Libertarianism is the best ideology

[Martok]

To a libertarian, actually, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are a right to everyone. I've never spoken to a libertarian who believes otherwise. I am not a libertarian, but I am familiar with libertarianism, and they do believe in a right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness, freedom of speech, freedom of and from religion, freedom of association, etc.

Only if you have money, otherwise libertarians could care less. You've even said so yourself regarding police services. Got money to pay for private security? Good for you. No money? Tough shit.

People with money.

It's like asking "I wonder who can afford a Lamborghini?"

People with enough money to pay the asking price.

I'm sorry we don't live in a world where everybody can afford to buy everything they want anytime they want. But, unfortunately, the reality of the situation is that anything you want to buy takes the fixed and variable costs associated with producing the product or service. Everything costs money Unless you are going to force everyone to sell their products and services for $0 asking prices, I don't know how else you can set up the system but to have a price on goods and services.

Leave it to a libertarian to equate police services with buying a Lamborghini

Rush Limbaugh tried to something like that when he was interviewed by William Shatner.

[Coito ergo sum]

To a libertarian, actually, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are a right to everyone. I've never spoken to a libertarian who believes otherwise. I am not a libertarian, but I am familiar with libertarianism, and they do believe in a right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness, freedom of speech, freedom of and from religion, freedom of association, etc.

Only if you have money, otherwise libertarians could care less. You've even said so yourself regarding police services. Got money to pay for private security? Good for you. No money? Tough shit.

No, that's not what I said, at least not any moreso than the purchase of any product. If you can't afford an alarm system for your home from ADT, should that be the obligation of the taxpayers to buy you one?

I've not advocated doing away with police services, and most libertarians have no issue with a taxpayer funded police department (because it is the State fulfilling its role in keeping people from infringing on the rights of others - like killing them, or hurting them, etc.). However, if you decide that you want to have a security guard at your house, that is - quite simply - up to you.

Moreover, I don't hear any non-libertarians suggesting that the government should provide everyone with private security forces. So, what's wrong with allowing those who want to have one, and figure out how to get one, from having one? Shouldn't we be free to hire people we want to hire to be our security guards, if we want to?

People with money.

It's like asking "I wonder who can afford a Lamborghini?"

People with enough money to pay the asking price.

I'm sorry we don't live in a world where everybody can afford to buy everything they want anytime they want. But, unfortunately, the reality of the situation is that anything you want to buy takes the fixed and variable costs associated with producing the product or service. Everything costs money Unless you are going to force everyone to sell their products and services for $0 asking prices, I don't know how else you can set up the system but to have a price on goods and services.

Leave it to a libertarian to equate police services with buying a Lamborghini

I did not "equate police services with buying a Lamborghini." I equated "private security service" (aka a private security guard(s)) with buying any other lawful product. Who said that there wouldn't be a police department? Most libertarians think there should be police departments. There are the "anarcho-capitalists" that don't, but I think that's the rare person indeed. I have never spoken to a libertarian (who is not also an anarcho-capitalist) that thinks there should not be a police force.

I'm also not a libertarian.

[Martok]

Shouldn't we be free to hire people we want to hire to be our security guards, if we want to?

Sure, but it shouldn't relieve you from paying taxes to pay for a police force.

[Coito ergo sum]

Shouldn't we be free to hire people we want to hire to be our security guards, if we want to?

Sure, but it shouldn't relieve you from paying taxes to pay for a police force.

Who said it would?

[Martok]

Shouldn't we be free to hire people we want to hire to be our security guards, if we want to?

Sure, but it shouldn't relieve you from paying taxes to pay for a police force.

Who said it would?

Libertarians.

[Coito ergo sum]

Shouldn't we be free to hire people we want to hire to be our security guards, if we want to?

Sure, but it shouldn't relieve you from paying taxes to pay for a police force.

Who said it would?

Libertarians.

None that I ever heard.

Any libertarians here want to set the record straight?

[noncredo]

Shouldn't we be free to hire people we want to hire to be our security guards, if we want to?

Sure, but it shouldn't relieve you from paying taxes to pay for a police force.

Who said it would?

Libertarians.

None that I ever heard.

Any libertarians here want to set the record straight?

I have heard a few of the von Mises types saying that, but most libertarians I know would galdly pay for police, firefighting, military, and many other things that serve the common good. I don't think mot libertarians are against the idea of public funding for services such as these. Only the services that seem to be in place solely to shuffle money from one group to another in the name of "fairness" and to "save the children". Then again I have been told that I am not a libertarian by some, that I am more closely aligned with classical liberals, but there is no Classical Liberal Party in the U.S. so I usually vote Libertarian. I claim the libertarian banner only because all other banners are so far from what I believe. I have some disagreement with the Libertarian party in the U.S. and with some libertarian principles in general, but far fewer than with most other political parties and ideas.

[Coito ergo sum]

His racist newsletters from the 80's and his friendly associations with the founder of stormfront will haunt him big time.

I dont think he wrote those letters personally.
And havnt heard anything about ties with stormfront.
With the recent lift of corporate restrictions on campaigning (the next campaign will look very different from anything in the past) I'm sure those will be brought up in advertisements and what not, with alot of lowblows no matter how much he denies them.

But it appears that they're not haunting him presently.

