Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

10 Reason Why Libertarianism is Bullshit

I have encountered some libertarian atheists, and a video of Penn Jillette talking about his version of libertarianism I screamed BULLSHIT!

1. It's impossible. Libertarianism is impossible except for survivalist nutters and hermits. Humans need a social structure because we're a social species. Trusting that humans can moderate their own behavior on their own is just a fantasy. If we were as sparsely distributed as wolf packs, we could get along in our small groups without intervention from a higher authority in theory.... but the matriarch or patriarch would be the higher authority so even that isn't strictly libertarian. Anyway, we're long past the point in evolution where we could manage our behavior without a formal structure. Michael Shermer theorizes the optimal size for a human community to manage without any oversight is about 150. Those days are gone.

2. It's naive. It assumes people are basically good. This is a nice thought, and a refreshing break from the Christian belief that all people are sinners who need to be saved, but it's just plain wrong. Just as we differ in our DNA we differ in our personalities. Some of us will go through life making very few decisions that negatively impact others, and some of us are sociopaths. At its best, government protects the truly good from the sociopaths. Without a government, we would be reduced to lynch mobs which can only avenge bad deeds, not prevent them. And we certainly wouldn't have something like the FBI, which can trace the path of a serial killer from one area to the next based on DNA evidence, etc. I think the people who believe that "survival of the fittest ergo libertarianism" probably assume they are the fittest themselves. They don't think that they would be the victims of a sociopath. Bernie Madoff counted on this kind of hubris to make his illegal millions.

3. It's cold-hearted. For example, regulations about safety in cars aren't needed because over time car companies would be forced to make safer cars or they'd go out of business. So the people who died in fires caused by exploding gas tanks in Ford Pintos, or in wrecks caused by the design of their Corvair were just collateral damage in the evolution of better cars. People who died because of unregulated businesses did nothing to deserve that fate, except perhaps not be able to afford better cars. And the pseudo-Darwinism of libertarianism really doesn't care what the strong do to the weak. Rich and powerful people are good and deserve to be rich and powerful. The poor and powerless deserve what they get.

4. It ignores history. We haven't always had a U.S. government. It's only a little more than 200 years old. But we do know earlier forms of society. We've had monarchies. We've had theocracies. We had the ancient Roman & Greek systems that privileged people with money. Modern democracy certainly has its failings, but we really be better off returning to "less" government considering what our previous systems gave us?

5. It's not natural. The underlying assumption of libertarianism is that government is an artificial construct that interferes with natural behavior, which they believe works just fine on its own. There's no evidence that humanity could have survived without some form of social organization. The instinct for survival that causes some to climb to the top of the heap and others to hide from the climbers just doesn't result in a society that works for large numbers. It probably won't work for small numbers, either.

(continued)

by Anonymousreply 12602/15/2015

6. It ignores human failings. We no longer live in family groups in tiny villages, and if Libertarianism became the "law" of the land, we would pretty much have to go back to that. In our distant past, we helped each other within our own group and competed against other groups for resources. Surviving without a government would require all of us to gather into small groups for protection and predation. Child abuse and spousal abuse would again be perpetrated with no recourse. Victims of alcoholism or mental illness would have no access to services, and their families would suffer. A small group's only hope of survival when "infected" with a defective member would be to ostracize that member.

6. It ignores human failings. We no longer live in family groups in tiny villages, and if Libertarianism became the "law" of the land, we would pretty much have to go back to that. In our distant past, we helped each other within our own group and competed against other groups for resources. Surviving without a government would require all of us to gather into small groups for protection and predation. Child abuse and spousal abuse would again be perpetrated with no recourse. Victims of alcoholism or mental illness would have no access to services, and their families would suffer. A small group's only hope of survival when "infected" with a defective member would be to ostracize that member.

by Anonymousreply 106/13/2013

Woah... that copy/paste utterly failed didn't it. Let me try again:

7. It ignores human compassion. Libertarianism denies the instinct to help others, which has been shown in other species as well. Government taking a role in "lifting up" the poor is an extension of the instinct we would follow individually in a smaller group. By blaming the victim, libertarians can imagine themselves the agents of their own good luck. There's no place in their worldview for helping the blind, the deaf, the physically impaired, or the children of these people. The mentally ill who are incapable of working for a living due to their illness? *shrug* At least religions have charities that make a dent in these issues. Secular libertarians leave the powerless to their own devices as if blindness or mental illness were somehow the victim's own fault. There have been hundreds if not thousands of examples of other animals helping each other or even other species, so compassion seems to be instinctual. I have yet to meet a libertarian who has a relative that needs help to survive. If I had the power to curse people, I'd curse libertarians with multiple sclerosis. Let's see how many ways they make use of the ADA law's provisions.

8. It ignores Somalia. Somalia is the perfect example of libertarianism in action. There's basically no government in Somalia so we can see what would happen. Without a government, pirates and tribal groups terrorize others. Women and children are mistreated. Disease is rampant. There's no viable business other than crime. It's a chaotic mess. Why would anyone want to copy that model?

9. It's selfish. On the surface, Penn Jillette saying that he doesn't know what's best for someone else seems humble and charitable. But really, sometimes he would know what's best. He would know that a woman being beaten on a daily basis by an abusive husband would be better off if she could get out of that situation. He would know that someone with asthma would be better off in a world with less air pollution. His pseudo-humility covers up a basic unwillingness to get involved. Or, he's got his head in the sand when it comes to the problems of society and of individuals that are just too big or complicated for a family or small group to help with.

10. It's provincial. It ignores the fact that the economies and socieities of all the world's nations are now interconnected. If someone lives in the country with well water, septic tank and a burn pit for their garbage, they can fantasize they are not relying on the government. But then when their four-year-old comes down with cancer, they're only too happy to take him to the big city hospital for chemo that was studied using federal funding.

So... I call BULLSHIT on libertarianism. It's a stupid position to take. Even if it could be implemented it couldn't succeed. Its thinly veiled social "darwinism" but without any of the nuance of true evolutionary theory.

by Anonymousreply 206/13/2013

No, R3. Atheism isn't bullshit. Libertarianism is. Get it right.

by Anonymousreply 406/13/2013

Not a single well-reasoned point in the whole mess. I call BULLSHIT!

by Anonymousreply 506/13/2013

Really, R5? Every single point is valid. Like it or not.

by Anonymousreply 606/13/2013

Every Libertarian I've met is a self-interested little boy, (regardless of his age).

by Anonymousreply 706/13/2013

R7, that's because Libertarianism is, at its core, a philosophy of over-privileged white men who are ignorant of their own privilege, stuck in an arrested adolescence.

by Anonymousreply 806/13/2013

Ummm...OP, would you keep the topic to either Madonna or clothes, please?

by Anonymousreply 906/13/2013

Op, you might want to look up anarchism since you don't seem to know that the difference between that and libertarians.

by Anonymousreply 1006/13/2013

Bullshit

by Anonymousreply 1106/13/2013

What are Liberals afraid of? Whatever there are 15 hysterical threads about in about a week.

by Anonymousreply 1206/13/2013

R10, you might want to pay attention to Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and all the other Libertarian morons at Lew Rockwell.com to learn what "modern" libertarianism is.

You might also want to realize that no matter how defensive you get, it's a morally, ethically, and intellectually bankrupt ideology, never once put into place anywhere in the world, because nobody REALLY wants it, and it can't possibly work even if anyone actually did.

Spend some time in the real world, and you realize how ridiculous the entire notion actually is.

by Anonymousreply 1306/13/2013

R6, the author (and perhaps you too if you agree) are ineptly knocking down a wildly-distorted caricature of a straw man.

