Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[Duke]

However, I'm not finished with this thread. Origianlly, the thread was supposed to be about the Libertarian Party -- so I'll try to stick with that. Now, I can no longer be accused of "stating misinformation" because everything I talk about from now on will be directly from the Party itself.

Why didn't I think of this before?!

You did think of it before. It's how you started your participation in the thread. However, you got a very large portion of the LP platform completely wrong, and you partly misinterpereted much of the rest.

Before I go into my next set of criticisms about the party though, I will conclude with my opinion of Libertarians:

In all honesty, I repectfully submit that you shouldn't bother. You've clearly made your decision, nothing is going to sway you from it, and although you've been completely rebutted by any actual Libertarian or Libertarian sympathizer who's entered this thread, you continue to tell us how we should feel about our own political party and have insistently told us we don't understand it.

Libertarianism appeals to 2 different types of people. Thugs, who idolize the already successful and have nothing but disdain for the powerless and the poor, and narcissists. If it's not money and property they worship, it's themselves. It's hard to read Libertarian rhetoric without concluding that these people have never left the country -- except of course when they spend tens of thousands of dollars on vacation. They don't know what Latin American rule by the elite looks like, they don't know what an actual oppressive government looks like, they've never experienced a depression, they've never lived in a slum, never faced racial discrimination, probably never even left suburbs (except for aforementioned vacations). Yet at the same time they have this overwhelming sense of entitlement -- a feeling that they've somehow earned the wealth that they were born into, they owe nothing to the community, they deserve to have whatever they want in the form of "total personal freedom", and that no one should stand in their way. If I'm the authoritarian, then they're the spoiled 5 year old that kicks and screams whenever they don't get their way.

DISCLAIMER: Not all Libertarians are the same. Some people, like Duke, Dan, (hopefully) Sage and whoever else, are attracted to SOME parts of the Libertarian ideology (and there's nothing wrong with that) but intelligent enough to ignore its implicit "morality".

First off, you only named one type of person.

Second off, although you made a token effort to label that rant as your 'opinion', speaking from my own experience and as someone who has conversed with other Libertarians at length, volunteered in a Libertarian political campaign, participated in Libertarian symposia, and read extensively on Libertarian philosophy and politics, I'm here to tell you that you have almost completely mischaracterized the average Libertarian, based entirely on your preconceived notions.

Third off, I'm charmed once again at your ability to dictate to me what I think
and how I understand my own political, philosophical, and moral views. I will thank you to remove my name from that list above since you have not only managed to assume you know what I think better than I do, but in fact have gotten both the interpretation of Libertarian morality and my opinion of that morality 100% dead wrong.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

You did think of it before. It's how you started your participation in the thread.

Has it really been that long? Wow...

However, you got a very large portion of the LP platform completely wrong, and you partly misinterpereted much of the rest.

Which is exactly why I'm going to bring it again.

and although you've been completely rebutted by any actual Libertarian or Libertarian sympathizer who's entered this thread,

Really?

you continue to tell us how we should feel about our own political party and have insistently told us we don't understand it.

I never implied that you don't understand your political party. Also, I never made any comments that would even suggest that you should feel a certain way about your political party.

First off, you only named one type of person.

Didn't.

Second off, although you made a token effort to label that rant as your 'opinion', speaking from my own experience and as someone who has conversed with other Libertarians at length, volunteered in a Libertarian political campaign, participated in Libertarian symposia, and read extensively on Libertarian philosophy and politics, I'm here to tell you that you have almost completely mischaracterized the average Libertarian, based entirely on your preconceived notions.

Misinterpretation.

Third off, I'm charmed once again at your ability to dictate to me what I think and how I understand my own political, philosophical, and moral views.

I haven't dictated anything -- but if that's the way you feel.

I will thank you to remove my name from that list above since you have not only managed to assume you know what I think better than I do, but in fact have gotten both the interpretation of Libertarian morality and my opinion of that morality 100% dead wrong.

That's saying something. *names removed*

These are platform issues that I feel need to be addressed:

For example:

Governments facing fiscal crises should always default in preference to raising taxes.

We favor the repeal of all federal, state and local laws creating "crimes" without victims.

We also oppose forced treatment for the elderly, the head-injured, or those with diminished capacity.

We would provide for free market ownership of airwave frequencies,

We demand an end to the taxation of privately owned real property. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.

We favor substituting the present secrecy system with one in which no individual may be convicted for violating government secrecy classifications

We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, regulating or requiring the ownership, manufacture, transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition. We oppose all laws requiring registration of firearms or ammunition. We support repeal of all gun control laws. We demand the immediate abolition of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

While we do not advocate private discrimination, we do not support any laws which attempt to limit or ban it.

The repeal of all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production and interest rates.

We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the US Constitution.

