Libertarianism

[amused]

On the off chance nobody has enjoyed this one...

[Drewish]

As somebody who used to be a huge Ayn Rand fan (and then came to the conclusion that she wasn't violent enough), I will admit that under Laissez Faire system the poor would suffer and die. I see this a s good thing though. Who commits most of the violent crime? The poor. Who are the most religious? The poor. Who keep having more children than they can afford, and expecting everyone else to pay for them? The poor. Want to get rid of religion, stop overpopulation, and usher in a more rational productive society? Give up your leftover Christian morality that claims that all people are created equal. They are not. Evolution is proof enough of that. The meek shall inherit the Earth over my dead body, and if they do it will be shitty shitty world to live in.

[Jay G]

Ask Ron Paul. Of Course, you could always consult his newsletter (which was written by somebody else and Ron Paul has no idea what's in it even though HIS NAME is on the cover).

[Pensioner]

As somebody who used to be a huge Ayn Rand fan (and then came to the conclusion that she wasn't violent enough), I will admit that under Laissez Faire system the poor would suffer and die. I see this a s good thing though. Who commits most of the violent crime? The poor. Who are the most religious? The poor. Who keep having more children than they can afford, and expecting everyone else to pay for them? The poor. Want to get rid of religion, stop overpopulation, and usher in a more rational productive society? Give up your leftover Christian morality that claims that all people are created equal. They are not. Evolution is proof enough of that. The meek shall inherit the Earth over my dead body, and if they do it will be shitty shitty world to live in.

So you think that the poor commit the most violent crime, do you?

Bollocks, the poor invented the cluster bomb, napalm and the atomic bomb did they?

The rest of your post is shite as well, are you a fan of Eugenics?

[Drewish]

So you think that the poor commit the most violent crime, do you?

Bollocks, the poor invented the cluster bomb, napalm and the atomic bomb did they?

Hmmm, who's been using those things... oh that's right, governments. Though they don't call that crime, but rather 'war.'

The rest of your post is shite as well, are you a fan of Eugenics?

Not when it's state controlled. But I do look forward to the day when genetic engineering makes saving up to have a child that one can ensure is healthy, gifted, and capable attainable. Then perhaps the notion of quality over quantity will finally become attainable as the desirable means of procreation. As it stands we subsidize large families through the tax code. To hell with large families and the environmental and financial strain they place upon society. You want a lot of kids? you'd best be prepared to pay for them yourself, otherwise let the fuckers starve.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Still wondering what the military would like in a libertarian country. Fifty militias? We used to have militias based around counties. They defended Washington in the War of 1812.

[Jay G]

As somebody who used to be a huge Ayn Rand fan (and then came to the conclusion that she wasn't violent enough), I will admit that under Laissez Faire system the poor would suffer and die. I see this a s good thing though. Who commits most of the violent crime? The poor. Who are the most religious? The poor. Who keep having more children than they can afford, and expecting everyone else to pay for them? The poor. Want to get rid of religion, stop overpopulation, and usher in a more rational productive society? Give up your leftover Christian morality that claims that all people are created equal. They are not. Evolution is proof enough of that. The meek shall inherit the Earth over my dead body, and if they do it will be shitty shitty world to live in.

Interesting post. You say you were a fan of Rand until you came to the conclusion she "wasn't violent enough". What does that mean? As you would know, being a fan of Rand, she was against violence. Are you saying that she was in favor of violence but just not enough violence to satisfy you? And just how much violence will satisfy you?

As for your assertions regarding the poor, where is your evidence to back them up?

Are you suggesting that society ought to rid itself of poverty by exterminating the poor?

[Drewish]

Still wondering what the military would like in a libertarian country. Fifty militias? We used to have militias based around counties. They defended Washington in the War of 1812.

A volunteer force, entrusted with protecting the national borders and retaliating against acts of war. Think our military now, but without bases all around the world (but rather in our country) acting as border patrols during peace time, not engaging in preemptive wars, disinterested in nation building or the internal political affairs of other countries, and with a much smaller budget.

There would also be dramatic changes in law enforcement as well, and how sad it is that the line between the military and law enforcement is sometimes a difficult one to draw these days.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You know I'm a military historian, right? I find that scenario appalling, it's been done before and almost always before we needed a larger, better staffed force.

[Pensioner]

So you think that the poor commit the most violent crime, do you?

Bollocks, the poor invented the cluster bomb, napalm and the atomic bomb did they?

Hmmm, who's been using those things... oh that's right, governments. Though they don't call that crime, but rather 'war.'

The rest of your post is shite as well, are you a fan of Eugenics?

Not when it's state controlled. But I do look forward to the day when genetic engineering makes saving up to have a child that one can ensure is healthy, gifted, and capable attainable. Then perhaps the notion of quality over quantity will finally become attainable as the desirable means of procreation. As it stands we subsidize large families through the tax code. To hell with large families and the environmental and financial strain they place upon society. You want a lot of kids? you'd best be prepared to pay for them yourself, otherwise let the fuckers starve.