And since you asked, I'll give this far more time than it's worth by pointing out just the most obvious flaws point-by-point:

"1. It's impossible." The silly author goes on to describe something like a child's miunderstanding of anarchy. On the contrary, Libertarians believe in organized society and government.

"2. It's naive. It assumes people are basically good." Bullshit. Libertarians assumes people act in their own self-interest. Fortunately, most humans past the age of 8 learn that cooperating with others usually advances your own interests. What Libertarianism does that liberals and conservatives don't is allow people to decide this for themselves rather than compelling it at the point of a gun. You know, like adults.

3. It's cold-hearted. Bullshit again. Libertarians are all for altruism and charity. It's just not for extorting it out of you and spending it through a government bureaucracy.

"6. It ignores human failings." This is merely a repeat of #1 & #2. Same rebuttal.

"7. It ignores human compassion. " Again, a repeat of #3. Same rebuttal.

"8. It ignores Somalia." Proof again the author is ignorant and sadly, childishly so. Somalia is an example of anarchy and lawlessness. Libertarians espouse the opposite.

"9. It's selfish." Ah, this old chestnut. Libertarians recognize self-interest, which is basic human nature, but also have the sophistication to understand that humans are a social and cooperative species, and those projects that have the best chance of success (large or small) are those in which those involved have a vested interest and control in the outcome. It's why people who are involved in their own child's education raise better-educated children regardless of how much public money is wrested from everyone else's pocket and thrown at the issue. (for example)

"10. It's provincial." This point is all fluff and diffuse, to the point of irrelevancy. We all live in various different "communities" - some intensely private and personal, like our families, our local community, and the larger world. There's nothing in Libertarianism that precludes one from interacting in all of them.

So, as I said, her piece was entirely fatuous. You don't want to be accused of the same by agreeing with her, I'm sure.

by Anonymousreply 1506/13/2013

[quote]On the contrary, Libertarians believe in organized society and government.

Classical Libertarians maybe (by the definition used in the early 1900s), but not by modern standards, where they basically want to do away with all taxation, monitary & fiscal policy, regulation, social safety nets, etc.

[quote]What Libertarianism does that liberals and conservatives don't is allow people to decide this for themselves rather than compelling it at the point of a gun. You know, like adults.

This is the great fantasy that every libertarian espouses, but which never seems to dovetail with reality in any meaningful way. Witness Ron Paul's anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion rants, and opposition to civil rights legislation. It's all a very "privileged straight white male" perspective that utterly breaks down if you're not all those things.

[quote]Libertarians are all for altruism and charity. It's just not for extorting it out of you and spending it through a government bureaucracy.

I'll simply point to the naïve statement. Government programs evolved out of necessity, because the "libertarian way" simply doesn't work.

[quote]This is merely a repeat of #1 & #2. Same rebuttal.

It's not, really, and your rebuttal doesn't work here OR there. Libertarianism assumes everyone has the same connections and privileges and capabilities, that there is no mental illness or physical illness, etc. That's the ONLY way the libertarian philosophy works. Which is why, in the real world, it doesn't work at all.

[quote] Somalia is an example of anarchy and lawlessness. Libertarians espouse the opposite.

No, they don't. They espouse an utter lack of regulation and such a limited role of governance that it is very much like anarchy in many ways. At least for those who AREN'T privileged well-off healthy straight white males.

Let me guess: You're a well-off white male. Aren't you?

by Anonymousreply 1606/13/2013

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers." - Ron Paul

"What I want to do is repeal Roe v. Wade." - Ron Paul

"I think that marriages should be between a single man and a single woman." - Ron Paul

by Anonymousreply 1706/13/2013

What's the deal with people writing screeds supposedly about libertarianism but only describing anarchism? If anyone wants to decry anarchy, why can't they just be honest and refer to what they are writing about as anarchism?

by Anonymousreply 1806/13/2013

Because, R18, in the modern Libertarian world, there's very, very little difference outside of your own defensive mind.

I'm sorry you've invested and wasted so much effort in such an utterly childish, selfish, morally/ethically/intellectually bankrupt ideology... but really, time to stop with the defensive denialism and grow up and enter the real world. And realize that the "libertarianism" of the 1900s (that is pretty much what modern liberalism has morphed into over the decades) is not the same as what "Libertarianism" is today.

by Anonymousreply 1906/13/2013

r5, I agree. Every single OP argument is built on Strawman rhetoric.

God, I need to go to bed, but Snowden is setting off bombs.

The Company are trying to control the narrative, so this thread is going to see trolls.

R2 seems to think that us "proles" are evil, but entrusts the Ivy league DC establishment as good and moral, and defenders this government establishment pure examples of goodness and light.

The "bad guys" are killed during the first act.

by Anonymousreply 2006/13/2013

It's really the economic ignorance of Libertarians that is the most galling. Even ignoring the racist, sexist, homophobic crap from so many of them... the fact that they think the "gold standard" is the answer to anything, or that "austerity" works even though there's ZERO evidence that it does and a TON of evidence that it's an utter failure... that should be enough to dismiss these arrogant selfish yahoos.

The fact that they vote almost exclusively Republican should be an even bigger red flag of hypocrisy.

by Anonymousreply 2106/13/2013

[quote][R2] seems to think that us "proles" are evil

Hardly. In fact, there's zero justification for such a conclusion. More intellectual bankruptcy from a libertarian. Bleh.

by Anonymousreply 2206/13/2013

I wish the average Datalounge liberals' understanding of Libertarianism didn't start and end with dimwit Ron Paul and his idiot son. They're hardly principled, and barely articulate.

by Anonymousreply 2306/13/2013

And yet, R23, they define modern Libertarianism... along with Lew Rockwell and Alex Jones (crazy tin-hat conspiracy nutcases).

Reminder: David Koch (of the infamously evil Koch Brothers) ran as VP for the Libertarian party in 1980, just as Ron Paul ran for President under that party label in 1988.

It's like getting upset at bashing Republicans because you insist it's the party of Ike Eisenhower ... even though it is, today, the party of Mitch McConnell and Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney and Rush Limbaugh.

The party today that is closest to classical libertarianism (which isn't being bashed here) is the Democratic Party.

It sure as hell ain't the Republican Party.

And there's a good reason that Libertarians have never even mustered anywhere close to even just 2% of the popular vote in national Presidential elections.

by Anonymousreply 2406/13/2013

r19, don't you think your dishonesty hurts your argument though? I have trouble according any value to your argument because of your dishonesty.

by Anonymousreply 2506/13/2013

[quote]... where they basically want to do away with all taxation, monitary & fiscal policy, regulation, social safety nets, etc

R16, why would you lie? Can't you make your points without such hyperbole?

Every reasonable "modern" Libertarian says government has important roles to play, and taxation is part of that equation. We probably do not disagree all that much on what good we want to see in the world: health, wealth, harmony, scientific advancement, etc. However, we probably do have extreme disagreement on what's the best way to achieve these things (and what behavior by our instititutions is considered ethical).

by Anonymousreply 2606/13/2013

R25, and what "dishonesty" would that be? If you're going to make an accusation it'd be nice if you at least made the slightest effort to back it up. Empty assertions carry no weight.

Honestly, the Libertarian Defenders here are the ones being dishonest -- with themselves.

by Anonymousreply 2706/13/2013

[quote]why would you lie? Can't you make your points without such hyperbole?

I'm not lying. I'm simply citing the things that today's Libertarians are pushing.

Why are you denying reality?

