The Libertarian Delusion...

[Shadow Wolf]

Some modern countries have had little in the way of personal possessions, eg, N Korea.

There are still plenty of a scattered areas throughout the world where the people have in the ways of personal posession and are not tribal. Many religious societies, such as the Quakers and Amish, come to mind. There are many other communal societies scattered throughout.

 

[Revoltingest]

There are still plenty of a scattered areas throughout the world where the people have in the ways of personal posession and are not tribal. Many religious societies, such as the Quakers and Amish, come to mind. There are many other communal societies scattered throughout.

Isn't it great that we individually get to decide whether we want many or few personal possessions!?
I'd hate to live in a country where government would decide it for me.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Isn't it great that we individually get to decide whether we want many or few personal possessions!?
I'd hate to live in a country where government would decide it for me.

Actually, we need to have less because having the abundance we do is not sustainable. Our house of glass cards has really achieved nothing but waste the resources of the world and make people docile through materialism and consumerism. The amount we have does need to be limited in many ways (such as better farming practices, which includes doing away with the profit incentive for growing food, which has only given us horribly inefficient and wasteful farming practices) before we destroy the planet.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually, we need to have less because having the abundance we do is not sustainable. Our house of glass cards has really achieved nothing but waste the resources of the world and make people docile through materialism and consumerism. The amount we have does need to be limited in many ways (such as better farming practices, which includes doing away with the profit incentive for growing food, which has only given us horribly inefficient and wasteful farming practices) before we destroy the planet.

If farmers don't make a profit, then why would they grow food for anyone else?

You know what I hate....employees want a wage, ie, to profit from their labor.
If they'd just work for free (like those farmers), I could charge less.

 

[Curious George]

I ran across something today on another forum. The poster had a personal connection with the victim in this police shooting.
Man shot in face by Volusia County deputy dies


Now, one might wonder what the connection here is with the "Libertarian delusion".
Well, I'll tell ya.....
In the linked article about this apparently unjust execution of a young man, we see no mention of the race of the shooter (cop) or the victim. One may correctly deduce from this that the victim is white. So this doesn't show up in national news.....no one is chanting "<such & such race> lives matter"....& Al Sharpton is just sleeping in late. This is the liberal delusion, ie, that injustice is something which exists only for those without "privilege". The libertarian view is that there is a problem with murderous & unaccountable cops & courts, & that they are a threat to us all...not just black folk. I joined the party in part because they fight injustices ignored by Pubs & Dems, eg, the military draft, civil forfeiture without due process, the surveillance state, ballooning government, dysfunctional taxation, broken tort system, the police state, etc.

Broken tort system? Please explain.

What is the libertarian idea of government? Surely regulation in some instances is absolutely necessary. But I get it, you perceive the government to be involving itself unnecessarily. But please explain. Cliche jargon such as ballooning government are not helpful. I am willing, and enjoy reading many of your posts, but I haven't been on in a while so you will have to link me to where you detail your opinions.

 

[Revoltingest]

Broken tort system? Please explain.

Let's say someone files a frivolous suit against me, with not basis, not evidence, & having done no due diligence. Such a suit might cost me between $10,000 & $100,000, & take as much as 3 years to adjudicate.
- There should be sanctions against a plaintiff who loses the suit, but causes me such a loss.
- There should be intermediate steps to see if there's really a case.
- It should be handled much faster.
- The system is rigged such that non lawyers cannot effectively advocate for themselves. The only thing we can do is some of the case's grunt work to minimize the cost.

What is the libertarian idea of government?

We typically favor a constitutional representative democracy.

Surely regulation in some instances is absolutely necessary.

I often state the very same thing. People often confuse libertarians with strict anarchists. Libertarians (N Americastanian types who actually belong to eponymous parties) believe in government (minimal), the rule of law, & regulations....we're "minarchists".

But I get it, you perceive the government to be involving itself unnecessarily.

I don't know what this means.

But please explain.

I have been. If I'm unclear or incomplete, just ask away.

Cliche jargon such as ballooning government are not helpful.

Unfortunately, no matter what term I use to describe a continually growing bloated government will always be called "cliche", "right wing regurgitation", or some such dismissive epithet. Just look at the OP. Btw, those in glass houses should not....you know.

I am willing, and enjoy reading many of your posts, but I haven't been on in a while so you will have to link me to where you detail your opinions.

