Here is a direct quote from the article on page 46, from the most recent "The Economist" magazine.
"The biggest brigade in the Obamacon army consists of libertarians, furious with Mr Bush's big-government conservativism, worried about his commitment to an open-ened 'war on terror', and disgusted by his cavalier way with civil rights. There are two competing 'libertarians for Obama' websites. Cafe Press is even offering a 'libertarians for Obama' yard sign..."
Which Libertarian belief coincides with national healthcare, class warfare, welfare, cap and trade, the bailout, or any other policies of the Obama ideology?
I'd like to know what libertarian will be voting for Obama.
By any means voluntary...
maybe they confused libertarians with liberals?
Sometimes "majority" simply means that all the fools are on the same side
In all fairness when Bob Barr gets the LP nomination what can you expect?
Actually I was reading Wikipedia a while back when I stumbled across this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolibertarianism
My favourite part is this:
...means making a political commitment to combat the initiation of force and fraud by the most effective and moral route possible; paleo-libertarians deal in words and thoughts, while neo-libertarians commit themselves to expanding freedom from the rhetorical world to the real world. It's the difference between saying something for freedom and doing something for freedom. Moreover, it's a commitment to the universality of freedom; just as calling oneself 'The Government' cannot legitimately add to one's natural rights, drawing an invisible line on a map and calling it 'The Border' cannot legitimately subtract from one's natural rights. People in foreign lands have the same natural rights as people in the house next door; neo-libertarianism is about finding the most practical ways to stop infringements against the liberty of those around the globe, including the use of force if necessary, just as we would use local police and courts to stop infringements of liberty next door. Put more succinctly: Individuals are the only morally significant unit of political economy. Individuals are imbued with infinite liberties circumscribed only by the rights of others to not be coerced or defrauded. The central right of humanity is the right to resist an aggressor, even if you aren't the victim.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
When the commissars tell you to go stand in line to have your bread, then you have to stand in line to have your bread and you have to bite down hard on the bread just so you can have the strength to fight the commissars another day. That's not a statement of anything but submission.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Or, you know, plain ignorance. Ockham's razor? : P
There is only one reason I could justify such a vote (not that I'm voting): McCain is likely to be slightly worse in foreign relations, Obama, slightly worse on the domestic front. We should bear the burden of our the state sustained in our name ourselves, instead of sending it off to others, if we must choose one of the two.
One thing that really matters to people , is that Obama is not George W. Bush or associated with him.
I know that is a simple answer, it doesn't mean anything since changing rulers does not guarentee that things will get better , but the desperate might be more willing to gamble.
I am not voteing at all. I voted for Paul in the primary and that was enough Democracy for me..but if an anarchist / libertarian friend told me they were voting for Obama I really could not condemn them for the same reason I could not condemn a poor person for buying a lottery ticket.
Not the best idea, but I understand why someone would do it.
http://www.comebackalive.com/phpBB2 Travel, Adventure Travel, Arguments, Recipes.
It is appalling to see how Americans, so confortable and used to the liberties and democracy their founding fathers fought their lives for, are wasting their opportunities to have their say on how their country is run.
Not voting is not a solution. The opposition in Venezuela learned the lesson the hard way. In December 2006, due to the osbscene advantages of the official Chavez supporters through the electoral system, most of the opposition candidates decided to withdraw their candidacies into the National Assembl, and the opposition voters supported that move by not voting for the few opposition candidates that still remained in the polls. The result? The National assembly today is composed by 95% or more of Chávez supporterts, clearly not representative of the country's demography.
I am not voting for Obama because I am not an American citizen, but I am actively campaigning for him through the internet and college friends appreciate my support and lament I will not be in the polls with them next Tuesday. I do not know if I am a libertarian or not. I know that I enjoy many ideas I read in this forum and I think there are many valuable thougts here that should go into mainstream.
Art transcends ideology.