Did you stop listening to Libertarian leaders back in the early 1900s or something?

by Anonymousreply 2806/13/2013

[quote] It's naive. It assumes people are basically good

You are right about that. I saw Ron Paul give an interview where he talked about disbanding the EPA. First he said he doesn't think we really need the EPA. He doesn't think pollution or corporations dumping toxic substances is a problem. He thinks corporations actually go out of their way to make the environment safe and how it isn't in their best interests to pollute (talk about naïve). He said we don't need the EPA because we already have rules on the books to take care of toxic dumping and any environmental problems. When the interviewer asked him what would someone do if a corporation dumped something destructive/dangerous on their property, he replied that there are plenty of property laws on the books and the person can sue the corporation. That may be fine, if you are a millionaire. But if you are some regular person, you can't afford to sue someone else, much less a corporation

EVERY SINGLE GOVERNMENT AGENCY EXISTS because some private company got greedy and fucked over a bunch of people who were either defrauded of their life savings, severely injured, maimed or killed. And so the government had to step in and created all these agencies to hopefully try and prevent these things from happening

by Anonymousreply 2906/13/2013

[quote]The Libertarian party platform calls for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns.

So basically, the libertarians, as always, want the exact opposite of what would actually work. They want to double-down on citizens united, so that the ultra-wealthy can simply buy elections, and democracy would die a very quick death.

If libertarianism were ever put into actual practice, it would collapse into Feudalism so fast your head would spin.

It is a completely unsustainable ideology.

by Anonymousreply 3006/13/2013

r27, I just think you would do better by not being dishonest. Advice, use it as you will.

by Anonymousreply 3106/13/2013

R31, if you're going to continue to call me "dishonest" you should at least TRY and explain WHAT you think I'm being dishonest about, and why. Because I'm not being dishonest at all. I'm being brutally honest. Just because you don't like to hear it, and don't want to hear it, doesn't make me a liar.

by Anonymousreply 3206/13/2013

Anyone with half a brain understands that libertarianism makes total sense, until you move out of your parents' house and have to start being a functional adult. Of course, things are different if you decide, like St. Ayn Rand and her namesakes that libertarianism might make a lot of sense if you cash in on just how many people out there don't have half a brain.

by Anonymousreply 3306/13/2013

[quote]EVERY SINGLE GOVERNMENT AGENCY EXISTS because some private company got greedy and fucked over a bunch of people ...

I was going to drop out of this, since it's going like all DL political "discussions" but this one sucked me back in. Honey, most government agencies exist to protect and advance the goals of corporations and special interests. Where have you been living?

by Anonymousreply 3406/13/2013

[quote]Anyone with half a brain understands that libertarianism makes total sense, until you move out of your parents' house and have to start being a functional adult.

Exactly.

[quote]Honey, most government agencies exist to protect and advance the goals of corporations and special interests. Where have you been living?

That is, unfortunately, how they were corrupted (usually due to libertarian weakening of regulations and allowing money to corrupt the system even more than 'nature' would). It's not how "most" of them started.

Again, libertarian ideology exacerbates the problem. It doesn't solve the problem.

by Anonymousreply 3506/13/2013

Unless you are a yaori wishing the tribal life of the amazon, libertarianism is impractical and only for idiots.

by Anonymousreply 3606/14/2013

I particularly love the comment that the "Company" has been busy in comments. Because we're clearly attacking this childish economic-political philosphy simply because we're agents of "them".

by Anonymousreply 3706/14/2013

Damn I hate politics. Libertarians suck and I think those that defend it are delusional sheep. I think the same about republicans (thanks Bush!) and democrats (thanks Obama!). Regardless of who is in power they all become corrupted. Libertarians do have a cleaner record though but that's only because they have no real power to get their hands dirty.

Democrats and republicans are like the characters from Game of Thrones (dont you lool at me that way!)fighting over silly shit while a real threat sneaks up on them. In our case, the threat is the increasing power of the true elite. They cant get rich from poor people anymore so npw theyre gutting the middle-class. That gap is growing in all countries, it doesn't matter if its a socialist/communist/capitalust country either. It's the same everywhere, the rich and those in governments grow more powerful while the middle-class and those worse off suffer. Democratic and republican politicians have many differences but the one thing they all have in common is that they're desperate for power and they only get that by becoming best friends with the "1%". Both parties are bought. The way our current government is set up even a truly honorable man would be corrupted by greed.

This is why I don't vote. I told you not to look at me like that!!!

I also want to point out that the majority of democrats and republicans I've met are amazing people who don't seem to realize that people like Obama/Bush/Paul have more in common with each other than with the parties they represent.

by Anonymousreply 3806/14/2013

If house-pets were libertarian:

by Anonymousreply 3906/14/2013

[quote]I saw Ron Paul give an interview where he talked about disbanding the EPA. First he said he doesn't think we really need the EPA. He doesn't think pollution or corporations dumping toxic substances is a problem.

What a shallow, ignorant extrapolation of what he said.

If I own a piece of land with a stream, and my neighboring Boeing/BoozHam/DuPont factory pollutes it upstream then I have a legitimate claim for destroying MY property.

Since the gov controls all of this, then they can be paid off by the big company while my livestock and family suffers.

Since liberty is based on 1) not hurting, defrauding, or stealing from anyone then in a libertarian society "pollution" would be illegal.

by Anonymousreply 4006/14/2013

[quote]If I own a piece of land with a stream, and my neighboring Boeing/BoozHam/DuPont factory pollutes it upstream then I have a legitimate claim for destroying MY property.

Yeah. Go ahead. Try suing them.

Idiot.

[quote]Since liberty is based on 1) not hurting, defrauding, or stealing from anyone then in a libertarian society "pollution" would be illegal.

It's already illegal. But Rich corporations can afford defense while poor people who are affected can't afford to sue. Departments like the EPA are there to back those who can't afford to take action themselves... they work on behalf of the consumer/citizen against larger interests.

Libertarians are such naïve, gullible, immature idiots.

by Anonymousreply 4106/14/2013

R38-

If DC disappeared, and all functions of government were devolved back to the local level, do you think this would be good? Politicians are like everyone else- they try to maximize their own lives, and will do anything to keep their jobs. This includes (especially) the lower level functionaries and sycophants that make up the "staff" of most politicos.

It's called "self-interest" and is one of the main principles behind libertarian ideology, both negative and positive. Do you think that these political leeches are above looking after their own self interest? Of course not- they are HUMAN. They will do what they need to do in order to gain more power.

In a libertarian society, the decision to help a single mother, or a family that loses their home to a fire, or the young teen that needs a kidney transplant- a NORMAL community would be able to help them without the government coming in.

Those things are handled by the government today, and so many people just throw up their hands and say "I pay my taxes, let the government take care of it!" It destroys communities, and in the case of welfare, destroys the need to form close families.

If all powers were devolved, wouldn't it mean that citizens would have MORE control of their own lives, their own property, and the ability to stop Big Banks, Big Military and Big Biz from fucking up their towns/countryside?

If so, then you're a libertarian and didn't even know it!

by Anonymousreply 4206/14/2013

No, R42. But nice utopian pipe-dream there. Certainly not based on any reality I'm aware of though... or any actual historical evidence.

Libertarians: Dead-set against FEMA until a mile-wide tornado tears through their neighborhood. Fucking ignorant hypocrites.

by Anonymousreply 4306/14/2013

[quote]If DC disappeared, and all functions of government were devolved back to the local level, do you think this would be good.

Nope, it would be stupid.

[quote]and in the case of welfare, destroys the need to form close families.

Utter bullshit.

[quote]If all powers were devolved, wouldn't it mean that citizens would have MORE control of their own lives, their own property, and the ability to stop Big Banks, Big Military and Big Biz from fucking up their towns/countryside?