Who decides which child is healthy and gifted, you? I don’t think so. You don’t have children do you? As for your comment “let the fuckers starve” if you had been drowned at birth, by your ideology at least some child could be born with some humility and humanity.

[Jay G]

Still wondering what the military would like in a libertarian country. Fifty militias? We used to have militias based around counties. They defended Washington in the War of 1812.

A volunteer force, entrusted with protecting the national borders and retaliating against acts of war. Think our military now, but without bases all around the world (but rather in our country) acting as border patrols during peace time, not engaging in preemptive wars, disinterested in nation building or the internal political affairs of other countries, and with a much smaller budget.

There would also be dramatic changes in law enforcement as well, and how sad it is that the line between the military and law enforcement is sometimes a difficult one to draw these days.

You would have the USA wait until we are attacked here, in our cities, with thousands or millions of deaths BEFORE we would be able to defend ourselves? It seems to me (I"m not a military person) that you have an 18th century concept of war and foreign affairs. The type of armed force you speak of might have been able to protect us in the good old days BEFORE the 20th century, but I just don't think it would work today.

If we WERE attacked, how would we be able to take the fight to the enemy with a volunteer force such as you envision? Take WWII, for example. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, would your volunteer force be able to strike at Japan? Didn't that war require exactly the type of armed forces that can do more than just sit around waiting for an attack to happen to us?

[Drewish]

Interesting post. You say you were a fan of Rand until you came to the conclusion she "wasn't violent enough". What does that mean? As you would know, being a fan of Rand, she was against violence. Are you saying that she was in favor of violence but just not enough violence to satisfy you? And just how much violence will satisfy you?

Under Rand's philosophy, there is no basis for collective defense. The use of the state as an arbiter for disputes and a national military is not justifiable under Objectivism. Rand simply hand waved that away. Though ideally no centralized military force sounds wonderful, the existence of other national militaries necessitates having one. It's similar to nuclear war heads. Ideally no, but if others have them, so should you. Slow and steady disarmament treaties are wonderful, but Objectivism deals too much with proclaiming what the ideal should be, and avoids answering questions of how to actually get there. In this regard it is similar to Marxism. Thankfully we are not beholden to treating such philosophers as infallible demigods and can think for ourselves. Just as the modern progressive (or democratic socialist, depending on your region) movement seeks to find a practical application for their utilitarian values, so does the modern libertarian / neo-liberal movement seek the same for their individualist values.

As for your assertions regarding the poor, where is your evidence to back them up?

Are you suggesting that society ought to rid itself of poverty by exterminating the poor?

I advocate no active extermination of peoples. Merely not guaranteeing the provisions of sustenance to anyone. If a person can provide for them self and their loved ones, than good for them. If they seek the help of their neighbors and those neighbors voluntarily aid them, then I applaud such emergent community and charity. If a person has not the ability to provide for them self, nor the personable nature to procure aid, then why should they be guaranteed it? Why should society encourage the procreation of those whom demand food, shelter, and medical care as their birth right, but provide nothing in return?

Let natural selection sort it out and, just as in the past, those best adapted to the environment will thrive. In a modern society where skilled labor, interpersonal skills, and critical thought are the means of attaining success, it will be a a better world if we let the meek parish in obscurity. People are not all created equal, there is no such thing as "the soul," and the world has little need for more unskilled manual laborers. Do not look upon those with no job who simultaneously condemn the unfaithful with their self righteous ignorance, as your "fellow man" to be cared for.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com ... ligiosity/

They would hardly grant you the same comradery.

[Drewish]

Who decides which child is healthy and gifted, you? I don’t think so. You don’t have children do you? As for your comment “let the fuckers starve” if you had been drowned at birth, by your ideology at least some child could be born with some humility and humanity.

So glad that you wear your hatred on your sleeve, desiring that only those who share your ideology be spared and the rest deserve death. And the collectivists claim that they have left behind the in-group out-group morality of religions and gods

[Drewish]

You would have the USA wait until we are attacked here, in our cities, with thousands or millions of deaths BEFORE we would be able to defend ourselves? It seems to me (I"m not a military person) that you have an 18th century concept of war and foreign affairs. The type of armed force you speak of might have been able to protect us in the good old days BEFORE the 20th century, but I just don't think it would work today.

So you support premptive war? I do not, and feel that the cost of avoiding war unless first attacked (the cost being baring the brunt of an initial attack) is much less than allowing one's leaders to get the country involved in wars without provocation. I point to the present war in iraq, the Bay of Pigs, and Vietnam as examples to justify my position.

If we WERE attacked, how would we be able to take the fight to the enemy with a volunteer force such as you envision? Take WWII, for example. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, would your volunteer force be able to strike at Japan? Didn't that war require exactly the type of armed forces that can do more than just sit around waiting for an attack to happen to us?

What? We WERE attacked first by Japan, and we did defend ourselves, and people signed up like crazy after the attacks. Are you attempting to make my case for me?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Andrew, we lost ground like crazy at first. MacArthur wanted 200,000 troops in the P.I., the entire US Army wasn't that large when he made the request. And almost all those people that signed up need training, which takes time. We had the 16th largest army in the world, after Bulgaria, in 1940.