Low IQ's and Conservative Values Linked

[MrFedEx]

Thanks for pointing that out!!! Very embarrassing.
I misspoke ... I meant to say individual freedom beliefs of the Liberals.

I certainly don't think Libertarians would ever support the Socialist programs of the Liberals.
Somehow I imagine you do not focus on individual freedom but rather the control of others to make them conform to your beliefs.

Here's a few items that drive me wild with Libertarians.

1. Charter Schools--"Choice" really means opening the door to re-inserting religion back into the schools.

2. Funding for the Arts--Libertarians seems to think it's all a waste. Not surprising.

3. Charity--Libertarians are big believers in private charity. The problem with that is that the churches and private donors cannot begin to fill the need. On a percentage basis, the wealthy don't donate a high percentage of their incomes, and the rest of us can't afford to.

4 Privatize Everything--This really dumb because there are certain programs that will never be privatized because there is no profit in it, and others that should never be privatized for moral reasons. State mental care would be an example of the former and prisons the latter. There have already been problems with bought-off judges filling privately-run prisons with inmates that should never be there.

5. Let It Burn---If you want public services such as fire and police protection, you need to pay for it on an individual basis. Sorry, but these are public problems that need to be handled by public employees, whom you'd love to eliminate because they (in your opinion) are overpaid leeches that could be replaced for less money. We've already seen Libertarian practices in action with rural fire department that have let homes burn to the ground because the homeowner didn't pay their "subscription".

6 It's All About The Money--- That's the bottom line. Who cares who lives or dies as long as you've got yours, right? After all, all that person with cancer or some other disabling condition has to do is try harder and pull themselves up by their boot straps, right? This is wrong on so many levels, because the opportunity playing field is not level. You can "try hard" forever and never make-it.

7. The Free Market--The "free market" will correct everything, because it's a "perfect" mechanism to monitor our economic behavior. This means that Juan down at McDonalds making $8.00 per hour can someday own his own franchise that costs about $2 million to obtain. This would never happen, but Libertarians hold out the carrot that "everyone" can be successful if they just try. BS.

I could go on. Hoaxter, I respect your intellect, but I really think you're mis-guided when it comes to Libertarianism. It will never come to be, and "works" only in a hypothetical sense under perfect conditions that would never occur in the real world.

 

[804brown]

Here mental midgets, open your minds for once!

Warning: Get on the train or get the off the tracks!

Answer this:

View attachment 6376

And yet the mega corporations all but finance the democrat and republican parties, a political construct you yourself defend at every turn and condemn those who walk away from the master of the plantation. Tell me, who is the one to blame for the tyranny of man?

Just one recent example : the koch brothers. Both "libertarian" yet support rt wing political candidates who yell "small guvmint"!!
You call yourself an anarchist or are you a libertarian?? Like i wrote earlier: libertarians think public schools and libraries are socialism!! Do you??

Again I do not fear every form of government . Democracy can work well if it is not allowed to be controlled by the rich and powerful. I do not believe the guvmint is always a big boogey man. It can be used to level the playing field like it did with the new deal.

"Mental midget"?? "maroon"?? etc now you are no better than the other name callers on here.

 

[Just_another_day_at_work]

wkmac these are very good vids...

 

[wkmac]

Here's a few items that drive me wild with Libertarians.

1. Charter Schools--"Choice" really means opening the door to re-inserting religion back into the schools.

2. Funding for the Arts--Libertarians seems to think it's all a waste. Not surprising.

3. Charity--Libertarians are big believers in private charity. The problem with that is that the churches and private donors cannot begin to fill the need. On a percentage basis, the wealthy don't donate a high percentage of their incomes, and the rest of us can't afford to.

4 Privatize Everything--This really dumb because there are certain programs that will never be privatized because there is no profit in it, and others that should never be privatized for moral reasons. State mental care would be an example of the former and prisons the latter. There have already been problems with bought-off judges filling privately-run prisons with inmates that should never be there.