All restrictions upon the private minting of coins must be abolished, so that minting will be open to the competition of the free market.

We call for the abolition of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Banking System, and all similar national and state interventions affecting banking and credit.

We call for the abolition of all regulation of financial and capital markets. What should be punished is the theft of information or breach of contract to hold information in confidence, not trading on the basis of valuable knowledge.

We call for the abolition of the Securities and Exchange Commission

To be effective, a balanced budget amendment should provide:

that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes; and

that no exception be made for periods of national emergency.

We also oppose state or federal limits on the size of private companies and on the right of companies to merge.

We call for the repeal of all anti-trust laws, including the Robinson-Patman Act, which restricts price discounts, and the Sherman and Clayton Anti-Trust acts. We further call for the abolition of both the Federal Trade Commission and the anti-trust division of the Department of Justice.

The unrestricted competition of the free market is the best way to foster prosperity.

All government-owned energy resources should be turned over to private ownership.

End governmental interference in consumer affairs by eliminating the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Food and Drug Administration

We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended. We call for the repeal of the guarantees of tax-funded, government-provided education, which are found in most state constitutions. We condemn compulsory education laws…and we call for an immediate repeal of such laws.

We further support immediate reduction of tax support for schools, and removal of the burden of school taxes from those not responsible for the education of children.

We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation -- including the Department of Transportation, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Aviation Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board, the Coast Guard, and the Federal Maritime Commission -- and the transfer of their legitimate functions to competitive private firms. We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of airports, air traffic control systems, public roads and the national highway system.

We support repeal of all laws that impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws, so-called "protective" labor legislation for women and children,

We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We advocate a complete separation of medicine from the State. We support an end to government-provided health insurance and health care.

We advocate the establishment of an efficient and just system of private water rights applied to all bodies of water, surface and underground. Such a system should be built upon a doctrine of first claim and use. The allocation of water should be governed by unrestricted competition and unregulated prices.

We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

There should be no state or federal restriction of ballot access. Voters may submit their own choices including the option of using "tickets" or cards printed by candidates or political parties.

e support withdrawal of the United States government from, and an end to its financial support for, the United Nations.

We urge the development of objective international standards for recognizing homesteaded claims to private ownership of such forms of property as transportation lanes, broadcast bands, mineral rights, fishing rights and ocean farming rights.

We support the privatization of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

We oppose laws infringing on children's rights to work or learn, such as child labor laws and compulsory education laws. We also oppose the use of curfews based on age.

Wherever possible, private security agencies should replace public institutions.

Abolish the entrenched system of classification of information except for all matters that pass a private sector citizen review board and are determined as true national security.

We oppose all restrictions and regulations on the private development, sale, and use of encryption technology. We specifically oppose any requirement for disclosure of encryption methods or keys, including the government's proposals for so-called "key escrow" which is truly government access to keys, and any requirement for use of government-specified devices or protocols. We also oppose government classification of civilian research on encryption methods.

However, children always have the right to establish their maturity by assuming administration and protection of their own rights, ending dependency upon their parents or other guardians, and assuming all responsibilities of adulthood. A child is a human being and, as such, deserves to be treated justly.

*editing complete*

 

[Duke]

I never implied that you don't understand your political party. Also, I never made any comments that would even suggest that you should feel a certain way about your political party.

I disagree. You've consistently told me what the policies of Libertarianism mean, and you've been consistently wrong. Since you obviously trust your own interpretation, by definition that must mean that I don't understand my own political party. I'll withdraw the second half of that, but only because it's a tangent.

Didn't.

You're correct; I offer my apologies. I missed the word "narcissists" in there. It seemed that all that followed was a characterization of the "thugs" mentioned in the first sentence.

Misinterpretation.

How so? You were emphatically clear about your opinion of libertarians. I'm telling you that I have personally met, worked with, read works by, and discussed libertarianism with a large sampling of people identifying themselves as "Libertarians" over the last 25+ years. I have met none that match your characterization of the "two types of people" to whom Libertarianism appeals.

That's saying something. *names removed*

Although I only asked for my name to be removed, I would assume that the others appreciate that courtesy as well. Thank you.

Apparently that means you accept everything and anything this party stands for.

Your assertion above makes no logical sense whatseover, and all of us have repeatedly discussed areas where we do not accept certain portions of the LP platform.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I disagree. You've consistently told me what the policies of Libertarianism mean, and you've been consistently wrong. Since you obviously trust your own interpretation, by definition that must mean that I don't understand my own political party.

I disagree. It's all a matter of interpretation. You can look at a Picasso painting and see a masterpiece, while all I see are squiggly lines. You obviously understand the party better than I do -- I'm with the Republicans. I'm only stating my interpretation based on what I see. It's not fair to ONLY provide one point of view when discussing topics such as these.