Nope, but it's pretty revealing that you think so.

by Anonymousreply 4406/14/2013

R41-

You make the mistake of applying current law (written by the big banks/corps) and what real property laws would look like in a "libertarian" society. You're very good at creating strawmen, but more and more people are seeing though your vapid thinking.

An open and shut case (Chrysler dumped lead into my stream, and here is the proof) would mean every person downstream has standing (in commonly accepted law over the last 800 years) so the simplicity would STOP Chrysler from polluting the stream in the first place.

In today's society, Chrysler can stall in court for 20 years. In a libertarian society, judges could rule in hours. PLEASE read some Rothbard, or even Mises, and see how gravely fucked up your (mis)understanding of liberty really is.

"A corrupt society has many laws"- Tacitus

Your thinking is so shallow the EPA needs to fly beavers in from Alabama to create a dam.

You're basically saying "Property rights don't matter" and ignoring the evils of loss of property rights. How ignorant.

I feel sorry for you. Such simplistic thinking can only come from Harvard or Downs Syndrome.

by Anonymousreply 4506/15/2013

R43-

God, you are ignorant.

If liberty and freedom were the "law of the land" (instead of your sick brand of suck up statism and collectivism) then ALL homes/buildings/people in that area would have to buy extra insurance against these kind of weather damage.

If all insurance was private (no gov aid) then insurance agents would offer incentives to build storm cellars, build tornado proof homes, install VERY early warning systems...but all the gov can do is come clean up the mess.

Did you notice how many survivors had already built- with their own time and money- shelters, and that ZERO people who built shelters died?

I'm so glad that I'm not as ignorant of reality as you, R44

by Anonymousreply 4606/15/2013

"But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive."

Yeah, Rothbard is some interesting reading.

by Anonymousreply 4706/15/2013

Perfect illustration of what libertarians don't understand:

by Anonymousreply 4806/15/2013

No, R46... you're the ignorant one. You're the one that believes in a utopian pipe-dream that, just like communism, can't possible work in the real world (and in fact can't even be put into practice, never has, and never will).

[quote]If all insurance was private (no gov aid) then insurance agents would offer incentives to build storm cellars, build tornado proof homes, install VERY early warning systems...

You're HILARIOUS! I can't believe you can look out in the world, with insurance companies bending over backwards to screw people in order to increase their own profits, and actually believe this. You are so full of shit.

You are so amazingly ignorant of reality. You're projecting your own faults onto others.

by Anonymousreply 4906/15/2013

Look at the sky, y'all! It's so blue!

by Anonymousreply 5006/15/2013

[quote]You're very good at creating strawmen

Oh, you mean like your every post? Project much?

[quote]but more and more people are seeing though your vapid thinking.

Thankfully, this statement is a lie, and a clumsy one at that.

[quote]An open and shut case (Chrysler dumped lead into my stream, and here is the proof) would mean every person downstream has standing (in commonly accepted law over the last 800 years) so the simplicity would STOP Chrysler from polluting the stream in the first place.

Wow... You really don't know anything about the power of a huge corporation, do you? Or about human nature?

[quote]In a libertarian society, judges could rule in hours.

Nonsense. There is nothing in a "libertarian society" that would allow judges to "rule in hours."

[quote]If liberty and freedom were the "law of the land" (instead of your sick brand of suck up statism and collectivism) then ALL homes/buildings/people in that area would have to buy extra insurance against these kind of weather damage.

Well, if they "would have to," then you're no longer talking about "liberty and freedom." And if you're talking about "liberty and freedom," then no, they don't "have to" and most wouldn't.

[quote]If all insurance was private (no gov aid) then insurance agents would offer incentives to build storm cellars, build tornado proof homes, install VERY early warning systems...

They have the incentive to do these very things today and yet they don't, nor would they in this utopia of yours that exists only in your fevered imagination because you have no connection to the real world or to human nature.

by Anonymousreply 5106/15/2013

I don't get how libertarians think the world got to where it is. Why, for example, there are food health and safety laws. Their faith in the market is a form of mystical religion, and as brain-dead as any New Ager belief in crystals.

by Anonymousreply 5206/15/2013

[quote]An open and shut case (Chrysler dumped lead into my stream, and here is the proof) would mean every person downstream has standing (in commonly accepted law over the last 800 years) so the simplicity would STOP Chrysler from polluting the stream in the first place.

Meanwhile, out here in the real world, it's not lead, it's a chemical compound whose effects are a bit more subtle than lead, perhaps increasing your risk of cancer by, say, 10%, and whose effects are not well understood and may take decades to be felt. And Chrysler has funded studies that dispute even what little information you have available.

You'd like to prove the effects, of course, but you can't because you don't have the money and hey, guess what? In this libertarian paradise of yours, the government doesn't fund such studies and has no regulations that require that Chrysler provide them.

So Chrysler will argue in court that your cancer is normal and that there's nothing wrong with the chemical that they're pumping into your groundwater and the burden of proof will be on you to prove otherwise. You're right about one thing, though: the case won't last for years. It will be over in hours because you don't have any proof and you don't have the money to get any.

But wait, it's even worse than that, because it's not just Chrysler pumping crap into your groundwater. It's Exxon-Mobile, Alcoa, Archier Daniels Midland, and so on, and it's not just one chemical compound, it's a few dozen. And it might not be just one compound affecting you; it might be a combination of two or three of them, harmless on their own but deadly in their combination.

And now you don't even know which company or compound, or combination of compounds, is causing your respiratory problems or your cancer at the age of 35. And you have no way of figuring it out.

But wait, you can get your local government to help, right? Good luck with that. They need the revenue those corporations bring in and they need the jobs and the tax revenue that comes from those people working for those corporations. And the corporations are constantly threatening to pull up stakes and move to a more friendly locale, which means that even your friends and neighbors might be against you as you try to raise public awareness of the problems.

So, basically, you're screwed and all you can do is kiss your ass goodbye. But hey, "liberty and freedom," right?

by Anonymousreply 5306/15/2013

[quote]I don't get how libertarians think the world got to where it is. Why, for example, there are food health and safety laws.

Ignorance of history. We had a far more libertarian "paradise" in the 1800s than we do today, for example. There are reasons why we have the laws that we have and it's not just evil corporations that are responsible. That doesn't mean that every regulation is necessary, or even good; it does mean that you need to have an answer for the problem that the regulation was trying to solve. Sadly, libertarians don't. Most of them simply deny that the problem exists or claim that the free market fairy will magically make the problem go away.

by Anonymousreply 5406/15/2013

The problem with laws that are supposed to keep us safe is that they're now meant to keep the little guy from competing. The big guys? Those laws don't apply to them. They're literally exempt from consequences. If some oil company fucks up the water table in the Midwest for 5,000 years. Tough toenails. The law never applied to them in the first palce

by Anonymousreply 5506/15/2013

Great comic showing what "Libertarian Freedom" is all about:

by Anonymousreply 5606/16/2013

R47-

Do you realize that by picking that single point that you are saying that abortion should be illegal?

If that's the best you can manage, then you should shut up.

R41-53-54 (as well as her posts about how Ed Snowden is evil because he revealed how the gov in spying on us)

Your totalitarian fascist mindset disturbs me.

You seen to believe that the government is pure, good and benevolent, despite thousands of years of history that show- definitively- that government is evil, self-centered, and capricious.

In a liberty minded society the arbitrary boogeymen and far-out scenarios you concoct could not exist.