Well, tbh, I doubt such associations would haunt him over at CPAC, but in a general election? Ripe for Swift Boating, right or wrong.

If he made the statements, then there is nothing wrong with "swift boating" him. If he controlled the newsletter, then what is published in it is his responsibility. I have no idea whether he's a racist or not, but the idea that exposing truthful information about a candidate is wrong because we label it "swift boating" is confusing to me. I mean - if it's true, then there is never anything wrong with exposing the truth. If people view him negatively because of it, then so be it.

One man, probably the only man I like right now in politics, is labeled by the media as being "right progressive libertarian independent", and thats Ron Paul.

Who the hell has labeled Ron Paul a "Progressive"? Glenn Beck?

"Progressive" doesn't have a generally accepted definition at the moment in terms of its "political" meaning. It's a word that has been recently adopted by people looking for an alternative to the label "Liberal." However, it started as a break in the Republican party about 100 years ago. The progressive Republican platform called for the direct election of U.S. Senators, the initiative, referendum, and recall, woman suffrage, reduction of the tariff, and many social reforms. The split in the Republican Party directly led to the election of the Democratic Candidate Woodrow Wilson. The Progressives were also a driving force behind Prohibition and the Volstead Act. Big time Progressives in this era included Teddy Roosevelt.

The Progressives of the 1920s were of a different sort, led by LaFollette and were basically supported by the American Federation of Labor and the Socialist and Farm-Labor groups - they were more focused on labor and the defeat of monopolies. In the late 1940's, in a challenge to the Democratic party a new Progressive iteration nominated Henry A. Wallace for Prez. Endorsed by the Communist party and by the American Labor party of New York state, the Progressive party accused the Truman administration of failing to cooperate with the Soviet Union to end the cold war and advocated repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act and reestablishment of wartime price controls. Its candidates won no electoral votes and only slightly more than 1 million popular votes as Truman defeated Dewey.

Now, I think, politicians like Hillary Clinton and others that want to use the term "Progressive" are probably doing so because of focus groups and opinion polls revealing that people like the word "Progressive" better than "Liberal." But, that's just the cynic in me.

[Coito ergo sum]

None that I ever heard.

Any libertarians here want to set the record straight?

I have heard a few of the von Mises types saying that, but most libertarians I know would galdly pay for police, firefighting, military, and many other things that serve the common good. I don't think mot libertarians are against the idea of public funding for services such as these. Only the services that seem to be in place solely to shuffle money from one group to another in the name of "fairness" and to "save the children". Then again I have been told that I am not a libertarian by some, that I am more closely aligned with classical liberals, but there is no Classical Liberal Party in the U.S. so I usually vote Libertarian. I claim the libertarian banner only because all other banners are so far from what I believe. I have some disagreement with the Libertarian party in the U.S. and with some libertarian principles in general, but far fewer than with most other political parties and ideas.

Ones that take the "free market" to such an extreme that there would be no government, just the purchase of services by private individuals, including police, fire, etc., are, as I understand it "anarcho-capitalists," and that there are not many Libertarians that go that far. It's kind of like the difference between people who say they are "socialists" but still think there should be private property and that the government should control a lot, but not all, of the means of production.

[Martok]

If he made the statements, then there is nothing wrong with "swift boating" him. If he controlled the newsletter, then what is published in it is his responsibility. I have no idea whether he's a racist or not, but the idea that exposing truthful information about a candidate is wrong because we label it "swift boating" is confusing to me. I mean - if it's true, then there is never anything wrong with exposing the truth. If people view him negatively because of it, then so be it.

Swift boating is when lies are spread about a candidate AND the candidate does very little to fight back until its too late. John Kerry has had his military career questioned for a long time so when the swift boat liars came on the scene he should have handled it like he's done in the past. But he didn't. Instead he did very little to fire back. I think Kerry was on vacation when the swift boat liars started their attacks against him. By the time Kerry's vacation ended the lies the swift boaters had spread started to stick.

[MrJonno]

Most sensible people these days rely on a mixed economy with some things done publically others privately based on pragmatism not philosophy. Sensible people may argue over what goes where but its the loonies that worship the state or the market economy when obviously (to me) both have their uses

[Coito ergo sum]

If he made the statements, then there is nothing wrong with "swift boating" him. If he controlled the newsletter, then what is published in it is his responsibility. I have no idea whether he's a racist or not, but the idea that exposing truthful information about a candidate is wrong because we label it "swift boating" is confusing to me. I mean - if it's true, then there is never anything wrong with exposing the truth. If people view him negatively because of it, then so be it.

Swift boating is when lies are spread about a candidate AND the candidate does very little to fight back until its too late. John Kerry has had his military career questioned for a long time so when the swift boat liars came on the scene he should have handled it like he's done in the past. But he didn't. Instead he did very little to fire back. I think Kerry was on vacation when the swift boat liars started their attacks against him. By the time Kerry's vacation ended the lies the swift boaters had spread started to stick.

The real question is whether there were "lies" told in the first place. While it's off topic on this thread, I would love to know a couple of examples of exactly what was said about Kerry that was a "lie" and who said it.

Quite often allegations of "swift boating" are made without a concrete specification of what exactly was the false statement. In the case of Kerry, much of what was complained about was never shown to be technically untrue. People were often pissed about Kerry's actual words and actions being held against him.