You're correct; I offer my apologies. I missed the word "narcissists" in there. It seemed that all that followed was a characterization of the "thugs" mentioned in the first sentence.

That's OK. 👍

How so? You were emphatically clear about your opinion of libertarians. I'm telling you that I have personally met, worked with, read works by, and discussed libertarianism with a large sampling of people identifying themselves as "Libertarians" over the last 25+ years.

I'm not trying to invalidate that fact. Still just voicing my interpretation/opinion.

I have met none that match your characterization of the "two types of people" to whom Libertarianism appeals.

Just because Libertarianism would appeal to the two types described above, doesn't mean that Libertarianism WON'T appeal to genuinely good people. Perhaps my wording was a bit "off".

Although I only asked for my name to be removed, I would assume that the others appreciate that courtesy as well. Thank you.

Thinking ahead...

Your assertion above makes no logical sense whatseover, and all of us have repeatedly discussed areas where we do not accept certain portions of the LP platform.

I've highlighted several platform issues that I find weird. Some are quite disturbing. Care to explain?

 

[Danoff]

I've highlighted several platform issues that I find weird. Some are quite disturbing. Care to explain?

There's nothing wrong with the ones you highlighted or most of that list. You obviously disagree completely with the libertarian philosophy since you practically listed the entire platfrom.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

There's nothing wrong with the ones you highlighted or most of that list. You obviously disagree completely with the libertarian philosophy since you practically listed the entire platfrom.

There's nothing there that you disagree with? Nothing you would like to discuss? I brought up several new issues that were not previously discussed.

 

[Danoff]

There's nothing there that you disagree with? Nothing you would like to discuss? I brought up several new issues that were not previously discussed.

We'll we've touched on both of those breifly but haven't gone into great detail. You know what I think (it's written in red). What do you think?

 

[Swift]

To be honest guys. The libertarian ideals in general aren't too bad. But I don't get the whole lack of identification. HOw are you supposed to know who you just highered? That's something that just makes no sense to me.

 

[Sage]

Yup, you can take me off that list too. There are a couple minor loose ends within the party (mostly about war and immigration), but otherwise I agree with 99% of what they stand for. And as Dan stated, none of us find anything wrong with any of the platform issues you highlighted (including the red highlights).

At the risk of offending you, Swift, and anybody else here who's religious, I have to say this upfront, because I've been holding it in too long: I sincerely believe the only reason you are against Libertarian philosophy is because you were raised (and have continued to be) religious. Because you are religious, you feel the need for "morals" (your definition of morals, mind you) to be applied to everyone else. Every atheist friend I have is either a Libertarian or is very close to being one… that's not to say that atheists are inherently Libertarian (Communists being the obvious exception), but because they have not been taught that they need to (for some reason) force their morals on others, they find the Libertarian platform ideal.

I don't mean to turn this into a thread discussing religion (we already have another thread for that), but there is no doubt in my mind that that is the central, dividing issue between us. If you were raised in a non-religious household, I guarantee that you wouldn't be so eager to force moral values on others.

There's more that I want to say about that, but as I said in a PM to Swift, I really run the risk of totally offending the bloody heck out of anybody religious here, so I'll leave it at that. Just know that this argument is a result of Christians wanting to form a society in their own view that follows their own morals, instead of taking other people's lives and morals into consideration. Now that is a kind of selfishness I cannot stand.

I'm done now. And depressed.

[edit]:

To be honest guys. The libertarian ideals in general aren't too bad. But I don't get the whole lack of identification. HOw are you supposed to know who you just highered? That's something that just makes no sense to me.

I consider that a "loose end". ID is too useful to get rid of.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

While we do not advocate private discrimination, we do not support any laws which attempt to limit or ban it.

I think they're obligated to say that they're not advocates of private discrimination. If they left that part out, the party would have limited appeal.

Not supporting any laws to limit or ban private discrimination is the same as allowing it to happen. If a company decides it will only cater to a certain customers, then that would be a restriction on a person's right to choose.

There are a couple minor loose ends within the party (mostly about war and immigration), but otherwise I agree with 99% of what they stand for.

Including private discrimination. So if a hotel says Anthony and I aren't allowed to stay because _____________, that's OK with you?

 

[Swift]

At the risk of offending you and Swift, I have to say this upfront, because I've been holding it in too long: I sincerely believe the only reason you are against Libertarian philosophy is because you were raised (and have continued to be) religious. Because you are religious, you feel the need for "morals" (your definition of morals, mind you) to be applied to everyone else. Every atheist friend I have is either a Libertarian or is very close to being one… that's not to say that atheists are inherently Libertarian (Communists being the obvious exception), but because they have not been taught that they need to (for some reason) force their morals on others, they find the Libertarian platform ideal.