I feel sorry for someone so mentally limited. In a libertarian society there would be programs for people, like you, that were incapable of rational thought. It pains me that your kind support the kind of government that prevents you from obtaining the help you so desperately need and deserve.

by Anonymousreply 5706/17/2013

R56-

That's cute. To a five year old kid.

by Anonymousreply 5806/17/2013

Okay, r58 has given us her perspective.

by Anonymousreply 5906/17/2013

R26

[quote]So evil government control makes companies evil, and when evil government goes away, companies magically become good. And government control is "fascism".

I really didn't think this level of mental retardation existed outside group homes. How can someone be this stupid?

Do you think your local grocer is evil? Your mechanic? Your hairdresser? Your plumber? Your favorite local restaurant?

Because all of them are business people, and charge you for their services. They cannot (in most cases) convince the local government to give them "tax breaks" for their service.

Now, let's say one of them becomes a "chain" (Wal-mart, Fantastic Sams, Applebees, etc,) and then uses their money to "donate" money to one of their local congressmen who adds a "rider" to a large "Defense of the Homeland" bill that includes, on page 2835, giving "Sam's Body Shop" a 10 year tax exemption.

Can you not see that this is how Wal-Mart was able to become the behemoth it is? Or that these "riders" are a constant addition for Boeing, BoozHam, Haliburtion, CitiBank, etc.? Are you too dull to see that most of the "big banks" and 'big corps" are using their control of the government to increase their power?

by Anonymousreply 6006/17/2013

Ooopppsss-

R60 was meant for another thread.

by Anonymousreply 6106/17/2013

Why blacks aren't Libertarians:

by Anonymousreply 6206/18/2013

If Ed Snowden was a spy for the Chinese, they why did he leave his post? Wouldn't he be far more valuable INSIDE the NSA machine?

by Anonymousreply 6306/18/2013

R62-

Let's assume 3 hypothetical companies, producing the same product.

Acme only hires straight white Christian men.

BeeCo only hires white men.

COMco hires people qualified, not discriminating on race, gender, religion or sexuality.

Both Acme and BeeCo are going to have to pay a premium for their discrimination, while COMco can pay less (for a time) to their staff. As a result, since they can hire the MOST qualified person regardless of R/G/R/S they will be able to pick the smartest people. Since they all sell the same product/service, the employees have more upward mobility, and they can afford to produce the same product/service at a lower price with higher quality. Acme and BeeCo will eventually go out of business.

Racism, sexism and homophobia are expensive. It is the best interest of companies to hire based on skill, not skin color or gender, etc.

by Anonymousreply 6406/18/2013

R64 lives in an interesting fantasy world.

by Anonymousreply 6506/18/2013

R65-

Put up or shut up.

Is simple logic too hard?

by Anonymousreply 6606/18/2013

How many people do you think take one semester of economics in college and think they can distill a complex system down to free market good, government regulation bad?

by Anonymousreply 6706/18/2013

[quote]Is simple logic too hard?

For you, clearly.

by Anonymousreply 6806/18/2013

R63:

Maybe because he knew he was going to get blown.

by Anonymousreply 6906/19/2013

It seems liquidity (or counterparty mistrust) is beginning to reach extreme levels in China as the nation's banking system is now quoting overnight repo transactions at 25%. The explosion in funding costs echoes the collapse in trust (and surge in TED spread) among US banks in the run-up to the Lehman bankruptcy. MSCI Asia-Pac stocks are down over 3% with China's Shanghai Composite -2.5% at seven-month lows.

China’s 1-day Repo Rate Climbs to Highest Since at Least 2006

MNI - CHINA OVERNIGHT REPO FIXING AT RECORD HIGH

China's bond market is also collapsing:

by Anonymousreply 7006/20/2013

[quote]If that's the best you can manage, then you should shut up.

LOL.... Funny, we were just saying the same thing about you.

[quote][R41]-53-54 (as well as her posts about how Ed Snowden is evil because he revealed how the gov in spying on us)

Dear heart, I wrote R53 and R54 but didn't write R41 and haven't said one word about Snowden. You really need to get your story straight.

[quote]Your totalitarian fascist mindset disturbs me.

Nothing I wrote in R53 and R54 is even remotely "totalitarian" or "fascist," words you clearly don't understand.

[quote]You seen to believe that the government is pure, good and benevolent,

No, dear, I don't, which is why you cannot find even one post where I say anything even remotely resembling that. Is reading comprehension always this difficult for you?

[quote]In a liberty minded society the arbitrary boogeymen and far-out scenarios you concoct could not exist.

Thank you for confirming that you have no answer for what I wrote in R53. That was based on behavior in the real world, not on "arbitrary boogeymen" [sic]. Nor was there anything even remotely "far-out" about that scenario. As I expected, you cannot address what I wrote nor can you explain why it would not happen just as I describe; all you can do is hold your breath until you turn blue and childishly declaim that "It just wouldn't happen! So there!"

[quote]I feel sorry for someone so mentally limited.

ROFL.... Save that sympathy for yourself, Chuckles. You need it far more than I do.

Just out of idle curiosity: do you really think you're fooling anyone?

by Anonymousreply 7106/22/2013

[quote]Can you not see that this is how Wal-Mart was able to become the behemoth it is?

Two things, Chuckles:

1. Economies of scale.

2. Barriers to entry.

Look them up. Once you understand them, we might be able to have a serious conversation. I doubt it, though.

by Anonymousreply 7206/22/2013

[quote]Put up or shut up.

Why? You haven't. In this entire thread, not one shred of "putting up." Just mindless assertions, repeated ad nauseam.

[quote]Is simple logic too hard?

It certainly seems to be beyond you.

by Anonymousreply 7306/22/2013

R72 (and 71, 73, 51, 44, 41...) why do you hate the thought of people being free to do what they want? As long as they don't lie to you to make you do something, or force you to do something you don't want to do, or defraud you, or steal from you, what business is it of yours?

Why do neocons like you come to a board that embraces liberal virtues and rejects your warmongering shit?

You seem to think that if I want to buy raw milk and marijuana from my neighbor, or educate my children at home, or store rainwater that falls on my property, or expose the murder of innocent people despite the fact that your government masters consider these murders "top secret"...well, then the Feds should be able to kill me.

You are a sick motherfucking cunt. I hope that your trick ass is getting paid big time to spew the bullshit you write on this board, because if you really believe what you write...good GOD, I hope you're getting paid. Only a psycho could really be that sick.

If you really believe the shit you spew, think of it this way- your masters in the government A) lie to us, everyday, about just about everything and what isn't an outright lie is "spun" by their lackeys, B) force us to do things we don't want to do and prevent us from doing the right thing, C) commit fraud at every turn by telling us that "the economy is getting better" or "we must invade Eastasia (Syria, Egypt, Iran-insert your own boogeyman) and D) steal from us every day by making the dollar worth less each day while giving trillions to the big banks and corporations and their lackeys in various foreign countries.

You post your bullshit on any thread that exposes the evil of government and the beauty of liberalism. Neocons like you need to go away.

by Anonymousreply 7406/22/2013

[quote](and 71, 73, 51, 44, 41...)

Why are you lying about what posts I've made on this thread?

[quote]why do you hate the thought of people being free to do what they want?

LOL... "When did you stop beating your wife?" Is this really the best you can do? The best argument you can muster? Starting with an obvious logical fallacy and a lie?

[quote]As long as they don't lie to you to make you do something, or force you to do something you don't want to do, or defraud you, or steal from you, what business is it of yours?

Read my post at R53 again. It *is* my business.

[quote]Why do neocons like you come to a board that embraces liberal virtues and rejects your warmongering shit?

