Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Libertarians should abandon the Right Libertarians should abandon the Right

11-11-2012 , 10:24 PM
Anyone who doesn't give Alex Jones just as much thought and effort as the Economist is a dumb person. Got it.
11-11-2012 , 10:26 PM
la6ki can't reject uToob as reputable source because that's how he became an expert on such diverse topics as libertarianism, Ron Paul, Austrian economics, and race relations.
11-12-2012 , 01:20 AM
The winner of the libertarian party race in the previous cycle, Gary Johnson, should run as either a democrat or republican in the next cycle of his or her choosing. The exposure of the libertarian race should give them the percentage to get in all the debates of the primaries. If you can't win there you have no reason of trying as a 3rd party.
11-12-2012 , 01:27 AM
Lawl.
11-12-2012 , 01:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by steelhouse
The winner of the libertarian party race in the previous cycle, Gary Johnson, should run as either a democrat or republican in the next cycle of his or her choosing.
Well if he ends up getting a sex change democrat prob makes more sense.
11-12-2012 , 02:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
And now, we have a 2nd guy lauding LirvA's ACtopia plan of just murdering pedos.
I was describing AC, not supporting it.

I can't believe all the love for pedos ITT though.

Last edited by AlexM; 11-12-2012 at 02:48 AM.
11-12-2012 , 04:08 AM
UUUUUUUUUUUUUTTTTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOBBBB DESRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT.
11-12-2012 , 09:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrModern
The reason that libertarians aren't winning major fiscal battles isn't because the ignorant populace is behind our whip-smart, trail-blazing thought-processes on economics; quite the contrary. It's because most libertarians are systematically, categorically wrong about basic principles of microeconomics, and it shows when they talk. We've covered this ad nasueum, but, e.g., denying that there are public goods, saying that fiat currency is some sort of fraudulent conspiracy and we need to return to the gold standard, claiming that IP should be totally abolished, and saying that all taxation is the moral equivalent of armed robbery, all these things are embarrassingly ill-thought-out and make libertarians seem tone-deaf, self-absorbed, and misinformed. Libertarians aren't going to win these fights because their models of economic reality are driven by their moral convictions (rather than the other way around).

Thus, if your suggestion is using victories on social issues to bring in the Trojan Horse of the libertarian economic agenda, I respectfully cannot cosign; if you are, instead, gradually coming to the realization that the serious and important matters of personal liberty on which libertarians can make an important difference are social causes that many left-leaning people already approve (but can't find a voice for among Democrats), then I wholeheartedly agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrModern
I think you're vastly underestimating popular support for the public schools (not to mentioning ignoring some serious problems for the poorest communities) if you think school choice is going to be popular with the electorate right now.



This post really irks me, and it bothers me that it irks me, since I think you're generally a pretty smart person, but aren't you essentially saying that you think the best political strategy for libertarians is to consign themselves to defeat? That seems like a silly thing to say, even if you think it's likely to happen.



Uh... that's him saying that a fixed exchange rate assuming a gold standard would not work. We already know that he doesn't believe that exchange rate has to be fixed; the problem is the superstitious belief that fiat currency is tantamount to fraud.


Sounds an awful lot like Ron Paul.
I'm going to attempt to stake out a somewhat nuanced critique of the bolded above. If your intent is to mock elements of the hard money crowd who stay up at night, clutching their ten Morgan Silver Dollars while waiting and praying for the Great Pumpkin of U.S. hyperinflation, then I'm right there with you. But if, on the other hand, you're somehow suggesting that any critique of the post Bretton Woods, exclusively fiat money regime (and more broadly fractional-reserve lending) is tantamount to the admittedly warped world-view of the mouthbreathers I identified above, then we certainly must part company.