5. Let It Burn---If you want public services such as fire and police protection, you need to pay for it on an individual basis. Sorry, but these are public problems that need to be handled by public employees, whom you'd love to eliminate because they (in your opinion) are overpaid leeches that could be replaced for less money. We've already seen Libertarian practices in action with rural fire department that have let homes burn to the ground because the homeowner didn't pay their "subscription".

6 It's All About The Money--- That's the bottom line. Who cares who lives or dies as long as you've got yours, right? After all, all that person with cancer or some other disabling condition has to do is try harder and pull themselves up by their boot straps, right? This is wrong on so many levels, because the opportunity playing field is not level. You can "try hard" forever and never make-it.

7. The Free Market--The "free market" will correct everything, because it's a "perfect" mechanism to monitor our economic behavior. This means that Juan down at McDonalds making $8.00 per hour can someday own his own franchise that costs about $2 million to obtain. This would never happen, but Libertarians hold out the carrot that "everyone" can be successful if they just try. BS.

I could go on. Hoaxter, I respect your intellect, but I really think you're mis-guided when it comes to Libertarianism. It will never come to be, and "works" only in a hypothetical sense under perfect conditions that would never occur in the real world.

I think you are! No check that, I don't think, I know! Take all the above that you just said and now try to reconcile it with this article at the radical libertarian website LewRockwell.com in which the great socialist and humanitarian Dorothy Day is celebrated for her love and charity and how that works in a better libertarian world.

And would Dorothy Day dare refer herself as being libertarian? According to June E. O'Connor in her book, "A Moral Vision of Dorothy Day: A Feminist Perspective" said the following on that point,

Although she preferred the words libertarian, decentralist and personalist to anarchist, Day's attraction to anarchism was an enduring one. With Peter Maurin and others, most notably Ammon Hennacy and Robert Ludlow, Dorothy Day sought fundamental changes in the structure of society by minimizing the presence and power of the state and by arguing on behalf of personal initiative and responsibility expressed in direct action.

source (again the radical, hard hearted Lew Rockwell)

And of course, how can the libertarian Rockwellites dare be singing the praises of the great Utah Philips?

Knock yourself out because for every ignorant example you regurgitate, I can throw out a libertarian response times 3 to disprove your ignorance!

BTW: Would you like to join the internet discussion taking place among several of us "libertarians" who are reading Saul Alinsky's book, Rules for Radicals? Among the discussees are Sheldon Richman, editor of the libertarian free market publication, The Freeman, Brad Spangler, director of the libertarian/anarchist website Center for a Stateless Society and law professor, libertarian/anarchist author and personal friend, Gary Chartier. Want to hear some of the consensus conclusions we've reach about Saul and his book? Here you go!

1) He repudiates Marxism, USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba
2) He opposed the Weathermen violence
3) He condemned what Bill Ayers did
4) He opposes bureaucracy and favored de-centralization. He disliked the AFL-CIO
5) He saw uncontrollable bureaucracies and average folk powerless to stop them

At times he could almost sound conservative which makes me wonder if the blathering mouthpieces who scream about Alinsky ever actually read him?

You ever had the guts to read Alinsky MFE? NO? NO? NO!

 

[804brown]

wkmac these are very good vids...

I agree. My critique I guess is with the rt libertarians. I have always met the rt wing style of libertarianism. I agree with most if not all of the videos but I dont think ron paul is a left libertarian.

 

[moreluck]

It's hard to get people to look at videos when they are introduced...."for mental midgets".

 

[klein]

Just seen this poll on the "YOUR $$$$$" show.

63% of republicans believe the USA is superior regarding overall individual wealth of other countries.
Only 34% of liberals agree.

 

[MrFedEx]

I think you are! No check that, I don't think, I know! Take all the above that you just said and now try to reconcile it with this article at the radical libertarian website LewRockwell.com in which the great socialist and humanitarian Dorothy Day is celebrated for her love and charity and how that works in a better libertarian world.

And would Dorothy Day dare refer herself as being libertarian? According to June E. O'Connor in her book, "A Moral Vision of Dorothy Day: A Feminist Perspective" said the following on that point,



source (again the radical, hard hearted Lew Rockwell)

And of course, how can the libertarian Rockwellites dare be singing the praises of the great Utah Philips?