I'm done now. And depressed.

Well, considering I've only been "religous" for the last 5 years of my life, I'd say that's a fairly inaccurate statement. Also, you show my one Christrian moral that does harm to your fellow countrymen.

Libertarianism could only work if every crime against humanity was punished to the extreme level. And that can't happen with our current constitution. I mean rapist should loose there ability to rape. Drunk drivers should never be able to drive a car again in life. Murderers should be killed and so on. If that was the case, then it might work. But if not, then it will be even more futile then our current system.

 

[Sage]

Including private discrimination. So if a hotel says Anthony and I aren't allowed to stay because _____________, that's OK with you?

Yes. People (including me) will boycott it (because people do care about morals without having the government slam it down our throats), and the hotel will either go out of business or force itself to change its policy.

[edit]:

Also, you show my one Christrian moral that does harm to your fellow countrymen.

If you mean like Biblical morals, then you're right, there aren't any. That's no reason to force them on everybody else though. I have no morals that would harm anybody, but I don't have the right to think that that's what's best for everybody else.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Because you are religious, you feel the need for "morals" (your definition of morals, mind you) to be applied to everyone else.

To set the record straight, that's not true. My morals are my morals. Your morals are your morals. However, telling me insider trading should be legal, and telling me that we should go back to 1940s America where people were discriminated against on the basis of ________, is something that I cannot agree with.

*edit*

Do you know what the FDA does, Sage?

*edit*

Or the SEC?

*edit*

Or the FDIC?

The Libertarian Party (the one you 99% agree with if I recall) strongly believes that all of these institutions should eliminated.

*edit*

There are a couple minor loose ends within the party (mostly about war and immigration), but otherwise I agree with 99% of what they stand for. And as Dan stated, none of us find anything wrong with any of the platform issues you highlighted (including the red highlights).

I was right then...

...and NONE? No one finds anything wrong with any of these issues? Care to explain?

 

[Danoff]

Not supporting any laws to limit or ban private discrimination is the same as allowing it to happen. If a company decides it will only cater to a certain customers, then that would be a restriction on a person's right to choose.

Where does it say in the constitution that man cannot discriminate against man for whatever reason? The only time when discrimination should be illegal is when it is funded by the public. Privately, all discrimination should be free.

Including private discrimination. So if a hotel says Anthony and I aren't allowed to stay because _____________, that's OK with you?

It's the hotel owner's hotel. HIS business that HE started with his own blood sweat and tears. He owns it, he controls it, and if he wants to put a sign up in the window tha says black people not allowed - then he should be able to. But he'll go out of business in a week so he won't.

Do you know what the FDA does, Sage?

Do you know what the FDA does Brian? It murders thousands of people by preventing life saving drugs from being offered while people who desperately need those drugs (and want to pay for them) die. That's what the FDA does, it kills.

The SEC is unnecessary, as is the FDIC. But those two are tiny government entities that do very little harm comparitively. Think about the billions upon billions of dollars wasted by the IRS and our tax laws designed to discriminate against some citizens (though it isn't about race). The IRS costs about 10 billion a year alone, let alone the countless amount of money that the tax code wastes.

Let's tackle some larger government entities that should die - more like the FDA... how about OSHA?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Where does it say in the constitution that man cannot discriminate against man for whatever reason? The only time when discrimination should be illegal is when it is funded by the public. Privately, all discrimination should be free.

But that doesn't mean you're an advocate of private discrimination... I think I'm starting to get it now.

It's the hotel owner's hotel. HIS business that HE started with his own blood sweat and tears. He owns it, he controls it, and if he wants to put a sign up in the window tha says black people not allowed - then he should be able to.

So we limit freedom of choice and justify it with wealth.

But he'll go out of business in a week so he won't.

I don't remember hearing about segregated businesses filing for bankruptcy before the Civil Rights Movement.

Do you know what the FDA does Brian? It murders thousands of people by preventing life saving drugs from being offered while people who desperately need those drugs (and want to pay for them) die. That's what the FDA does, it kills.

So we let the free-market rule healthcare and push drug prices up so high that only the wealthy would be afford it. Healthcare procedures would be so expensive that, again, only the wealthy would be able to afford it. Combine that with the decriminalization of illegal drugs and then what? Presumably the price of weed would less than the price of chemotherapy if left to the free market. What kind of message is that sending to society?

As far as the FDA killing people: If you're referring to the FDAs "speed of approval" that law has been changed many times to speed up the process. In fact, now the process is so fast, the FDA has had to WITHDRAW several drugs becuase of there was insufficient time to research them.

If speed of approval is not the problem, what evidence do you have of the FDA killing people?

The SEC is unnecessary,

You wouldn't be "in the market" if the SEC didn't exist. Enron, WorldCom, Martha Stewart -- all of that happened WITH the SEC. Can you imagine what investing would be like WITHOUT it?

as is the FDIC.