Wow. Three lies in a single sentence. Nice work! Oh, and please do tell me where I've said anything even remotely "warmongering."

[quote]You seem to think that if I want to buy raw milk and marijuana from my neighbor, or educate my children at home, or store rainwater that falls on my property, or expose the murder of innocent people despite the fact that your government masters consider these murders "top secret"...well, then the Feds should be able to kill me.

ROFLMAO.... And yet more lies and logical fallacies. Tell me, is reading comprehension always this difficult for you? When you can actually read what I write and respond to it, we might be able to have a serious conversation. As long as you're making shit up, though, we can't, so I'll just continue mocking you and laughing at you.

[quote]You are a sick motherfucking cunt. I hope that your trick ass is getting paid big time to spew the bullshit you write on this board, because if you really believe what you write...good GOD, I hope you're getting paid. Only a psycho could really be that sick.

ROFL.... Dear heart, the "psycho" you're envisioning only exists in your fevered imagination.

[quote]If you really believe the shit you spew

I stand by every word I wrote in R53. Sadly, you have no answer for that post so you respond the only way you can: evasion, misdirection, logical fallacy, and lies. That's why nobody takes you seriously.

[Mindless off-topic rant deleted.]

[quote]You post your bullshit on any thread that exposes the evil of government and the beauty of liberalism. Neocons like you need to go away.

And yet, so far, you have been unable to point to a single false statement I've made and have been unable to muster a coherent response to anything I've written. Why is that? If your position is so strong, this should be trivial, right? Go ahead, put me in my place. Show me the error of my ways. Rip my post at R53 to shreds.

Yeah, I thought so.

by Anonymousreply 7506/22/2013

This is what I wrote in R54: "Sadly, libertarians don't. Most of them simply deny that the problem exists"

Now read R57 and R74. Q.E.D.

Instead of responding to R53 and R54 with a reasoned reply showing where I got something wrong, instead we get that:

I have a "totalitarian fascist mindset."

That I "believe that the government is pure, good and benevolent."

That I'm describing "arbitrary boogeymen and far-out scenarios."

That I'm "mentally limited" and "incapable of rational thought."

That I "hate the thought of people being free to do what they want."

That I'm a "warmongering neocon."

That I think that "the Feds should be able to kill [someone]" for being libertarian.

That I'm "a sick motherfucking cunt."

That I'm "a psycho."

Can anyone find anything even remotely resembling any of this in anything I've written? Is this really the best debating tactics that libertarians can come up with? They have no answer for R53, so instead they engage in full-scale attack. It would be sad if it weren't so funny. Wow....

by Anonymousreply 7606/22/2013

Libertarians are just Republican extremists, really.

by Anonymousreply 7706/22/2013

true

by Anonymousreply 7806/22/2013

r53/54 is telling the truth.

by Anonymousreply 7906/22/2013

R64 is an ignorant child who thinks bad companies go out of business.

Here's an interesting statistic. Starting Autoworkers today make less money, inflation adjusted, than Henry Ford paid them in 1914.

by Anonymousreply 8006/22/2013

Probably typed on Microsoft Windows even though Microsoft has at no time in its history had the best technology or hired the best people.

by Anonymousreply 8106/22/2013

[quote]R64 is an ignorant child who thinks bad companies go out of business.

True but I think the more accurate representation is that this is his religion. That's why he can't actually debate the topics he posts or defend the assertions he makes: because he takes everything on faith. And that's why he reacts so badly when challenged, because we're not just challenging his opinions, we're challenging his faith. And that's why there are no shades of gray in his world: you're either a true believer or you're a heretic.

by Anonymousreply 8206/22/2013

R82-

Bad companies do go out of business in a free market. I'm sorry you're to blind to see that the US is far from a free market.

by Anonymousreply 8306/22/2013

R76-

Can you actually give some reasons why you think I'm wrong, or are you just following the leader?

Let's see- explain why the government is allowed to set interest rates.

If you can give a coherent explanation of how a few hundred men (and a couple of women) are smart enough to centrally plan the most important commodity in an economy (bonus points if you can explain how the USSR and other centrally planned economies got it wrong) then I will shut up.

Agreed?

I really look forward to your explanation.

by Anonymousreply 8406/22/2013

R53-

You failed to explain why the people that are negatively affected by these (government subsidized and politically connected companies) are unable to sue.

In a free market, where property rights are respected, if you dumped lead into my stream or groundwater I would have standing to sue the shit out of you.

Do you agree with that? If so, then you must admit that a libertarian system (which by nature upholds and respects property rights) is superior to a system where the MegaCorps can bribe the judges and politicians to avoid punishment.

I love the fact that you cannot even effectively craft a scenario that supports your insane position without revealing what a government worshipping fascist you really are.

by Anonymousreply 8506/22/2013

[quote]I don't get how libertarians think the world got to where it is. Why, for example, there are food health and safety laws.

How did food safety laws get started?

by Anonymousreply 8606/22/2013

R86-

A socialist named Upton Sinclair fabricated a story where he walked through a processing plant and saw rats, feces in the food, and unsafe/sanitary practices.

He wrote a novel about these alleged things, and it became a best seller. Think "Twilight" without the vampires.

The media took his story as fact and then congress passed laws.

Since then these laws have metastasized.

Read the article at the link.

by Anonymousreply 8706/22/2013

Libertarian policy would probably work for food safety. If companies make food that kills people, the media will report it and then the people who haven't been killed by the food yet will stop buying it.

by Anonymousreply 8806/22/2013

[quote]Bad companies do go out of business in a free market.

That depends on both the company and the market, moron. In any case, we're not talking about "bad" companies; we're talking about "slightly less than optimal" companies. And those don't go out of business.

[quote]I'm sorry you're to blind to see that the US is far from a free market.

Moron, nobody is denying that.

[quote]Can you actually give some reasons why you think I'm wrong, or are you just following the leader?

Moron, I already did. See post R53. As to why you're wrong about me, well, that's bloody obvious to anyone capable of actually reading and comprehending what I write, since you cannot find a single post of mine that backs up any of those silly assertions and pathetic attacks.

[quote]then I will shut up.

No you won't.

[quote]Agreed?

Nope. You've been posting here for years and in all that time you have been provably and stupidly wrong over and over and over again and never once in all that time have you ever acknowledged your factual errors, let alone your philosophical ones. Your silly predictions have never come true; you know nothing about economics, finance, or history. You have shown that you are incapable of learning and that you are unable to hold a reasonable debate. Look at your response to my post at R53. Q.E.D.

All you're fit for is mockery and derision.

by Anonymousreply 8906/22/2013

[quote]You failed to explain why the people that are negatively affected by these (government subsidized and politically connected companies) are unable to sue.

Moron, I didn't "fail to explain" that, since it's right there in the post! Are you really that far gone that you are wholly unable to comprehend what you read? They would sue and they would lose.

[quote]In a free market, where property rights are respected, if you dumped lead into my stream or groundwater I would have standing to sue the shit out of you.

Yes, moron, we know. But that's because the ill effects of lead are significant, obvious, and well understood, which is why it's such a lousy real-world example. Read R53 again and see if you can understand and address the points I raised there.

[quote]If so, then you must admit that a libertarian system (which by nature upholds and respects property rights) is superior to a system where the MegaCorps can bribe the judges and politicians to avoid punishment.

ROFL.... Read R53 again. I showed exactly why your "superior" system would be even worse than we have today.

[quote]I love the fact that you cannot even effectively craft a scenario that supports your insane position

ROFL.... Moron, my "scenario" is based on reality and so are my "insane" positions. You have yet to demonstrate that you even *understand* my positions, much less muster a coherent counter-argument.

