Libertarianism - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

  • Guest, it's time once again for the hotly contested and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and fill out your bracket!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Once again, only you can decide!

OneofOne

Silver Baronet of the Realm
6,548
7,896
I'll say it again: This is the fundamental difference in our points of view. I won't follow a path that I KNOW is already putting the lives of myself and my (hypothetical) children at risk when there is an alternative. As far as I'm concerned you're already playing games with your kids' lives. From my point of view, this "ideology interfering with good governance" is entirely in your head.
And this is where you lose me every time. We already know what happens with "states rights", and states competing against each other. We get a state passing fucked up credit laws allowing credit card companies to rape customers, and what happens? All the credit card companies go to that state. We get states racing to the bottom to lower their clean environment standards to attract dirty businesses and waste storage, for tax revenue.

Hell, I already think it's entirely fucked up that you can have sex with a 14 year old legally, then walk 20 feet across a state line and get arrested with a criminal record following you forever. (and seriously, don't get sidetracked with the subject, only the vastly different outcomes)

Among the many things I think the Feds should do, is impose a base standard across many varying regulations and laws - something that basically says "You are a US citizen and no matter which state you live in, you'll never have to worry about X". Whether X is poison Tylenol, chemical storage preventing toxic water, police outlawing recording them on duty - whatever.

Yes some of this stuff is gotten around by big corporations (and unions, and special interest groups) on the federal level, but I'd rather fix a broke system than have NO system at all. Hell you already have states fighting the EPA and fighting federal voting laws - protections that would surely disappear in some states with a weak Fed. And sure, you can say it goes the other way too (depending on your viewpoint) in regards to legalization of pot and gay marriage - something some states want that are not yet legal on the federal level. And please don't bring up the whole "well just move to a state with laws you agree with!" because that's imply NOT viable for many many people.

If states choose to go above and beyond the Fed, more power to them - let them see how it works out. Some states have higher minimum wages than the Fed, or stricter environmental regulations - party on.

I completely agree that "ideology interfering with good governance" IS an issue you have. Instead of going "Hey we got a system that mostly works, let's fix it!" you instead go "I want to try something completely new. Even though what evidence we have shows it not working the way we'd like, let's do it anyway!"

*Edit - Holy fuck entire sentences are missing from random places... what the fuck did I do? I'm too lazy to go back and fix it - you get my point.
 

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
<Gold Donor>
74,068
145,393
Libertarianism sounds great when you're a teenager because you don't think about boring shit like clean water, credit card consumer laws, corporate veil laws. All you think about is how you're going to become rich and famous and never have to worry about that shit anyways.

The sad realization that dawns on you towards your late 20s is that you ended up just another middle class working stiff never enters your teenage brain. You just expect to make millions by the time you're 30 and you'll be damned if you have to share it with anyone or if anyone will get in your way.

Vast majority of us grow out of it, but some remain mental teenagers forever.
 

AladainAF

Best Rabbit
<Gold Donor>
12,846
30,786
I think the issue at hand is that instead of bringing up these little examples like... "the EPA" or "don't have to worry about X", or... "[age of consent laws]", or.. etc.

Instead, your post could have been much simpler if you would say what you really believe. There should be no states at all. Merely, a single country, called the "United America" or whatever, removing the states entirely. That's what you, and many other people really want. You act like you want to pick and choose by listing all these things, but the reality is.. you want to remove the states from being able to have ANYTHING that differentiates them, which completely removes the entire purpose of the states to begin with.

The only good thing that would come with that is that you'd eliminate hundreds of thousands of state government jobs. The bad thing is that they would all be converted to federal government drones.
 

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
<Gold Donor>
74,068
145,393
What is the point of states? 99% of the time, that states rights nonsense only gets rolled out to protect the status quo. A bunch of white people who only care about states rights when they want to discriminate against blacks, gays, etc.

How often does States Rights stuff actually get used for anything constructive?
 

TheBeagle

JunkiesNetwork Donor
8,443
28,972
Really bros? Is this really necessary? This kinda shit is embarrassing.

Protip: piling on is a sign of weakness...Act like you've been in the end zone before. Jesus.
 

Big Phoenix

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Gold Donor>
44,359
92,484
Libertarianism sounds great when you're a teenager because you don't think about boring shit like clean water, credit card consumer laws, corporate veil laws. All you think about is how you're going to become rich and famous and never have to worry about that shit anyways.