Aside from the fact that savings accounts are insured up to $100,000 in the event of a bank failure.

Think about the billions upon billions of dollars wasted by the IRS and our tax laws designed to discriminate against some citizens (though it isn't about race).

If you're talking about the graduated income tax then yes. If you're talking about national defense, healthcare, public education etc... no.

The IRS costs about 10 billion a year alone, let alone the countless amount of money that the tax code wastes.

That does not justify its elimination. Reform is one thing; abolish is another.

Let's tackle some larger government entities that should die - more like the FDA... how about OSHA?

OSHA took steps to limit workers to exposure to hazardous substances such as lead, asbestos, pesticides, and toxic chemicals and noise. I don't see why anyone (especially someone who works in a factory) would want to eliminate that.

Let's say we do abolish OSHA and other legislation designed to restrict business -- I mean help workers -- minimum wage for example among other laws. Without a minimum wage, employees would be expected to work long hours and without any overtime. If an employee were to complain about not being paid enough, he/she could be fired immediatlely since high unemployment ensures that there would be no shortage of workers to take his/her place. In Chile, workers used to line up underbid each other for a week's work.

Can you point to a single country with labor laws similar to the Libertarian Party platform?

 

[ledhed]

All the regulatory commisions came into being because UNCHECKED the corporate leaders would screw thier own mothers in Maceys window and sell a live cable DVD of it , to make a buck. you are insane to think that unregulated capitalist entities will do anything but maximize pofit . often they will do it by any means .The regulatory commisions are not perfect and they waste money and sometimes they are run and staffed by buffoons . You do not throw them away you fix them. again ..you seem to think that there is no middle ground .

 

[Danoff]

But that doesn't mean you're an advocate of private discrimination... I think I'm starting to get it now.

I actually thought you were until I realized this was sarcastic.

So we limit freedom of choice and justify it with wealth.

No. Reread.

I don't remember hearing about segregated businesses filing for bankruptcy before the Civil Rights Movement.

That's because people chose to be racist. They choose not to now (they do choose). And one of the biggest problems with segregation was PUBLIC schools.

So we let the free-market rule healthcare and push drug prices up so high that only the wealthy would be afford it.

Ignore supply and demand whenever you feel like it.

As far as the FDA killing people: If you're referring to the FDAs "speed of approval" that law has been changed many times to speed up the process.

It still isn't instantaneous. It still results in deaths... and how many people has it killed in the process? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? I'm guessing hundreds.

You wouldn't be "in the market" if the SEC didn't exist. Enron, WorldCom, Martha Stewart -- all of that happened WITH the SEC. Can you imagine what investing would be like WITHOUT it?

Why yes, yes I can.

Aside from the fact that savings accounts are insured up to $100,000 in the event of a bank failure.

...a noble service that could not be provided by private insurance companies.

Let's say we do abolish OSHA and other legislation designed to restrict business -- I mean help workers -- minimum wage for example among other laws. Without a minimum wage, employees would be expected to work long hours and without any overtime. If an employee were to complain about not being paid enough, he/she could be fired immediatlely since high unemployment ensures that there would be no shortage of workers to take his/her place. In Chile, workers used to line up underbid each other for a week's work.

Uh that's what people do every day in America. Its called a free market. People underbid each other all the time. When you go to the store companies underbid each other to get your business. When you apply for a job you may be underbidding a competetor or a useless older employee who makes more than he's worth.

OSHA has been a huge waste of money both in the form of taxes and raising the cost of products as businesses are forced to spend money complaying with arbitrary restrictions.

 

[Danoff]

All the regulatory commisions came into being because UNCHECKED the corporate leaders would screw thier own mothers in Maceys window and sell a live cable DVD of it , to make a buck. you are insane to think that unregulated capitalist entities will do anything but maximize pofit . often they will do it by any means

...and you don't think that your employer is maximizing his profit? Does he pay you out of the kindess of his heart? How about you Brian? Are you employed because your employer is willing to take a loss on you?

Maximization of profit is what keeps us all employed.

Edit: and they will do it by any means which is why we have laws in the first place.

 

[Swift]

All the regulatory commisions came into being because UNCHECKED the corporate leaders would screw thier own mothers in Maceys window and sell a live cable DVD of it , to make a buck. you are insane to think that unregulated capitalist entities will do anything but maximize pofit . often they will do it by any means .The regulatory commisions are not perfect and they waste money and sometimes they are run and staffed by buffoons . You do not throw them away you fix them. again ..you seem to think that there is no middle ground .

I'm looking for the middle ground in this statement taken directly from the libertarian website.