I wouldn't know where to start.
And given the amount of work it takes to give detailed analyses of things like our economic crash, I don't post'm every day.

 

[Curious George]

Let's say someone files a frivolous suit against me, with not basis, not evidence, & having done no due diligence. Such a suit might cost me between $10,000 & $100,000, & take as much as 3 years to adjudicate.
- There should be sanctions against a plaintiff who loses the suit, but causes me such a loss.
- There should be intermediate steps to see if there's really a case.
- It should be handled much faster.
- The system is rigged such that non lawyers cannot effectively advocate for themselves. The only thing we can do is some of the case's grunt work to minimize the cost.


Unfortunately, no matter what term I use to describe a continually growing bloated government will always be called "cliche", "right wing regurgitation", or some such dismissive epithet. Just look at the OP. Btw, those in glass houses should not....you know.
.

There are sanctions, u are free to file a motion for dismissal, so steps are in place, handled faster is definitely a hard one maybe we should expand the overbloated court system in order to provide for smaller case loads and quickness. The process can of course only go so fast and allow due process at each step. Really I am failing to see how any of what your saying makes sense with regard to the court system when all of what you have stated save speed is already addressed by the court system.

Yes, some might call it right wing regurgitation, but not me in this instance. I am however asking you to articulate something more specific. What is overbloated? How is it overbloated? I get the general idea that you are saying there is more than necessary, but nothing in particular...do we have too many presidents? Too many congressmen? Too many prisons? Is the FTC prevention of fraud unnecessary, the fda regulation of drugs? Do we have too many firefighters? Too many schools? Too many construction companies? Should we not have a planning commission? General statements about the government don't convey anything other than an overarching sentiment.

 

[Curious George]

[QUOTE="Revoltingest, post: 4247226, member: 22490".

We typically favor a constitutional representative democracy.
.[/QUOTE]
Awesome, so libertarians prefer to elect government officials to act and make decisions within the bounds of the constitution. So we are living in a near ideal libertarian state?

 

[Revoltingest]

There are sanctions.....

Sanctions are quite rare, & depend upon the plaintiff offending the judge (from the 2 I know of).

....u are free to file a motion for dismissal....

Those are typically unsuccessful because judges (especially new ones) are loath to deny the right to trial.

.....so steps are in place.....

These numerous feckless steps are the problem.

.....handled faster is definitely a hard one maybe we should expand the overbloated court system in order to provide for smaller case loads and quickness.

Expansion wouldn't likely help unless there is other reform. It could even enable lengthening the process.

The process can of course only go so fast and allow due process at each step. Really I am failing to see how any of what your saying makes sense with regard to the court system when all of what you have stated save speed is already addressed by the court system.

It wouldn't make sense unless you've been there.

Yes, some might call it right wing regurgitation, but not me in this instance.

You just use different words, but it's the same sentiment.

I am however asking you to articulate something more specific. What is overbloated? How is it overbloated? I get the general idea that you are saying there is more than necessary, but nothing in particular...do we have too many presidents? Too many congressmen? Too many prisons? Is the FTC prevention of fraud unnecessary, the fda regulation of drugs? Do we have too many firefighters? Too many schools? Too many construction companies? Should we not have a planning commission? General statements about the government don't convey anything other than an overarching sentiment.

Given the turn of this conversation, ie, a very broad request for extensive elaboration on the woes of big government, I'm not inspired to repeat my many "cliches" & "jargon" which you've not been around to read.

 

[Revoltingest]

Awesome, so libertarians prefer to elect government officials to act and make decisions within the bounds of the constitution. So we are living in a near ideal libertarian state?

No, I see both of the Big Two subverting the Constitution when it's inconvenient.
And then there's the minarchy part which you left out.

 

[Curious George]

Sanctions are quite rare, & depend upon the plaintiff offending the judge (from the 2 I know of).

Those are typically unsuccessful because judges (especially new ones) are loath to deny the right to trial.

These numerous feckless steps are the problem.

Expansion wouldn't likely help unless there is other reform. It could even enable lengthening the process.

It wouldn't make sense unless you've been there.

You just use different words, but it's the same sentiment.

Given the turn of this conversation, ie, a very broad request for extensive elaboration on the woes of big government, I'm not inspired to repeat my many "cliches" & "jargon" which you've not been around to read.