Knock yourself out because for every ignorant example you regurgitate, I can throw out a libertarian response times 3 to disprove your ignorance!

BTW: Would you like to join the internet discussion taking place among several of us "libertarians" who are reading Saul Alinsky's book, Rules for Radicals? Among the discussees are Sheldon Richman, editor of the libertarian free market publication, The Freeman, Brad Spangler, director of the libertarian/anarchist website Center for a Stateless Society and law professor, libertarian/anarchist author and personal friend, Gary Chartier. Want to hear some of the consensus conclusions we've reach about Saul and his book? Here you go!

1) He repudiates Marxism, USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba
2) He opposed the Weathermen violence
3) He condemned what Bill Ayers did
4) He opposes bureaucracy and favored de-centralization. He disliked the AFL-CIO
5) He saw uncontrollable bureaucracies and average folk powerless to stop them

At times he could almost sound conservative which makes me wonder if the blathering mouthpieces who scream about Alinsky ever actually read him?

You ever had the guts to read Alinsky MFE? NO? NO? NO!

Sorry, but Libertarianism is fatally flawed beginning with the premise that the "free market" is infallible. It all goes downhill from there. Like I said, it only "works" in a utopian dream world that will never exist.

 

[Catatonic]

Didn't Thomas Jefferson have libertarian leanings? Isn't he also viewed as a champion of public education in this nation?


"The tax which will be paid for [the] purpose [of education] isnot more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings,priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance." --Thomas Jefferson to George Wythe, 1786.

Essentially, the founding fathers were Libertarians.
Today's Libertarians desire to take the USA closer to the values that the Founding fathers had and had in mind when they established the US Constitution.

 

[Catatonic]

You really think liberals are the same as socialists?? LOL, please liberals are capitalists with a heart. They are pro capitlism only with a view that the poorest among us should be helped because capitlaism leaves too many losers. Liberals big idea is inceasing the minimum wage;socialists think the entire profit system is evil and a minimum wage only helps the capitalists rule.

On libertariansim, they believ public libraries and schools and hospitals are socialism!! as well as public parks and squares. They also believe labor unions are evil because they impede capitalists from making more profits. They think that workers should not have a right to strike but should be subject to managements drug tests and no child labor laws??
And what part of libertarianism says its ok to allow god in public schools and think it is ok to ban abortions or gay marriage as ron pauls thinks??

Some libertarians like to stress their socalled liberal/liberty views on social issues but their hero ayn rand and others stress theri hatred mostly of thenew deal and other programs that getin the way of big business making profits:robber baron economics. It is a ruse for their true agenda of freeing capitalism fro the capitalists/the robber barons/the plutocrats. They would like to go back to pre new deal days, even pre TR days . To the robber baron days where there was no resistance to this guilded age of greed, no unions, no pesky govt regulators testing food or the air or water ,etc The days of bosses using thugs to deal with union supporters. Th days of panics and depressions ,. the days of no middle class,etc I could go on and on.

Fact is they cannot point to a single real life libert world to demonstrate what they want. It is a utopian dream just like communism only from the other side. Though i bet they did like what the dictator pinnochet did to chile in the 1970s and 80s!!

I truly appreciate the effort 804brown ... you are a thoughtful poster that makes me think.
With that said ...

I did not equate Liberals with Socialists ... I referred to Socialist Programs. What is a Socialist Program? Any program where the the government provides good and services that could be provided by the private sector.
A couple of things that could not (should not) be logically provided by the private sector are National Defense and Police Forces.

Ayn Rand was an Objectivist not a Libertarian - there are several differences and the most important one is that Objectivism is a philosophy and not a political concept of a government.

Libertarians can point to a real life Libertarian world and that is the USA at the point of creation before the Hamiltonians started to muck up the works.

 

[bbsam]

Hoaxster, by your own definition Obamacare is not a socialist program since it does not "provide goods and services that could be provided by the private sector." It does not provide the insurance, it does not provide the medical care.