The sad realization that dawns on you towards your late 20s is that you ended up just another middle class working stiff never enters your teenage brain. You just expect to make millions by the time you're 30 and you'll be damned if you have to share it with anyone or if anyone will get in your way.

Vast majority of us grow out of it, but some remain mental teenagers forever.
Your failure is you think everyone deserves, or is even remotely capable of achieving the same quality of life or success in life.
 

BrutulTM

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
<Silver Donator>
14,364
2,139
Why isn't this in the political thread? I don't appreciate being tricked into reading Araysar bullshit.
 

OneofOne

Silver Baronet of the Realm
6,548
7,896
Because I'm tired of reading this shit there. I'm going with precedent - suck it up.
 

Aychamo BanBan

<Banned>
6,338
7,144
Libertarianism sounds great when you're a teenager because you don't think about boring shit like clean water, credit card consumer laws, corporate veil laws. All you think about is how you're going to become rich and famous and never have to worry about that shit anyways.

The sad realization that dawns on you towards your late 20s is that you ended up just another middle class working stiff never enters your teenage brain. You just expect to make millions by the time you're 30 and you'll be damned if you have to share it with anyone or if anyone will get in your way.

Vast majority of us grow out of it, but some remain mental teenagers forever.
Haha, so, just how bad did you end up in life? I'm sorry you failed.
 

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
<Gold Donor>
74,068
145,393
Haha, so, just how bad did you end up in life? I'm sorry you failed.
Pretty badly, I never became a teenage pop sensation or a secret agent so I settled for starting my own company. Got a few people working for me. Show up to the office just to surf the internet all day. Probably will retire by 40 if I want to. You know, the typical failures.
 

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,845
137,945
What is the point of states? 99% of the time, that states rights nonsense only gets rolled out to protect the status quo. A bunch of white people who only care about states rights when they want to discriminate against blacks, gays, etc.

How often does States Rights stuff actually get used for anything constructive?
you are the borg, you have this desire to get everyone exactly the same.
 

Lusiphur

Peasant
595
47
Well, I guess it was about time for the bi-annual libertarian idiocy spew. It's the political dogma of choice for those who have social anxiety after all.
 

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
I think the issue at hand is that instead of bringing up these little examples like... "the EPA" or "don't have to worry about X", or... "[age of consent laws]", or.. etc.

Instead, your post could have been much simpler if you would say what you really believe. There should be no states at all. Merely, a single country, called the "United America" or whatever, removing the states entirely. That's what you, and many other people really want. You act like you want to pick and choose by listing all these things, but the reality is.. you want to remove the states from being able to have ANYTHING that differentiates them, which completely removes the entire purpose of the states to begin with.

The only good thing that would come with that is that you'd eliminate hundreds of thousands of state government jobs. The bad thing is that they would all be converted to federal government drones.
Bull fucking shit. States have their place and the federal government has its place. But hey, you're expanding from just false equivalence into strawmen. Progress!
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,320
73,376
I like states rights on social issues but I'm pretty fed up with states' rights on a lot of bureaucracy. Health care providers being divided by state lines, different motor vehicle depts, a whole host of different laws that depend on the state etc I think are antiquated.
 

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
And this is where you lose me every time. We already know what happens with "states rights", and states competing against each other. We get a state passing fucked up credit laws allowing credit card companies to rape customers, and what happens? All the credit card companies go to that state. We get states racing to the bottom to lower their clean environment standards to attract dirty businesses and waste storage, for tax revenue.
Do we? Do we already know that? I don't know that. Seems like a lot of assumption and speculation to me, especially since we have no idea how Ron Paul would have carried out the changes he described on a practical level.

Among the many things I think the Feds should do, is impose a base standard across many varying regulations and laws - something that basically says "You are a US citizen and no matter which state you live in, you'll never have to worry about X". Whether X is poison Tylenol, chemical storage preventing toxic water, police outlawing recording them on duty - whatever.
I agree with you, believe it or not. There are things all citizens should be able to take for granted. But this isn't even how it works now, and it's getting worse.

