim of libertarians that Americans and other citizens of advanced countries could enjoy the same quality of life, but at less cost, if most government agencies and programs were replaced by markets and for-profit firms. Libertarians seem to have persuaded themselves that there is no significant trade-off between less government and more national insecurity, more crime, more illiteracy and more infant and maternal mortality, among other things.
It’s a seductive vision—enjoying the same quality of life that today’s heavily-governed rich nations enjoy, with lower taxes and less regulation. The vision is so seductive, in fact, that we are forced to return to the question with which we began: if libertarianism is not only appealing but plausible, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?

See you and raise you!
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
All that does is ask a question, not provide an answer.

Had you dare to watch the 2nd video posted in this thread, just the first few minutes, you would understand why no single answer is even possible and you'd also begin to understand what real freedom is.

No answer is the correct answer because you and those around you create your own answers and when they don't or stop working, no self interested party is there to stop you from finding out what the new solution is. That is the answer if you have to have one.
 

BrownArmy

Well-Known Member
...But there is a remedy -

"Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid." --John 14:27

Come on man, we're having a discussion about politics, and you're bringing religion.

Please agree with me that religion is a non-quantifiable factor, and should thus be dropped from this current discussion, as it's not relevant.

How seriously would you take me if I dropped a Buddhist parable on you as 'support' for whatever political argument I was making?
 
Last edited:

ImWaitingForTheDay

Annoy a conservative....Think for yourself
tb-somali-paradise-3.jpg
 
Top