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/ruben
Rubén:I am not voting for Obama because I am not an American citizen, but I am actively campaigning for him through the internet and college friends appreciate my support and lament I will not be in the polls with them next Tuesday. I do not know if I am a libertarian or not. I know that I enjoy many ideas I read in this forum and I think there are many valuable thougts here that should go into mainstream.
You're not libertarian. You're actively campaigning for and lamenting about a system that oppresses people and tramples liberty.
Into a certain percentage what you say is true. What I am trying to do is to improve the percentage of liberty within the present system.
The United States of America, after all, is still comparatively a land of freedom. Why do you think so many people over the world risk their lives in order to reach the incomplete freedoms offered by the U.S. Don't you find it ironic that foreigners value more the American ideals that gave birth to your great nation even more than its own citizens?
Twirlcan:I am not voteing at all. I voted for Paul in the primary and that was enough Democracy for me..but if an anarchist / libertarian friend told me they were voting for Obama I really could not condemn them for the same reason I could not condemn a poor person for buying a lottery ticket.
Could you condem a poor person playing russian roulette for $1 million with the gun pointed at someone elses head?
banned: Twirlcan:I am not voteing at all. I voted for Paul in the primary and that was enough Democracy for me..but if an anarchist / libertarian friend told me they were voting for Obama I really could not condemn them for the same reason I could not condemn a poor person for buying a lottery ticket. Could you condem a poor person playing russian roulette for $1 million with the gun pointed at someone elses head?
I couldn't if he didn't set up the game.
Rubén:It is appalling to see how Americans, so confortable and used to the liberties and democracy their founding fathers fought their lives for, are wasting their opportunities to have their say on how their country is run.
What's comfortable about democracy? I dont want to have a say in how other peoples lives are run, nor do I want them to have a say in how my life is. Also, the founding fathers also didn't fight their lives, they played a cheap political game with the lives of those living in the colonies so they could have more control in how they (the political elites) ran the colonies.
Rubén:Not voting is not a solution.
You're right. But since voting isn't a solution and is violative towards other's freedom, as far as candidatorial voting is concerned, it shouldn't be practiced.
Stranger:I couldn't if he didn't set up the game.
So if the someone else was you, you wouldn't find any objection?
banned: Stranger:I couldn't if he didn't set up the game. So if the someone else was you, you wouldn't find any objection?
Not with the other players. It wasn't their choice to play.
Stranger:Not with the other players. It wasn't their choice to play.
No one's forcing them to pull the trigger. They're doing it out of incentive.
Rubén:Into a certain percentage what you say is true. What I am trying to do is to improve the percentage of liberty within the present system.
Right.... And how has all of that voting been working out over the last 200 some years? Getting closer to a liberty loving republic or closer to a despotic democratic empire?
Rubén:The United States of America, after all, is still comparatively a land of freedom. Why do you think so many people over the world risk their lives in order to reach the incomplete freedoms offered by the U.S. Don't you find it ironic that foreigners value more the American ideals that gave birth to your great nation even more than its own citizens?
I'm not an American. America stinks. I'm a Canadian. Canada stinks too.
Incomplete freedoms? Let me explain something to you. This is the resort of resorts. This is where you can steal wealth and live larger than your production, on the back of the very poor people you're trying to get away from. You can have what 2 or 3 billion people on this planet can't even imagine. And you can have it free, or at a huge discount, subsidized by the extorted blood and tears of people in developing nations.
America is where the exploited come to become exploiters. There is nothing noble or wonderful about that.
Precisely. Stranger and I differ on this, but maybe what, 5% of the population is actually anti-state? There are a lot of people playing the game, because they benefit from it. There are a lot of people who are not in the government, who are not rich, who are not tied into big business, who are more than happy to receive their redistributed wealth, to spend up cheap credit with no intention of paying it back, and to rejoice and cheer as they Shock and Awe another civilian populace back into the Stone Age like it was a Hollywood movie.
banned: Stranger:Not with the other players. It wasn't their choice to play. No one's forcing them to pull the trigger. They're doing it out of incentive.