Transitional Action: End governmental interference in consumer affairs by eliminating the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Food and Drug Administration and other ineffective governmental organizations. Repeal laws mandating use of safety equipment such as seat belts or crash helmets, which can be more effectively driven by consumer action in the marketplace.

 

[Danoff]

Transitional Action: End governmental interference in consumer affairs by eliminating the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Food and Drug Administration and other ineffective governmental organizations. Repeal laws mandating use of safety equipment such as seat belts or crash helmets, which can be more effectively driven by consumer action in the marketplace.

👍

 

[Swift]

👍

you completely missed the point of me posting that.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I actually thought you were until I realized this was sarcastic.

I wasn't being sarcastic -- I'm trying a different approach.

No. Reread.

I did, and I don't see it any other way. Telling someone "they cannot eat here, or cannot see a movie here" is limiting their freedom of choice. Now, combine that with the fact that the business owner OWNS the property on which the restaurant or theater stands. Just because the owner has the $$$ (wealth) he has the power to limit the choice (and subsequently the freedom) of the consumer.

That's because people chose to be racist. They choose not to now (they do choose). And one of the biggest problems with segregation was PUBLIC schools.

If you sincerely believe that, I will buy you plane ticket to New York. Show you what segregation REALLY looks like.

Ignore supply and demand whenever you feel like it.

I was going to draw a graph, but I still have other work to do. I did not ignore supply and demand. If the market price for a prescription drug reaches $1,200, what does the person do if they need that drug and only make $2/hr? Remember, no minimum wage laws, and no welfare for assistance.

It still isn't instantaneous. It still results in deaths... and how many people has it killed in the process? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? I'm guessing hundreds.

More like 20,000 and that was from the mid 80s to the early 90s -- back when approval was VERY slow. It's different now. Either way, that does not justify its elimination -- rather it should be reformed. Running away from problems doesn't solve the issue -- it only prolongs it.

Why yes, yes I can.

Describe it to me then. Describe to me what the securities industry would be like without the SEC.

...a noble service that could not be provided by private insurance companies.

Private insurance companies that will make sure that the wealthiest of their customers get paid first, or require a significant amount of money to have the insurance in the first place.

Uh that's what people do every day in America.

If this is the case, all the more reason why we SHOULD have a price floor on wages. Underbidding leads to poverty.

Its called a free market. People underbid each other all the time. When you go to the store companies underbid each other to get your business.

That's the way it should work. COMPANIES should underbid their products in order to attract customers (they can afford to do that). A man with a family shouldn't have to underbid his salary because that could mean the difference between living out on the street and having just enough money to "get by".

When you apply for a job you may be underbidding a competetor or a useless older employee who makes more than he's worth.

Yes, that may be true. But no one in their right mind (in the US anyway) walks into an interview and says "Please! Pay me less than what you think I should be paid! I REALLY NEED THIS JOB!!!"

OSHA has been a huge waste of money both in the form of taxes and raising the cost of products as businesses are forced to spend money complaying with arbitrary restrictions.

OSHA has done an excellent job improving the safety of workers in this country. Why do you think so many companies are outsourcing? They wouldn't need to outsource if they were inclined to "do the right thing" (in the US).

 

[ledhed]

I work now for a non profit mentalhealth orginization that cares for the people you would call homeless or helpless...they contribute at most ..thier existance along with some fecal matter and such..to society.
For 25 years before I went to work with them I was a self employed small business owner. I know a bit about maximizing my profit 💡 Or I would not have been able to survive after an injury for two years without working..or without help from the government of any kind. BUT that dosnt mean that everyone can do what I did .

If this is the case, all the more reason why we SHOULD have a price floor on wages. Underbidding leads to poverty

Thats moosepuddles ...and you work with money ? if your in business you bid what it takes to get the job and still make something or you FAIL and go out of business for being an idiot. WTF kind of crazy statement is that ? It leads to your poverty BECAUSE YOUR A FRIGGIN DOPE .

 

[Danoff]

For 25 years before I went to work with them I was a self employed small business owner. I know a bit about maximizing my profit Or I would not have been able to survive after an injury for two years without working..or without help from the government of any kind. BUT that dosnt mean that everyone can do what I did .

I'm glad you see where I'm coming from. I'm sure your employers though you were cheating them out of more money and better health care - they seem to think that employers are made of money.... which brings me to Brian's post.

I did, and I don't see it any other way. Telling someone "they cannot eat here, or cannot see a movie here" is limiting their freedom of choice. Now, combine that with the fact that the business owner OWNS the property on which the restaurant or theater stands. Just because the owner has the $$$ (wealth) he has the power to limit the choice (and subsequently the freedom) of the consumer.

Do you have a right to purchase that store owners products? He chose to offer them, he can choose not to. I could start a business tomorrow but i choose not to, am I restricting the choices of my future ficticious customers? Your logic here is so flawed it's hard to know where to begin.

