That's why we have oversight, balance of power, regular and open elections etc. Because MEN are BAD. That's why we have government regulations, laws, etc. MEN are BAD. That's why we don't de-regulate everything and let companies do what they want. MEN are BAD, and MONEY corrupts. In our Democracy if our leader is bad we vote them out. In an unregulated marketplace, we wait for the melamine infested milk to poison enough people even the unregulated media can't ignore it anymore...

So now we've shifted the goalposts from "Hey you guys don't diss GWB when he was in power for doing the same things!" to "Hey you Republicans are just throwing GWB under the bus now in order to attack Obama!"

My prediction of the next goalpost shift: "Saying the Republicans are terrible and just the same as the Democrats is just another Republican propaganda line!"

Wow, you built and burnt down two strawmen in a single post! What mighty power you possess. If you haven't noticed the Republican trend to ignore comments about Bush / say "we don't like him much either", you definitely don't read fark.com!

When your first reaction to a book about American and corporate interference in the governments of Central and South Americans is to post that Obama is a socialist, you just might be a redneck.

What makes you think people are inherently bad? They're capable of doing wrong to others. What's your point?

As for your purported controls:

1. Oversight: What oversight are you talking about? Which agencies exist to keep the government in check? More government agencies? That just leads to an infinite regress.

2. Balance of power: This just controls how power is distributed among the governmental branches, not how much power there is. It's not actually a check on anything except who gets to do what.

3. Elections: This doesn't check power, it just determines who has it. All democratic elections do is ensure that 51% of people may take away the rights of the other 49%, at least while their guy is running the show.

I don't understand what "money corrupts" is supposed to mean. Corrupts what? Corrupts how? Is wanting to make a profit for yourself corrupt? And what about all that money the government is taking--is that not corrupting them?

We do? I certainly wouldn't buy from any company that did that.

that is not a republican position.... that is just a logical observant person stating the truth. He could throw Bush I and II in thee and the statement would still be valid.

Indeed I definitely don't. I also don't post about unrelated things said by unrelated and unnamed people, and comment on them as if they are said by people on this forum. Apparently you do.

[ ] relevant to my post

I know the owner of Fark and hes a nice guy, but the quality of thought over there is on a level w/ your PUA skillz.

Can we all see now the death wish of the socialist?

Money is simply the means by which we represent value of property. A price or a wage is not property. We use money as a means of exchange.

Man is Man, with both the good and the bad. When this means is ceded to the state, nothing but inadequacy can follow. Money does not corrupt man, but is a natural representation of his being. What corrupts our spirit is the notion that money must be given away to anyone.

Having a representative in democracy is impossible. The only person who should be in any way acceptable is he who opposes the state.

But I am not assuming that these options will last forever nor am I justifying them. I am simply accepting that I currently have no choice but to accept the social contract and some form of coercion. l feel i should chose how I want the coercion to take place. Clearly it would seem most libertarians disagree

I suppose the choice in developed nations isn't as simple as the dichotomy I chose. However in developing nations it seems to be. In order to gather the resources to compete against other third world and developed nations the choice is either to accept IMF loans and corporatist agenda or to socialize most of the resources. Why we value the states success as a measure of economic success I suppose is an important normative question, but once again it is just a reality. It would be nice to see an attempt at an acist like society. As of now the closest we've come has been horribly corrupted by government forces. As a libertarian I would take offense to such policies as NAFTA because they give government and the public as a whole the scapegoat of the "free market".

No, that's no correct. I don't think people are inherently greedy or selfish. I think man possess the ability for the greatest good or the greatest bad (I don't like the word evil). However, man is influenced greatly by his need for connection, and because of this the current values society holds in high regard lead to greed and selfishness.

We are an involving species, but at this juncture in out collective development we are mere babies on the road to greatness.

So like I've said a few times, I think having ideals is important. However, you need to be grounded in reality and understand the tangibility of those ideals in the real world.

Well, yes, if I can choose whether someone steals $10 or $11 from me, clearly I'll speak up for the former. But that has nothing at all to do with whether it is realistic to say that I think theft is wrong.

Developing nations do have the option of buying into neither. They do have the option of a stateless society. They are choosing not to exercise it. There is no reason at all to suppose they need to socialize their resources or take a loan.