Exactly, these people have no right to complain about the hard ship of being poor as a result of the state, through voting for others people's money (which they feel they have some claim to) they create this system.
liberty student: Incomplete freedoms? Let me explain something to you. This is the resort of resorts. This is where you can steal wealth and live larger than your production, on the back of the very poor people you're trying to get away from. You can have what 2 or 3 billion people on this planet can't even imagine. And you can have it free, or at a huge discount, subsidized by the extorted blood and tears of people in developing nations. America is where the exploited come to become exploiters. There is nothing noble or wonderful about that.
You sound exactly like Hugo Chávez.
Of course, the difference is that you say it in well argued fashion, with a great background of ideas and a selfless interest; while my country's dicator just says it as a means to perpetuate himself in power while oppressing pseudo-colonies such as Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua with the oild dollars property of the Venezuelan people.
If they don't pull the trigger, eventually the trigger is going to be pulled on them.
Stranger:If they don't pull the trigger, eventually the trigger is going to be pulled on them.
Time preference. The future is always discounted.
liberty student: Stranger:If they don't pull the trigger, eventually the trigger is going to be pulled on them. Time preference. The future is always discounted.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
If it's an eventuality, why is it suddenly not one when they do pull the trigger?
And it's still irrelevant. You aren't justified in doing bad things to other people because bad things might be done to you in the future.
Rubén:You sound exactly like Hugo Chávez.
That's because I am Hugo Chavez! I have been following you all over the internets! Revolucion is serius bizness!
Rubén:Of course, the difference is that you say it in well argued fashion, with a great background of ideas and a selfless interest; while my country's dicator just says it as a means to perpetuate himself in power while oppressing pseudo-colonies such as Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua with the oild dollars property of the Venezuelan people.
I don't want to dismiss you, but you're not arguing the merits or deficits of the positions. You're dancing around the discussion.
Americans have for quite some time (post WWII) been living off of the work of others. Most of that extortion has come through threats of force and political manipulation. The American dream is contingent upon looting someone else, somewhere in the world, preferably out of the sight of cameras.
I don't think pretending things are not what they are serves any of us well. Except perhaps those that want to maintain the status quo.
banned: Stranger:If they don't pull the trigger, eventually the trigger is going to be pulled on them. If it's an eventuality, why is it suddenly not one when they do pull the trigger?
Because if they win the game, they are safe from it until the next game.
It is relevant to an election, which isn't turn-based but real-time. If you don't protect yourself as best as you can in the election, then bad things will be done to you immediately, which is what Ruben's example of the opposition boycott in Venezuela demonstrates.
liberty student: That's because I am Hugo Chavez! I have been following you all over the internets! Revolucion is serius bizness!
You are not Hugo Chávez. He doesn't speak English. His style is wordy, full of filthy language and derogatory comments toward other people.
In the future, we think the outcome may be different, that is why we take the option which allows us to reach future choices.
If it was inevitable, then some people would elect not to play a game they know they cannot win. They would opt out now.
The problems I have with your position are twofold.
1. Many people play willingly, and would kick and scream if the game was taken away from them. We're not talking about 5 or 10%. Closer to 95% of people like the game versus the alternative of revolution.
2. All of these, "I am enslaved" scenarios, rely on the the notion that coercion removes choice. I don't buy that. Under that reasoning, every act of coercion would be infinitely successful. In which case, we're in a game we can't win.
liberty student: I don't want to dismiss you, but you're not arguing the merits or deficits of the positions. You're dancing around the discussion. Americans have for quite some time (post WWII) been living off of the work of others. Most of that extortion has come through threats of force and political manipulation. The American dream is contingent upon looting someone else, somewhere in the world, preferably out of the sight of cameras. I don't think pretending things are not what they are serves any of us well. Except perhaps those that want to maintain the status quo.