Instead I'll offer what I identify to be the consequences of the U.S. government printing the world's reserve currency ex nihilo for the last 40 years:

-The privilege (or more accurately, curse) of printing the world's reserve currency has enabled the U.S. to run massive fiscal deficits--annual deficits of $1+ Trillion and total debt now north of $16 Trillion--since foreign central banks need to hold U.S. dollars and government debt as their reserves. The "privilege" element means that current government social and military spending maintains the appearance of sustainability; indeed free ponies and military adventurism have continued unabated for the last 4 decades. The curse, however, is that foreign countries (particularly China/Japan/the rest of E. Asia) have jumpstarted their economies/export businesses through competitive devaluation. While Americans have then enjoyed cheap, high quality imports, it has been at the expense of hollowing out our own manufacturing base, and by extension, the middle class. Huge, unsustainable current/capital account imbalances between the U.S. and Asia are the order of the day. If you heard the President or Romney waxing sourly during the campaign about China manipulating its currency, this is the reason: Despite the Fed's best efforts, the dollar won't depreciate fast enough! As the printer of the the reserve currency, we have a built in disadvantage when it comes to competitive currency devaluation. Of course, all central banks mathematically can't devalue in tandem, and all countries can't mathematically export their way out of this global slump.

-Fiat money and fractional reserve lending were necessary preconditions to the 2008 global financial crisis. These two things enabled banks to lever themselves 30, 50, or even 100 times their capital bases. What, after all, could possibly go wrong? They are also to thank for the $100 Trillion derivatives complex which is utterly disconnected from the real economy. The tired counter to these problems has been "More regulation!" despite the obviousness of regulatory capture in both the Fed and SEC.

-I won't turn this into a thread about ABCT, but fiat money has only amplified the booms and busts of the global economy, as our central planners still hold the misguided belief that their models are superior to the free market in determining the price of money (which they now want to be zero). This has ruthlessly punished middle class savers/retirees who are forced to take on riskier securities for any semblance of yield, while the 1% who can lever and speculate have done exceptionally well in this ZIRP environment. Try saving/building wealth in this environment. It sucks.

The above critiques align with the point tomdemaine made in his OP, namely, that none of the above has any hope of changing due to the incestuous relationship between politicians of both parties and Wall Street; wars, free ponies, and big bonuses are pretty inextricably linked. This knowledge, while perhaps of limited utility for the libertarian movement, at least lets folks like me know what we're up against while planning for our own lives and futures.
11-12-2012 , 09:40 AM
Quote:
-Fiat money and fractional reserve lending were necessary preconditions to the 2008 global financial crisis. These two things enabled banks to lever themselves 30, 50, or even 100 times their capital bases. What, after all, could possibly go wrong? They are also to thank for the $100 Trillion derivatives complex which is utterly disconnected from the real economy. The tired counter to these problems has been "More regulation!" despite the obviousness of regulatory capture in both the Fed and SEC.
To pick on this, this is the same logic as banning cars because of all the deaths in collisions instead of bringing in seatbelt laws. Fractional reserve banking - or as it is known now, 'banking' - is not inherently a problem, it drives economic growth and has been for centuries.
11-12-2012 , 10:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson
solid advice here if you're trying to persuade people to seriously think about volunaryanarcholibertariawhateverism: no one will take your youtube videos seriously, ever.
/agree

there is nothing worse than a 16 minute blatherfest on teh YUTuBez
11-12-2012 , 11:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdaddydvo
I'm going to attempt to stake out a somewhat nuanced critique of the bolded above. If your intent is to mock elements of the hard money crowd who stay up at night, clutching their ten Morgan Silver Dollars while waiting and praying for the Great Pumpkin of U.S. hyperinflation, then I'm right there with you. But if, on the other hand, you're somehow suggesting that any critique of the post Bretton Woods, exclusively fiat money regime (and more broadly fractional-reserve lending) is tantamount to the admittedly warped world-view of the mouthbreathers I identified above, then we certainly must part company.

Instead I'll offer what I identify to be the consequences of the U.S. government printing the world's reserve currency ex nihilo for the last 40 years:

-The privilege (or more accurately, curse) of printing the world's reserve currency has enabled the U.S. to run massive fiscal deficits--annual deficits of $1+ Trillion and total debt now north of $16 Trillion--since foreign central banks need to hold U.S. dollars and government debt as their reserves. The "privilege" element means that current government social and military spending maintains the appearance of sustainability; indeed free ponies and military adventurism have continued unabated for the last 4 decades. The curse, however, is that foreign countries (particularly China/Japan/the rest of E. Asia) have jumpstarted their economies/export businesses through competitive devaluation. While Americans have then enjoyed cheap, high quality imports, it has been at the expense of hollowing out our own manufacturing base, and by extension, the middle class. Huge, unsustainable current/capital account imbalances between the U.S. and Asia are the order of the day. If you heard the President or Romney waxing sourly during the campaign about China manipulating its currency, this is the reason: Despite the Fed's best efforts, the dollar won't depreciate fast enough! As the printer of the the reserve currency, we have a built in disadvantage when it comes to competitive currency devaluation. Of course, all central banks mathematically can't devalue in tandem, and all countries can't mathematically export their way out of this global slump.