Yes some of this stuff is gotten around by big corporations (and unions, and special interest groups) on the federal level, but I'd rather fix a broke system than have NO system at all. Hell you already have states fighting the EPA and fighting federal voting laws - protections that would surely disappear in some states with a weak Fed. And sure, you can say it goes the other way too (depending on your viewpoint) in regards to legalization of pot and gay marriage - something some states want that are not yet legal on the federal level. And please don't bring up the whole "well just move to a state with laws you agree with!" because that's imply NOT viable for many many people.
I'd rather fix a broken system too. Any suggestions how? I did ask that several times, but the general consensus, stated either outright or through silence, is that it's unfixable. So we can shit on Ron Paul all we like, but in the end we're just dicking around with our XBoxes, hoping that things will straighten themselves out and assuming that we'll get to retain our current quality of life until they do so. A very real and not at all theoretical growing number of actual Americans do not have this luxury. But they're probably minorities and rednecks so who gives a shit, right?

I completely agree that "ideology interfering with good governance" IS an issue you have. Instead of going "Hey we got a system that mostly works, let's fix it!" you instead go "I want to try something completely new. Even though what evidence we have shows it not working the way we'd like, let's do it anyway!"
See, here's the thing: I don't see it as a system that "mostly works", and neither do the growing number of families being pushed below the poverty line. And I would love to, LOVE TO fix the current system. Give me a reasonable, or even feasible way to do so and I'll have no reason to ever mention Ron Paul again. In the meantime, the 1% have their influence so deeply rooted in the system, they have hoarded so much wealth and power that the scales have not just started leaning, they've toppled altogether. You can't negotiate with these guys. Hell, why should they? What would they possibly have to gain by giving up even a fraction of their power and influence? So yeah, I think we've pretty much reached the point where the most reasonable solution, as far as I can see, is to pull the rug out from under the 1% and start a new system. Is Ron Paul's the best system for us to switch to? Maybe not, but when it comes to democracy his is the alternative that came closest to being legally and legitimately carried out without the need of a single drop of blood being spilled.

Sure, the system "mostly works" as long as YOU have your XBox and food on the table. I can't force you to give a shit about anybody else. Hell, I probably can't convince a lot of you that there's any reason at all for you to give a shit about anybody else. I give a shit, though. When people living in what is supposed to be the "land of opportunity" are actively getting fucked over by a system designed to minimize their opportunities in order to add to the already disgustingly obscene wealth of the richest 1%, it really REALLY bothers me. I'm not even American, but Canada seems to love following your shitty, shitty example and Stephen Harper is currently really high on my "list of people on whose faces I'd gladly defecate".

I don't know what evidence you have that Ron Paul wouldn't have drastically improved some of the biggest problems your country faces, but I've certainly seen PLENTY of evidence that the current system sucks ass, is getting worse and is very likely well beyond the point of repair. You're complaining that the lifeboats are too uncomfortable while your cruise ship is sinking. Maybe they are, maybe they have very limited food supplies, maybe they aren't built to withstand the elements, maybe there are a hundred legitimate reasons to complain about the lifeboats, but none of that changes that your ship is sinking! Tell me how to fix he ship and the lifeboats can go fuck themselves. Until then, any complaints you have are moot because you're still fucked.
 

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
What evidence is there that Ron Paul WOULD HAVE drastically improved ANYTHING? Change is not necessarily improvement. You're talking about lifeboats and sinking ships and whatever, and that is just ludicrous. Our country has a lot of problems, but sinking ship? Give me a break with that.
 

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
<Gold Donor>
74,068
145,393
Half of Ron paul's policies are an anathema to liberals, the other half to conservatives. I have no idea how he planned to get anything accomplished.

Lets take the most popular plank he had: abolishing Federal Reserve. I asked a few times already and no one can tell me how RP would have actually made this happen, only that he would.
 

Phazael

Confirmed Beta Shitlord, Fat Bastard
<Aristocrat╭ರ_•́>
14,020
29,913
Your failure is you think everyone deserves, or is even remotely capable of achieving the same quality of life or success in life.
And your failure is believing that rewards in our society scale witht he effort you put in. Most people are rich either because they were lucky by being in the right place at the right time or inherriting daddy's money. Very few actually move up the economic ladder and its never based on merrit. Compare the effort that the average garbage collector puts in, an average surgeon, and then the average CEO (particularly in the financial sector) and tell me that effort is being rewarded proportionally.