[quote]without revealing what a government worshipping fascist you really are.

And yet, moron, you are unable to find a single post or quote of mine that demonstrates that I "worship" the government or that I'm a "fascist," a word you have demonstrated time and time again that you don't understand.

Thank you for once again proving that you are unable to conduct a serious debate and that you are wholly unable to defend your "insane" positions.

by Anonymousreply 9006/22/2013

[quote]Libertarian policy would probably work for food safety.

Not really, as we've already seen, since there are reasons why these laws were passed. Not every regulation is good but if you're going to throw them all away you have to have an answer for the circumstances the regulations were intended to address. Libertarians don't.

[quote]If companies make food that kills people, the media will report it and then the people who haven't been killed by the food yet will stop buying it.

You're assuming perfect knowledge, which is not a realistic assumption. You're also ignoring the fact that people would be dead.

by Anonymousreply 9106/22/2013

r71-72-73-75-76-82-89-91

(Plus all the posts that have the gray-boxed quotes- do you use NSA computers when you post those? Your attacks on J. Assange and Ed Snowden betray you as a shill. If you use Troll-DAR it's easy to see that you hate anyone who exposes the evil doings of the government, so why not admit you work for them?)

Please. Enough.

Your love for government regulation and worship of big business is tiresome.

Please post SOMETHING negative about government and I might reply.

You are just a whore for the NSA. Admit it, and then go away.

Gay men and women are starting to see that the government - especially the Demoncrats that want to keep us "on the plantation"- is NOT working, and that a libertarian system would be far better for us.

I'm sorry your job is to attack your gay mates, and try to keep them from exploring freedom.

by Anonymousreply 9206/24/2013

It's the Lew Rockwell cult again.

by Anonymousreply 9306/24/2013

R92 must be our resident delusional libertarian troll.

I think that posting a link to lewrockwell.com should disqualify you from any online discussion (like the first person to bring up Nazis in an internet debate). Tin-hat conspiracy theorism, paranoid delusion, utter ignorance of (and frequent rewriting of) history, and grossly oblivious to the amount of "white privilege" they are suffering from.

And dear god, the 'smug' is worse than an Apple Mac fanboy driving a prius in San Franciso while drinking a cup of organic free-range sustainable coffee from a 100% recycled cup.

by Anonymousreply 9406/24/2013

R94-

I'll bet you said the same thing 5 years ago when people said the NSA was spying on our phones.

Fucking morons like you are pathetic.

by Anonymousreply 9506/24/2013

Lew Rockwell is that nut who thinks there shouldn't be videos of cops at work so they can beat suspects. What an authority freak.

by Anonymousreply 9606/24/2013

R93-

Please post, in your own words, why you hate freedom.

Lew Rockwell espouses three things-

Don't Kill

Don't Steal

Don't Defraud

All of the articles on his site will carry the same message.

So, tell me why these 3 things are "cultish".

by Anonymousreply 9706/24/2013

R96-

If we are allowed to videotape the police, then they can't do their job.

by Anonymousreply 9806/24/2013

R97, et al,

[quote]Re: 10 Reason Why Libertarianism is Bullshit

Reason number eleven, your warped views.

by Anonymousreply 9906/24/2013

[quote]If we are allowed to videotape the police, then they can't do their job.

Like I said: authority loving freaks in favor of cops beating suspects.

by Anonymousreply 10006/24/2013

R99- so you think opposition to lying, killing and stealing is warped?

If so, you should seek a job at the NSA- you would fit right in!!!

by Anonymousreply 10106/24/2013

R100-

These are upstanding members of their community!

They only beat people they think have done something wrong!

When they kill children it is in the line of duty!

If they manufacture evidence to put these evil black people in jail, it's for the good of society.

Why do you hate Obama!?!

by Anonymousreply 10206/24/2013

Fail, R102. Your Lew Rockwell cult is the one saying no video accountability for the police.

by Anonymousreply 10306/24/2013

R103-

WTF.?????

[Quote]Fail, [R102]. Your Lew Rockwell cult is the one saying no video accountability for the police.

Please, PLEASE show me where you heard that.

I'm going to post 10 links from Lew Rockwell that prove he thinks cops should be videotaped.

R102-

I don't want to confront you. I want to know why you think this. It makes me angry that people would post things that would make someone like you believe something so evil.

I look forward to your reply, with links.

by Anonymousreply 10406/24/2013

R103

Here is a link to all the articles on LRC W/R/T police and video.

Please google "Will Grigg" or "William Norman Grigg" and see what a smart, righteous, brave black man has to say about police actions. I hate to read his articles- they are so upsetting and depressing. Our police is like our government - evil and out of control.

Will Grigg is awesome. I hope he becomes director of the CIA and NSA one day...so he can disband it.

by Anonymousreply 10506/24/2013

Should be R103, not R102 @R104

Anyway---an excerpt from Lew Roclwell

-------

In one incident documented by the newspaper, a 21-year-old girl was driving with her 14-year-old step sister and a deputy accelerated from 24 to 87 miles per hour in 24 seconds as he rushed to aid a fellow officer who had pulled over a driver with – get this – a broken tail light. He T-boned the car, injured the driver, and killed the passenger. The 14-year-old girl’s body was found 37 feet from the accident.

The newspaper found police speeding routinely in excess of 120 miles per hour – not on emergency calls, but simply to get to work or for the fun of it. We’ve all seen it on the highways and there are news stories of tragic accidents with police killing citizens throughout the nation. Many times, off-duty officers drive in the same dangerous manner knowing that fellow officers will give them a pass at the sight of a badge.

Here’s the Sun Sentinel, which reported that 21 Floridians have been killed or maimed by speeding cops since 2004: “Speeding cops are often spared severe punishment in the criminal justice system. Cops found at fault for fatal wrecks caused by speeding have faced consequences ranging from no criminal charges to a maximum of 60 days in jail. Inside many police agencies, speeding isn’t taken seriously until it results in tragedy. Even then, some cops are disciplined but stay on the job – and the road. The dead include seven police officers who crashed at speeds up to 61 mph over the legal limit.”

On the last point: Police unions often point to the dangers of their job. But about half of the police on-the-job fatalities are due to traffic accidents, and a large portion of them are no doubt the result of reckless driving by the officers themselves.

Recently, the Sacramento County sheriff was pulled over for a speeding ticket and he made a big deal of telling the public the police do get tickets. Maybe on occasion, but the “professional courtesy” problem is real and it applies not just to speeding but to every sort of police misbehavior.

Meanwhile, in California in particular, police unions have exempted police disciplinary records of misbehaving cops from the state’s public records law so the public never learns about the bad actors in police agencies – the ones who routinely abuse the public or who are involved in multiple car accidents due to their own speeding.

by Anonymousreply 10606/24/2013

Last October third, a Salt Lake City SWAT team, working with a federal Drug Task Force, kicked in the door of a 76-year-old woman.

As is so often the case, it turned out that the raiders had attacked the wrong home; the target was the house next door, where a police informant had allegedly conducted a controlled drug transaction. An internal review learned that officer responsible for the raid, Detective Cooper Landvatter, falsified information in the affidavit filed to obtain the warrant. What this means is that no probable cause existed for a SWAT raid against either home.

Landvatter, who said that he was under pressure to meet a “quota” of drug busts, had misrepresented critical facts to the judge who issued the no-knock warrant. The detective claimed to have witnessed a cocaine deal at the house, but later admitted that he lost sight of the alleged transaction. He also altered other key details in his affidavit.