-Fiat money and fractional reserve lending were necessary preconditions to the 2008 global financial crisis. These two things enabled banks to lever themselves 30, 50, or even 100 times their capital bases. What, after all, could possibly go wrong? They are also to thank for the $100 Trillion derivatives complex which is utterly disconnected from the real economy. The tired counter to these problems has been "More regulation!" despite the obviousness of regulatory capture in both the Fed and SEC.

-I won't turn this into a thread about ABCT, but fiat money has only amplified the booms and busts of the global economy, as our central planners still hold the misguided belief that their models are superior to the free market in determining the price of money (which they now want to be zero). This has ruthlessly punished middle class savers/retirees who are forced to take on riskier securities for any semblance of yield, while the 1% who can lever and speculate have done exceptionally well in this ZIRP environment. Try saving/building wealth in this environment. It sucks.

The above critiques align with the point tomdemaine made in his OP, namely, that none of the above has any hope of changing due to the incestuous relationship between politicians of both parties and Wall Street; wars, free ponies, and big bonuses are pretty inextricably linked. This knowledge, while perhaps of limited utility for the libertarian movement, at least lets folks like me know what we're up against while planning for our own lives and futures.
CitizenKaneClapping.gif

All hail the King!
11-12-2012 , 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdaddydvo
I'm going to attempt to stake out a somewhat nuanced critique of the bolded above. If your intent is to mock elements of the hard money crowd who stay up at night, clutching their ten Morgan Silver Dollars while waiting and praying for the Great Pumpkin of U.S. hyperinflation, then I'm right there with you. But if, on the other hand, you're somehow suggesting that any critique of the post Bretton Woods, exclusively fiat money regime (and more broadly fractional-reserve lending) is tantamount to the admittedly warped world-view of the mouthbreathers I identified above, then we certainly must part company.

Instead I'll offer what I identify to be the consequences of the U.S. government printing the world's reserve currency ex nihilo for the last 40 years:

-The privilege (or more accurately, curse) of printing the world's reserve currency has enabled the U.S. to run massive fiscal deficits--annual deficits of $1+ Trillion and total debt now north of $16 Trillion--since foreign central banks need to hold U.S. dollars and government debt as their reserves. The "privilege" element means that current government social and military spending maintains the appearance of sustainability; indeed free ponies and military adventurism have continued unabated for the last 4 decades. The curse, however, is that foreign countries (particularly China/Japan/the rest of E. Asia) have jumpstarted their economies/export businesses through competitive devaluation. While Americans have then enjoyed cheap, high quality imports, it has been at the expense of hollowing out our own manufacturing base, and by extension, the middle class. Huge, unsustainable current/capital account imbalances between the U.S. and Asia are the order of the day. If you heard the President or Romney waxing sourly during the campaign about China manipulating its currency, this is the reason: Despite the Fed's best efforts, the dollar won't depreciate fast enough! As the printer of the the reserve currency, we have a built in disadvantage when it comes to competitive currency devaluation. Of course, all central banks mathematically can't devalue in tandem, and all countries can't mathematically export their way out of this global slump.

-Fiat money and fractional reserve lending were necessary preconditions to the 2008 global financial crisis. These two things enabled banks to lever themselves 30, 50, or even 100 times their capital bases. What, after all, could possibly go wrong? They are also to thank for the $100 Trillion derivatives complex which is utterly disconnected from the real economy. The tired counter to these problems has been "More regulation!" despite the obviousness of regulatory capture in both the Fed and SEC.

-I won't turn this into a thread about ABCT, but fiat money has only amplified the booms and busts of the global economy, as our central planners still hold the misguided belief that their models are superior to the free market in determining the price of money (which they now want to be zero). This has ruthlessly punished middle class savers/retirees who are forced to take on riskier securities for any semblance of yield, while the 1% who can lever and speculate have done exceptionally well in this ZIRP environment. Try saving/building wealth in this environment. It sucks.

