This is the old : "I don't see any need for hate crimes legislation," followed by "So you're Ok with lynching and bombing churches!" mode of argument. I think you could do better.
Last edited:
These numbers should SHUT UP liberals about the Electoral College once and for all
- Thread starter Scataphagos
- Start date
Speaking of government bailing out failed businesses...
Lol
So you can't answer the question, I take it. Not that I'm surprised, I guess.
I'm sure as a Libertarian, you support the legalization of marijuana as well (as do I). The difference is that - following the bathroom analogy - you must think it's OK for someone to smoke pot and drive a school bus, while I believe in restricting them from doing so if they choose to smoke pot.
What it seems to me that these 'anarcho-capitalists' who call themselves libertarians don't recognize, but classical libertarians have always understood, is that good government is an essential component of any liberal society. Without government to protect our individual rights, we would, over time, because of our human nature, surely lose them.
I understand that the bailing out of financial institutions would likely be anathema to an anrcho-capitalist, but I am less clear on what it has to do with classical libertarian thought. It would seem to me to be a natural function of good government to seek and promote stability in its financial institutions. Does Tsing Tao's response reveal an anarcho tendency that he, perhaps, is unaware of?
I understand that the bailing out of financial institutions would likely be anathema to an anrcho-capitalist, but I am less clear on what it has to do with classical libertarian thought. It would seem to me to be a natural function of good government to seek and promote stability in its financial institutions. Does Tsing Tao's response reveal an anarcho tendency that he, perhaps, is unaware of?
Yet, another good example of that common but unproductive mode of argument.
At first I didn't catch it, but then it hit me. Well done!!! I like cleverness in responses. You're one of the best at it.
are you kidding. the vast majority of libertarians are not anarchists they are former republicans and conservatives who realize the establishment right is now the establishment left like you.
libertarians are mostly classical liberals like the founding fathers of the US.
you are not one of those. You favor big strong central govt and banks. our founders favored local govt and weak central govt and so do libertarians.
libertarians are mostly classical liberals like the founding fathers of the US.
you are not one of those. You favor big strong central govt and banks. our founders favored local govt and weak central govt and so do libertarians.
Have no problem with limited government in people's lives. State government, for the most part.
You can talk about me in the third person as if you were some elitist appealing to an audience watching with more and more skepticism if you like, but you can't answer difficult questions posed to you (because answering them reveals you to be the fraud everyone here knows you to be). Your style of "debating" resembles that of Krugman. Avoid answering questions, talk down to those who challenge you, and dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as "beneath your intellect".
The problem with government bailing out companies is that it socializes the losses, and privatizes the profits, and then, of course the government is in the game of picking winners (GM gets a bailout while companies who performed better, had better products, more efficient supply chains get nothing). It encourages zombie finance and inefficient asset deployment.
Still more efficient to dialogue than the refusal of answering questions.