In what we are supposed to consider an act of punishment, Salt Lake City Police Chief Chris Burbank imposed a 20-hour suspension on Detective Landvatter. However, the officer faces no further disciplinary action or criminal charges for committing perjury and abetting a home invasion that terrorized an elderly woman.

by Anonymousreply 10706/24/2013

"It was my gun that shot and killed a 7-year-old girl," insists Detroit resident Joseph Weekley, who took part in a fatal home invasion on May 17, 2010. This apparent admission is actually an evasion, in that it assigns blame to an inanimate instrument, rather than the individual who wielded it. Weekley also insists that he didn’t intend to pull the trigger, and has no knowledge of doing so, and that he didn’t realize the child was dead until he heard a "high-pitched moan" coming from beneath a pile of clothes.

by Anonymousreply 10806/24/2013

It's Safe Streets Versus Urban Terror: In the '50s, rampant crime didn't exist because offenders feared what the police would do. - Lew Rockwell

by Anonymousreply 10906/24/2013

"Take Back the Streets: Crush Criminals. And by this I mean, of course, not "white collar criminals" or "inside traders" but violent street criminals – robbers, muggers, rapists, murderers. Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error."

"Take Back the Streets: Get Rid of the Bums. Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares? Hopefully, they will disappear, that is, move from the ranks of the petted and cosseted bum class to the ranks of the productive members of society."

- Murray Rothbard, edited by Lew Rockwell

by Anonymousreply 11006/24/2013

[quote]R71-72-73-75-76-82-89-91 Plus all the posts that have the gray-boxed quotes- do you use NSA computers when you post those?

LOL.... No, dear, we don't, although thank you for revealing yet again that you're a paranoid loon. Oh, and dear heart, a lot of us the "quote" feature of this site. That isn't rocket science.

[quote]Your attacks on J. Assange and Ed Snowden betray you as a shill.

Dear heart, I haven't said a single word about Assange or Snowden, as trolldar would show. Are you still taking your medication?

[quote]If you use Troll-DAR it's easy to see that you hate anyone who exposes the evil doings of the government, so why not admit you work for them?)

ROFL.... Conspicuously absent, as usual, is any evidence, including specific posts, quotes, etc. And why should I "admit" to something that isn't true?

[quote]Please. Enough.

Dear heart, we've been saying that about your posts for years.

[quote]Your love for government regulation and worship of big business is tiresome.

As usual, dear, your inability to read and comprehend what I write is not my problem. And conspicuously absent, as usual, are any actual quotes.

[quote]Please post SOMETHING negative about government and I might reply.

Dear heart, has it really escaped your notice that I won't play your silly games?

[quote]You are just a whore for the NSA. Admit it, and then go away.

ROFL.... Dear heart, why should I "admit" to something that isn't true?

[quote]Gay men and women are starting to see that the government - especially the Demoncrats that want to keep us "on the plantation"- is NOT working, and that a libertarian system would be far better for us.

So you keep saying, dear. Were you planning to provide any actual evidence anytime soon? And were you planning to address the points I raised in post R53? It hasn't escaped anyone's notice that, as usual, you're avoiding any real discussion and instead engaging in really pathetic attacks.

[quote]I'm sorry your job is to attack your gay mates, and try to keep them from exploring freedom

I'm sorry your paranoia and ignorance prevent you from having a real discussion.

by Anonymousreply 11106/24/2013

gay MATES?

It would appear we have some non-American libertarian trolls. What's up with that?

by Anonymousreply 11206/24/2013

Oh, and dear heart, thank you for yet again confirming my earlier statement: "Sadly, libertarians don't. Most of them simply deny that the problem exists." You have no answer for my post at R53 and R90 so all you can do is engage in further lame attacks. Adding to your earlier tally, now we find that:

I work for the NSA.

I am a "shill" who has written "attacks on J. Assange and Ed Snowden" (even though I haven't, of course).

I "hate anyone who exposes the evil doings of the government."

I have a "love for government regulation" and that I "worship ... big business."

I am "a whore for the NSA."

My "job is to attack [my] gay mates, and try to keep them from exploring freedom."

And you wonder why nobody takes you seriously?

by Anonymousreply 11306/24/2013

There is a great book that sets up the background history for the Biosphere video game in which the author posits a city built under the sea to be governed by strictly libertarian principals and how quickly that breaks down in the absence of a slave class that has no rights. Basically it has to do with limited resources and the lower class's failure to accept the "place" that this new city provides for them.

In a perfectly elastic economy with an endless supply of menial workers it might work. Since that is a fantasy by itself, so is libertarianism.

by Anonymousreply 11406/24/2013

Yes, R114-

Fantasy novels are what most socialists base their belief set on, so it stands to reason you would cite that book.

Out in the real world we've seen the evils of socialism, and understand that liberty is superior.

by Anonymousreply 11506/24/2013

As compared to libertarian morons who base their rantings on "Atlas Shrugged," R115?

Out in the real world, we've seen that libertarians are idiots who propose unworkable crap and are wholly incapable of rational discussion. Your posts here are classic examples.

Have you figured out how to read and comprehend R53 yet?

by Anonymousreply 11606/24/2013

[quote]If the propaganda at [R53] was able to be parsed intelligently, I would reply.

ROFL.... Thank you for confessing that you are unable to comprehend the argument or the real-world scenarios on which it is based.

[quote]Your argument is that since the government allowed a big corporation that gave millions to various politicians to pollute a stream we should give the government unlimited powers.

No, dear, that isn't my argument. Thank you for confessing that you are unable to comprehend what I actually wrote and respond to it intelligently. Instead, you have to make up some silly strawman argument that exists only in your fevered imagination and bears no resemblance to anything I wrote.

[quote]You believe the government should have the right to do anything, at anytime, with any person or resource.

No, dear, I don't, which is why you can't find a single post or quote of mine that actually says anything even remotely resembling that. Don't you get tired of lying about me, dear?

[quote]I believe that if someone pollutes my water that the SOLE purpose of government is to provide arbitration, protect my rights and allow me to seek restitution from the offender.

Really, dear? Funny how "arbitration" doesn't appear in any of your arguments above. Changing your story a bit now that you've been caught out for being a fool? On the other hand, if you're referring to the court system, dear, I already dealt with that in R53, a post which you continue to fail to comprehend, much less intelligently respond to.

[quote]You believe government is God. I know it isn't.

No, dear, I don't, which is why you can't find a single post or quote of mine that actually says anything even remotely resembling that. Don't you get tired of lying about me, dear?

[quote]Please seek to educate yourself about how unfettered government has murdered 100,000,000 (yes 100Million!) people in the 20th century, and why decentralized and limited government is superior to your socialist/fascist fantasy.

ROFLMAO.... Is this really the best you can do, dear? Logical fallacies and ad hominem attacks? Come back when you've actually read and comprehended R53. Until then, I'll just continue to laugh at you.

by Anonymousreply 11806/24/2013

Why is liberty bullshit, OP?

Do you think our government is looking out for YOU?

by Anonymousreply 11912/10/2014

libertarians = really stupid white guys who think they are the smartest person in the room by virtue of being born whit and male.

by Anonymousreply 12012/10/2014

Libertarians only have a view about how they think things should be.

They don't actually live a liberterian lifestyle.

by Anonymousreply 12112/10/2014

Can't we just talk about Janet Jackson?

by Anonymousreply 12212/10/2014

Republicans who smoke weed. That's it.

by Anonymousreply 12312/10/2014

OP

by Anonymousreply 12402/15/2015

cunts who cunt harder than ever

by Anonymousreply 12502/15/2015

Sure.

by Anonymousreply 12602/15/2015
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.