Regurgitation implies that what you are saying is malarkey. Cliche and jargon means that your terms are esoteric at best and jumping on buzz terms at worst. But it was not my intention to imply that you were spewing garbage or nonsense. Rather I was trying to explain that without further definition your statement doesn't communicate anything more than general distaste for the government. why not be more definitive? At least the article in the op went into specfics which allow you to make refutations such as 'the government set the environment for economic collapse' However, just asserting that the government is ballooning tells us nothing. If you do not have specific gripe regarding the ballooning government, perhaps you are overlooking the necessity of the expansion. But I guess I will never know unless I trek through the entirety of your posts or you care to repeat yourself and elaborate on your statements in this or another thread.

You are correct that I haven't been around to read your posts, and others haven't necessarily either. If you aren't interested in communicating with those who missed your other posts, that is your deal. C'est la vie.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If farmers don't make a profit, then why would they grow food for anyone else?

It's a strong indication that we need to move away from materialism and money. Farming is not done in a way that is planned by necessity or conducted in a way that is efficient. It is guided by market demands, which has reduced the quality of food at the grocery store, has plants be chosen to suit market needs rather than the needs of locals, and has so much food being wasted that every citizen should demand immediate changes in farming. But because the dollar guides farming, we'll continue to be fed livestock pumped with carcinogenic chemicals that many other countries have banned, and just about anything you can name being loaded cheap fillers that are good for profits but terrible for health.

 

[Curious George]

No, I see both of the Big Two subverting the Constitution when it's inconvenient.
And then there's the minarchy part which you left out.

I did not mean to leave out the minarchist part. I was responding to your statement that you prefer a representative democracy. People have demanded government intrusion on the free market. These intrusions are constitutional. The commerce clause for instance specifically allows for regulation of trade. So, unless you are suggesting you do not want a representative democracy then you have precisely what you want.

Minarchist does help but elaborate what role you see the government taking. Is the Wikipedia definition fair to use? Or is there a better source that more accurately reflects your personal beliefs alignment with this?

 

[Revoltingest]

...I was trying to explain that without further definition your statement doesn't communicate anything more than general distaste for the government.

You read one statement, presume I've only cliches, & then list extensive elaboration you want.
That strikes me as just cavalier disinterest.

If you aren't interested in communicating with those who missed your other posts, that is your deal.

I advise you to try being more interesting & less hostile if you want conversation from someone.
Again some other day, perhaps.

 

[Curious George]

You read one statement, presume I've only cliches, & then list extensive elaboration you want.
That strikes me as just cavalier disinterest.

I advise you to try being more interesting & less hostile if you want conversation from someone.
Again some other day, perhaps.

No I actually presumed you had substantive content. You have in the past. But apparently you aren't in a substantive mood.

 

[Curious George]

You read one statement, presume I've only cliches, & then list extensive elaboration you want.
That strikes me as just cavalier disinterest.

I advise you to try being more interesting & less hostile if you want conversation from someone.
Again some other day, perhaps.

Lol, I just read my post. I asked you to explain, I complement your past posts, I asked for a link to your substantive posts. Apparently saying that ballooning government is a cliche or jargon is the crux of my hostility. I think maybe you should reread our dialogue without the presumption that I am hostile. Maybe then my perspective will come off better. If not- I guess I need to work on my writing.

Cheers

 

[metis]

Lol, I just read my post. I asked you to explain, I complement your past posts, I asked for a link to your substantive posts. Apparently saying that ballooning government is a cliche or jargon is the crux of my hostility. I think maybe you should reread our dialogue without the presumption that I am hostile. Maybe then my perspective will come off better. If not- I guess I need to work on my writing.

Cheers

But you need to understand that Revoltingest only recognizes "hostility" when others do it.

 

[Curious George]

But you need to understand that Revoltingest only recognizes "hostility" when others do it.

It would not be the first time I have unintentionally come across as abrasive or antagonistic.

 

[Revoltingest]

But you need to understand that Revoltingest only recognizes "hostility" when others do it.

Calling me out (rule violation), eh?
That's especially weak from someone who has me on <ignore> cuz you suffer emotional melt-downs at the first sign of disagreement.

I wonder if you'll ever see this post?
Perhaps someone will quote it for you.

 

[Revoltingest]

It would not be the first time I have unintentionally come across as abrasive or antagonistic.

And that happens from time to time for many of us.
But such is not characteristic of you, which is why I indicated disengaging only temporarily.
We'll talk again (when I'm inspired).

Btw, don't take this as an invitation for joining me in a warm shower or anything.