The above critiques align with the point tomdemaine made in his OP, namely, that none of the above has any hope of changing due to the incestuous relationship between politicians of both parties and Wall Street; wars, free ponies, and big bonuses are pretty inextricably linked. This knowledge, while perhaps of limited utility for the libertarian movement, at least lets folks like me know what we're up against while planning for our own lives and futures.


11-12-2012 , 01:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by [Phill]
Do I know what I am talking about?

I am talking about Ron Paul showing no evidence he is an anarchist which is what the entire point of this sub-discussion was about. WTF are you talking about? Not voting to raise taxes doesnt make you an anarchist.
I just showed you a video exert in which he identifies himself as a voluntarist. You have quite a history in ignoring facts (not very surprising for a religious bigot) so nothing new here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
Oh man are we really going to get to play the "teach people their own political beliefs" game?

Before we start, can we establish that a flourishing free market in children is, in fact, a bad thing? You clutched your pearls in shock at the suggestion, I don't want you backtracking and ending up saying that buying and selling children is a good thing after all.
Yes, a free market in children is a bad thing. I don't think you really understand the nuance in what Rothbard's actual position is.
11-12-2012 , 01:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by All-In Flynn
Formally you're correct but in practical terms any worthwhile idea will definitely have a source other than a youtube video to back it up. It's like you're having an IRL conversation and are writing your arguments on pieces of paper and making them into paper aeroplanes and throwing them at the person you're talking to. Formally you might say they should just open the aeroplanes and read what you're saying, but you can't really get up on your high-horse if people walk away.
I don't get your point. Let's say person X gave an interview on CNN in which he reveals his position on a certain topic. Is there a difference between me posting an exert from the video from a link from cnn.com and posting the same exert from youtube.com? In one second case people are free to not take it seriously just because it's coming from youtube?
11-12-2012 , 01:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by la6ki
I just showed you a video exert in which he identifies himself as a voluntarist. You have quite a history in ignoring facts (not very surprising for a religious bigot) so nothing new here.



Yes, a free market in children is a bad thing. I don't think you really understand the nuance in what Rothbard's actual position is.
OMFG, stop going in circles.

A voluntarist isnt strictly an anarchist, but if you want to use it as an interchangeable label I can point to his voting record which has no evidence of him being an anarchist or a voluntarist. But, you say, look at what he has said and written. But, I say, if we are allowing what he has said and written into the conversation about defining him you are going to get a shock about just what he believes about minorities and all the conspiratarding. But, you say, his voting record shows no evidence of him being a racist (it does show him being a conspiratard but you will try and claim his conspiracies are all reasonable like his opposition to NAFTA) and then I will facepalm as we go around in a circle.

So here it is, do we go by the bills he writes and the votes he makes or do we go by the books he writes and the interviews he gives. Because if its both he is a racist conspiratard 'anarchist'. Which is fine, I guess, but it does libertarians nothing good to align themselves with this racist conspiratard 'anarchist' if they want to be taken seriously.
11-12-2012 , 01:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
Is it aggression if the child consents?

Also why would Pedo-Vegas kill their customers? Does regular Vegas kill their customers?
A child cannot consent.
11-12-2012 , 01:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by [Phill]
To pick on this, this is the same logic as banning cars because of all the deaths in collisions instead of bringing in seatbelt laws. Fractional reserve banking - or as it is known now, 'banking' - is not inherently a problem, it drives economic bubbles and has been for centuries.
FYP.
11-12-2012 , 01:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomCollins
A child cannot consent.
Depending which libertarians you ask, they both can consent and/or dont need to consent as they can be sold as property.

Mooray Rothtard, the founding father of anarcho capitalism, is a big proponent of child prostitution. If you read between the lines*.

* I am merely hedging my bets, he may have literally wrote or said at some point child prostitution is fine.
11-12-2012 , 02:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by [Phill]
Depending which libertarians you ask, they both can consent and/or dont need to consent as they can be sold as property.

Mooray Rothtard, the founding father of anarcho capitalism, is a big proponent of child prostitution. If you read between the lines*.