 

[bbsam]

Wasn't Hamilton a Founding Father?

 

[Catatonic]

Sorry, but Libertarianism is fatally flawed beginning with the premise that the "free market" is infallible. It all goes downhill from there. Like I said, it only "works" in a utopian dream world that will never exist.

I understand your feeling towards Libertarians as a viable party in today's political structure her in the US.
The US is locked into a "two major party system" it seems for most of it's entire existence but at certain times there were three or more viable party systems.
The National government does not allow for proportional representation
As late as Perot there was a third party that made a difference. I Perot had not run in 1992, Bill Clinton would have lost the election with about 45% of the vote instead of winning as he did with 43% of the vote.

As such the Libertarian Party has very little chance of ever getting elected at the National level.
It does however have the ability to influence one or more of the major two parties in their platforms and goals.

You seem to imply that the Democratic party and the Republican party have pure belief systems and that they stick to these principles as "infallible". That is certainly not the case recently and in the last hundred years.
I am sure you have heard the phrase, "Governance is the art of compromise."
There does not seem to be that much art in the government lately as the "Tea Party" influence has stood in the way of much compromise.

So I reject your assertion that "Libertarianism is fatally flawed beginning with the premise that the "free market" is infallible. It all goes downhill from there. Like I said, it only "works" in a utopian dream world that will never exist." Libertarianism is an ideological movement that is having an influence on more and more voters in the USA especially, but not limited to, the Independent voters.

I have been a Libertarian for over 20 years and vote Libertarian every chance I get. I have voted for a Libertarian for President in every election since Reagan. I am persistent and I keep plugging every chance I get.
I will not accept the inevitability of the Democrats or the Republicans.

 

[Catatonic]

Wasn't Hamilton a Founding Father?

friend* NO!
Those are fighting words ... no, make that dueling words.
Too bad that Burr did not kill that POS earlier than he did.

 

[Catatonic]

Hoaxster, by your own definition Obamacare is not a socialist program since it does not "provide goods and services that could be provided by the private sector." It does not provide the insurance, it does not provide the medical care.

Technically true but it does pay for it though. I don't think, in theory, it is the responsibility of the National Government to do so.

I have said many times in the past that I do not object to a National healthcare plan if it:
1) provides the same benefits to all citizens
2) provides those benefits only to citizens
3) allows citizens to obtain medical treatment without going through the National Healthcare system

My biggest objections to a National Healthcare system is that:
1) it removes the market pressure to keep prices competitive
2) it leads to people thinking that they are entitled to every medical procedure and drug that is available

 

[bbsam]

Then it seems to me that Obamacare is moving in the right direction. For decades the government has heaped medicare for the elderly and now through the market system as a vehicle ensuring that all are cared for at rates cheaper than emergency room flooding.

 

[tourists24]

Technically true but it does pay for it though. I don't think, in theory, it is the responsibility of the National Government to do so.

I have said many times in the past that I do not object to a National healthcare plan if it:
1) provides the same benefits to all citizens
2) provides those benefits only to citizens
3) allows citizens to obtain medical treatment without going through the National Healthcare system

My biggest objections to a National Healthcare system is that:
1) it removes the market pressure to keep prices competitive
2) it leads to people thinking that they are entitled to every medical procedure and drug that is available

You forgot to add that it is wrong when people have the perception that the healthcare is "free" when it is not at all

 

[av8torntn]

You forgot to add that it is wrong when people have the perception that the healthcare is "free" when it is not at all

That's a great point. When something is viewed as "free" it will cause an over consumption of that resource.

 

[bbsam]

You forgot to add that it is wrong when people have the perception that the healthcare is "free" when it is not at all

That's the same kind of fear mongering that went on during welfare reform. Democrats claimed there would be rioting in the streets. On a factual note, catching health problems early is far cheaper.

 

[bbsam]

friend* NO!
Those are fighting words ... no, make that dueling words.
Too bad that Burr did not kill that POS earlier than he did.

Wikipedia disagrees.