I was going to draw a graph, but I still have other work to do. I did not ignore supply and demand. If the market price for a prescription drug reaches $1,200, what does the person do if they need that drug and only make $2/hr? Remember, no minimum wage laws, and no welfare for assistance.

You don't get the drug. You obviously can't afford the drug so you don't get it. What's so hard about that. Some cars cost 100's of thousands of dollars. I don't get them because I can't afford them. Some good costs too much for me, I don't buy it because I can't afford it.

I could live longer and healthier if I quit my job and worked out all day, but I can't afford it so I don't get to live longer.

More like 20,000 and that was from the mid 80s to the early 90s -- back when approval was VERY slow. It's different now. Either way, that does not justify its elimination -- rather it should be reformed. Running away from problems doesn't solve the issue -- it only prolongs it.

More like a million - but whatever, what's the differnce between 20,000 and a hundred thousand lives anyway. The FDA has killed people since it was started and you want to keep it around. It is obviously a failure. It should be eliminated.

Describe it to me then. Describe to me what the securities industry would be like without the SEC.

Try to imagine it.

If this is the case, all the more reason why we SHOULD have a price floor on wages. Underbidding leads to poverty.

I thought you understood the market. You and I are paid as little as possible to get someone who will produce our levell of work quality. That's the way business works.

That's the way it should work. COMPANIES should underbid their products in order to attract customers (they can afford to do that). A man with a family shouldn't have to underbid his salary because that could mean the difference between living out on the street and having just enough money to "get by".

Oh my god! You raving socialist! Spare me the "comapnies are made of infinte money and can withstand paying anyone anything" argument.

Yes, that may be true. But no one in their right mind (in the US anyway) walks into an interview and says "Please! Pay me less than what you think I should be paid! I REALLY NEED THIS JOB!!!"

No, because we have a (nearly) free market. Still, you get paid as little as the company is willing to pay you - and they try hard to maximize their profits. That's what makes America great and our opportunities abundant.

Why do you think so many companies are outsourcing? They wouldn't need to outsource if they were inclined to "do the right thing" (in the US).

Because they don't have to deal with OSHA in other countries. they don't have to pay the huge taxes and deal with the cost of the red tape people like you slap on them because "they can afford it". Outsourcing is a problem caused by people who say exactly the things you do.

 

[ledhed]

By your logic we would all have died of polio by now except for the few lucky people who could have afforded to pay. It wont work the cost of some drugs can be prohibiting without a subsidy.

 

[Danoff]

By your logic we would all have died of polio by now except for the few lucky people who could have afforded to pay. It wont work the cost of some drugs can be prohibiting without a subsidy.

Yes, humanity would have been wiped out by polio if a cure had not been found... and that cure had to be distributed at everyone's cost.

By my logic would would not have died of polio, and yes only those who could have afforded it or were beneficiaries of charity would get the vaccine - which would be nearly everyone.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Do you have a right to purchase that store owners products?

Yes. It's my money.

He chose to offer them, he can choose not to. I could start a business tomorrow but i choose not to, am I restricting the choices of my future ficticious customers? Your logic here is so flawed it's hard to know where to begin.

That's different. Not starting a business is different than having a business and stopping people from buying from your product.

You don't get the drug. You obviously can't afford the drug so you don't get it. What's so hard about that.

Tell that to someone on their death bed with only a few hours to live.

"Well, I'm sorry sir. You don't get the drug that could save your life. You obviosly can't afford the drug so you don't get."

Oh yeah, I can see how easy that would be. <<< that's sarcasm

Some cars cost 100's of thousands of dollars. I don't get them because I can't afford them.

You would DARE to compare a car to medicine! An automoblie is a LUXURY item... it is a privelage. You don't need a car to survive! That's why we have public transportation. Though, you'd probably do away with that too... <<< that's sarcasm

Some good costs too much for me, I don't buy it because I can't afford it.

Are these so-called goods necessary for your survival? Or we talking about LUXURY goods here?

It is obviously a failure. It should be eliminated.

Survival of the fittest, right? I guess evolution doesn't work, then...

Why are you so averse to reform? Why are you hell bent on elimination?

Try to imagine it.

I did. And for some reason, I keep going back to the 1920s for inspiration.

I thought you understood the market. You and I are paid as little as possible to get someone who will produce our levell of work quality. That's the way business works.

In Chile, the poverty rate jumped from 20% to 41% under Pinochet and his free market reforms (not unlike the one's your advocating).

Oh my god! You raving socialist! Spare me the "comapnies are made of infinte money and can withstand paying anyone anything" argument.

Hang on a minute! I thought I was a fascist? Make up your mind Dan they're on opposite sides of the political scale!