You are right. I went off-topic for too long, its part of the national collective eschizophrenia we all suffer and that has actually been diagnosed by psychiatrists as a new sociological disease.
Back on topic, the People's Republic of China in the economic sense is adopting the American dream. Since their politics is different, one might argue that they are trying to free themselves from poverty. Poverty is slavery.
liberty student:Americans have for quite some time (post WWII) been living off of the work of others. Most of that extortion has come through threats of force and political manipulation. The American dream is contingent upon looting someone else, somewhere in the world, preferably out of the sight of cameras.
That sounds Karl Maxian to me. "Evil Western capitalists exploit poor workers in third world paying them unfair wages". How dare the evil capitalists force new, better paid jobs on the people in the poor countries!
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
Natalie:That sounds Karl Maxian to me. "Evil Western capitalists exploit poor workers in third world paying them unfair wages". How dare the evil capitalists force new, better paid jobs on the people in the poor countries!
The furthest thing I am is a Marxist.
Americans are exploiting them by either 1. using their regimes to violate their property rights and keep them from realizing the fruits of their labour or 2. using their savings under a corrupt global monetary system. Americans literally are spending trillions of other people's money, with zero intention of paying it back. America isn't prosperous because it is free and people work hard. It's prosperous because someone else is footing the bill as middle class kids go off to get $100,000 educations in fields without jobs.
banned: Could you condem a poor person playing russian roulette for $1 million with the gun pointed at someone elses head?
Uhhh...yes.
I've just walked into a hypothetical trap haven't I?
Natalie:"Evil Western capitalists exploit poor workers in third world paying them unfair wages".
Evil western state socialists rob from people to buy and fund weapons and explosives they in turn sell to groups of thugs who rob from people around them all in the name of National Interest.
Natalie:How dare the evil capitalists force new, better paid jobs on the people in the poor countries!
How dare the evil statists promote the use of newer efficient weaponry against those that are defensless living in squalor.
Twirlcan:I've just walked into a hypothetical trap haven't I?
didja click the "replied on" link?
Rubén:Back on topic, the People's Republic of China in the economic sense is adopting the American dream. Since their politics is different, one might argue that they are trying to free themselves from poverty. Poverty is slavery.
In order to grow their empire, they need prosperity. The only way they will have prosperity, is to become capitalistic.
Poverty is created by slavery, not the other way around. A free man can keep the fruits of his labour, own and protect his own property and satisfy his needs and wants as he thinks they should be addressed.
liberty student: If it was inevitable, then some people would elect not to play a game they know they cannot win. They would opt out now.
But they can win. You can get some bread if you stand in the bread line, even if it means other people will wait longer. If you don't stand in the bread line, you starve.
liberty student: 1. Many people play willingly, and would kick and scream if the game was taken away from them. We're not talking about 5 or 10%. Closer to 95% of people like the game versus the alternative of revolution.
Maybe, but we are not those people.
liberty student:2. All of these, "I am enslaved" scenarios, rely on the the notion that coercion removes choice. I don't buy that. Under that reasoning, every act of coercion would be infinitely successful. In which case, we're in a game we can't win.
I don't understand what this means.
Stranger: You can get some bread if you stand in the bread line, even if it means other people will wait longer. If you don't stand in the bread line, you starve.
False analogy. You're not using violence on people to get the bread.
liberty student:The furthest thing I am is a Marxist.
I understand. But it did sound eerily like would a Marxist say about the exploitation of the poor. I'd just like to distinguish between political actions of the American government and business decisions of the companies. I used to live in a poor country where many of the jobs were provided by the foreign companies so all the attacks on outsoursing really annoy me.
Also, don't forget that the government imposes minimal wage and other regulations that create more incentives for the companies to hire labor elsewhere.
Natalie:But it did sound eerily like would a Marxist say about the exploitation of the poor.
Marxist class theory isn't entirely invalid. It's just applied in the wrong sense. The exploitation is happening between governments and their "citizenry".