* I am merely hedging my bets, he may have literally wrote or said at some point child prostitution is fine.
That might be your problem, you read between the lines, where nothing is written, rather than where there is actual text. You let your imagination run wild. This might be why your posts are almost universally wrong. But good thing F.ly is there to help you out.
11-12-2012 , 02:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by la6ki
Yes, a free market in children is a bad thing. I don't think you really understand the nuance in what Rothbard's actual position is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rothbard
Now if a parent may own his child (within the framework of non-aggression and runaway freedom), then he may also transfer that ownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract. In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children.
la6ki(also TomCollins, BigDaddy), Rothbard was a profoundly mentally ill, not unusually intelligent, and virulently racist piece of ****.

That he taught you everything you know about fractional reserve banking means that it is time for you to forget everything you know about fractional reserve banking.

Maybe try to learn from textbooks instead of Youtube? JUST A THOUGHT
11-12-2012 , 02:09 PM
I mean, what the ****, it's all confused nonsense here. Fractional reserve banking is a market outcome, not a result of government meddling. Stopping it would require coercion between voluntary actors by a third party, AKA VIOLENCE when it involves something that you like being stopped.

Stop trying to learn economics from people who are trying to CON YOU. Peter Schiff is a con artist. His business model is about separating the mentally ill from whatever money they have access to. He does this by "letting them in" on a secret about economics that those eggheads at the university won't tell anyone about. The great thing is that the secret? Incredibly simple. A child could understand it. That's a necessary element of the con. It's why you find Zero Hedge so much more fun to read than boooooooring dusty textbooks. Sure, they might accurately describe the world, but where's the conspiratorial tone? Where's the unjustified sense of superiority?

The sad thing is that you people have embarrassed yourself on these same handfuls of topics(the rights of a child, limits on contracts, fractional reserve banking, the Confederacy) over and over and over again. You always seem SO EXCITED to show up the trolls, then it turns out that whooops you still have no ****ing idea what you were talking about, BUT YOU STILL HATE THE GOVERNMENT AND LOVE FREEDOM so you win, right?

Last edited by FlyWf; 11-12-2012 at 02:15 PM.
11-12-2012 , 02:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by la6ki
I don't get your point. Let's say person X gave an interview on CNN in which he reveals his position on a certain topic. Is there a difference between me posting an exert from the video from a link from cnn.com and posting the same exert from youtube.com? In one second case people are free to not take it seriously just because it's coming from youtube?
Of course people 'are free' not to take it seriously. And in this case, very often they won't. And since they'll quite rarely be wrong to do so (youtube is probably the No.1 go-to hotspot for raving lunatics), you're better advised to find a different medium, that's all. It shouldn't be difficult.

Personally I would always prefer a text link to a video. You can read in 3 minutes what a video insists you listen to for 15. There's that to consider also.
11-12-2012 , 03:11 PM
Rothbard is not mainstream among libertarians and he definitely isn't mainstream among Austrian economists. Getting rid of fractional reserve banking is a loony idea that only Rothbardians believe. His book on the Depression gets mentioned some but that's about it. Using him as the standard bearer would be like using Noam Chomsky or PETA as the exemplars of liberal ideas.

I think Schiff is great but I guess he is a stockbroker and easy to pick on. Why not pick on some of the libertarians that have won Nobel Prizes in economics instead- like Milton Friedman, Stigler, Becker, Vernon Smith, James Buchanan, or
Hayek.

There is no shortage of top hedge fund managers that have been influenced by Austrian economists. Soros, of all people, always lists Hayek as his second biggest influence. Nassim Taleb, Mark Spitznagel, Sperandeo, Niederhoffer, Jim Rogers, Monroe Trout, David Harding, Ed Seykota.

Instead of picking on child slavery, why not at least acknowledge that there are plenty of libertarian ideas worth considering, or at least acknowledge that there are smart people on the other side of the debate.
11-12-2012 , 03:19 PM
Are ACists really trying to have a rerun of LirvA's Robber Barron's and Pedophiles an ACism action adventure RPG.
11-12-2012 , 03:25 PM
OP is basically saying that incrementalism is better than revolutionary fervor and that the low-hanging fruit of social issues are better initial increments than quixotic tilting at the taxation windmill.

Or is he saying that libertarians need to appeal to Sklansky voters?

      
m