Perhaps you're right, but I don't see that based on the words that have come out of libertarians mouths (and in this case typed). If you have something else that you can point me to that would help me see this, I'd appreciate it.

Having 4 years of comparative religion where we did study from the most original text (and the text of many other religions), I think it's a pretty good brief summary. This is exactly what Lao-tzu thought and advocated, although his goal was much larger than this. I think I'll let any Taoist on here elaborate, as it's been at least 15 years or more since I've opened this text.

Your quote means, however it is that you come to find the Tao, great. However, like many spiritual teachers will tell you (and this is elaborated on by Lao-Tzu), just finding the way is the beginning of the journey. The conditions you need psychically in place to maintain the way is a whole other game.

Yeah, he says put others first. Read chapter 19.

He's no libertarian. That would be a pretty romanticized interpretation of the Tao te Ching. Again, unless you believe Libertarians are here to put others before themselves (and to be blunt, I read libertarianism as an extreme version of self centeredness, with a complete misunderstanding of what the primary purpose of human evolution is about), and are ready to denounce worldly possession, I think it's a pretty far stretch.

I'm sure there are parts that you may agree with on his philosophy, and we can talk about those if you wish.

Could you attempt a decent response at any of my posts to you?

If this wrongness (greed and selfishness) is what society holds in high regard (the state), we could agree for a moment that the state is "bad". Your end though defies the nature of the universe and you refuse to examine why.

Watching Zimbabwe trying to rebuild itself after pretty much destroying their entire economy single handedly is interesting. Their plan pretty much seems to be going to other countries and the IMF begging for loans.

this is where you are dead wrong.

Libertarianism is the acceptance of the nature of man and the natural order of the universe as unyielding to our desires for it to be otherwise. We accept the natural order and seek to live in a harmonious world where humans do not attack each other through government in order to try and achieve goals that are impossible in the first place.

What is new in Zimbabwe since Mugabe's reelection and the 1 ziollion Z$ note or whatever happened? For some reason I am genuinely curious about what is going on there. What is their plan or do you have any good links?

Last I heard they gave up; bank accounts could be denominated in rands or USD, and merchants may accept any currency they want.

The Z$ is gone. Mugabe has entered into a "unity government" with his opponent from the last election who won. Not much has changed though. People still kicked off farms, 95% unemployment, Gono the central banker still in charge and apologizing for raiding bank accounts, and they're running from country to country begging for $8 billion over the next few years swearing this time it's different. So far the most they've gotten is a $56 million loan from South Africa.

My apologies that my responses are not up to your standards.

I don't think personifying mans collective consciousness onto the state is correct. It is a reflection of man's psyche, but not the cause. So I don't think doing away with the state will change the direction of our collective path.

Yeah, I typically refuse to examine things... or so my wife says. But ignorance is bliss they say.

Look, I think if you want a serious discussion then you need to show respect. Otherwise, you're going to get a lot of the "norm" on this message board.

You're an idiot.

No, you're the idiot.

I told you you was dumber...

No, you is the dumber.

Waste of my time personally. Why don't you instead enlighten us on the nature of the universe and why my statement was incorrect?

Don't be a bitch when I call you out. Can you read back through my posts here and start responding or what?

As much as I want to write you off entirely, I do have a measure of genuine respect for you even though I think you are misguided.

zomg infraction time!

And in most cases it would help people who may agree with you realize that you're not just a republican trying to score cheap political points against Obama, but it just doesn't happen often, does it?

You see what happens when you parrot a republican talking point verbatim? People think you're a republican.

If there are people on here that think all US presidents in the last 20-30 years were socialists, they should say that instead of "zomg obama is socialist!".

Poor communication skills aren't a good reason to get upset at someone else for misunderestimating your position.

People have actually understood what the primary purpose of human evolution is? What is it? I have my own idea, and I always thought that whatever people think it is is correct for themselves, not that there was an accepted true understanding of what it is about.

Please share, I am curious

Meh, kinda hard to take ADyer serious when he goes ZOMG Fox News, Zomg repub talking points, ZOMG right wing propaganda, then he links to Kos, HuffPo or mediamatters. Somehow I doubt anything negative regarding obama will be considered right wing talking points.

Anyone that has spent more than an hour in this forum should realize that obama = socialism has nothing to do with dems vs. repubs, so I don't see why we're saying NeBlis is the one communicating poorly...