Anyway, I know companies don't have infinite capital. However, in order for a for-profit business to START, it needs to have sufficient investment capital. Now, this "starting" money can easily amount to more than some people make after 3-5 years worth of work. You tell me who's more likely to be hurting for money. Besides, without certain restrictions on business, a business owner can always get "creative" with their numbers.

No, because we have a (nearly) free market. Still, you get paid as little as the company is willing to pay you - and they try hard to maximize their profits. That's what makes America great and our opportunities abundant.

You claim that we have "nearly" a free market. Isn't that enough for you? Why would you want to have a totally unrestricted market economy?

Because they don't have to deal with OSHA in other countries.

These "countries" that don't have worker safety laws... can you name any of them?

they don't have to pay the huge taxes and deal with the cost of the red tape people like you slap on them because "they can afford it".

Businesses are looking for cheap labor. Businesses want to move to other countries because the labor laws there are rather "Libertarian".

Outsourcing is a problem caused by people who say exactly the things you do.

Outsourcing is a problem because there are countries who care about their workers health and safety and others that do not. Obviously it costs more to care about workers health and safety, so what would be the next best option?

 

[Duke]

I did, and I don't see it any other way. Telling someone "they cannot eat here, or cannot see a movie here" is limiting their freedom of choice. Now, combine that with the fact that the business owner OWNS the property on which the restaurant or theater stands. Just because the owner has the $$$ (wealth) he has the power to limit the choice (and subsequently the freedom) of the consumer.

Again, your concept of "rights" is far too broad. A private commercial business is not a public institution. The business owner has a right to dispose of or use his property as he sees fit. If he doesn't want to let in black people or gay people or fat people or ugly people, it's his right. If he can afford to eke out a living from the few who meet his criteria, he can do it. Odds are that his business model will include maximizing his customer base instead. Most do.

You seem to always equate economic power with graft and corruption. That's an odd thing for a person of your professed politico-economic persuasion. What's wrong with owning something and using it as you see fit?

You own a house or an apartment. You're restricting my so-called freedom of choice by not letting me live there. Move out and rent it to me - I insist. otherwise you're violating my right to choose. Cook me a meal I like and sell it to me. Otherwise you're violating my right to choose. I'm the consumer. By your logic I should have ultimate power over you.

If you sincerely believe that, I will buy you plane ticket to New York. Show you what segregation REALLY looks like.

Please tell me you're not going to start a 'rich white folks versus oppressed minorities' thing here.

I was going to draw a graph, but I still have other work to do. I did not ignore supply and demand. If the market price for a prescription drug reaches $1,200, what does the person do if they need that drug and only make $2/hr? Remember, no minimum wage laws, and no welfare for assistance.

They don't get it. What happens if the price of anything is anything I can't afford? I don't get it. Why should I be entitled to it just because I'm breathing?

If this is the case, all the more reason why we SHOULD have a price floor on wages. Underbidding leads to poverty.

That's the way it should work. COMPANIES should underbid their products in order to attract customers (they can afford to do that). A man with a family shouldn't have to underbid his salary because that could mean the difference between living out on the street and having just enough money to "get by".

Look at it this way: Are you being greedy and profit-obsessed when you ask for the highest wage you reasonably expect to get paid? Surely you could accept a minimum-wage job so as not to be too greedy. Besides, minimum-wage jobs are supposed to provide a living, right? So you can afford to do that.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Again, your concept of "rights" is far too broad. A private commercial business is not a public institution.

According to the party platform there would be very few (if any) public institutions.

You seem to always equate economic power with graft and corruption. That's an odd thing for a person of your professed politico-economic persuasion. What's wrong with owning something and using it as you see fit?

The free market does not know how to deal with certain aspects of society -- which is why there are laws in place that protect the consumer.

You own a house or an apartment. You're restricting my so-called freedom of choice by not letting me live there. Move out and rent it to me - I insist. otherwise you're violating my right to choose. Cook me a meal I like and sell it to me. Otherwise you're violating my right to choose. I'm the consumer. By your logic I should have ultimate power over you.

Property = power

Please tell me you're not going to start a 'rich white folks versus oppressed minorities' thing here.

No, I've heard enough of that already. I'm talking about de facto segregation.

They don't get it. What happens if the price of anything is anything I can't afford? I don't get it. Why should I be entitled to it just because I'm breathing?

Well, without it, you won't be breathing for much longer.

Look at it this way: Are you being greedy and profit-obsessed when you ask for the highest wage you reasonably expect to get paid?

Perhaps, though it depends on the job.

 

[ledhed]

For the libertarian party to viable ..I.E. actually get candidates elected , the platform would have to be ummmmm adjusted somewhat ( judging by there track record in elections ). what do the libertarians in this thread think they can do to create a platform that would actually get someone elected to office so they can implement ..or at least try to implement reforms ?