Most ¨Libertarians¨ are frauds...

yes most libertarians are frauds and so are the disagreements on this and a few other threads I've read.

 

Thanks. which is more evidence of the natural tendencies for pecking orders, corruption, quid pro quo, nepotism, etc, to arise from any of these "social democracy" administered economic collectivist constructs....just exactly as they occur in market based economic systems

Human nature essentially destroys these "workers' paradise" utopias before they get off the ground.

 

Ron Paul could be called a semi-economic and foreign policy libertarian but he is NOT a social libertarian. He has all too often revealed veiled racist and misogynistic beliefs in his public speaking.

Personally I'd rate him at about 66% libertarian but won't deny he's about 800% better than the average politican but not suprisingly the average American, both Democrat and Republican, is far more libertarian their own elected politicans.

 

whoopsadaisy, that should have said 'some' which is what I meant.

 

You've misinterpreted his position. He has said that IF government must legislate marriage, it needs to be done at the state level, not the federal level, but also that government shouldn't be legislating it at all.

 

Actually the Supreme Court ruled a long time ago that marriage was in fact a fundamental constitutional right, along with interstate and intrastate travel, privacy, and a number of other things. They did not however, say whether or not they interpreted this as between only a man and a woman or between ant consenting adults. That is why states are allowed to outlaw gay marriage without technically violating anyone's rights.

 

They also ruled that Obamacare and full body cavity searches for speeding violations were constitutional. I get the feeling the Supremes have their own, extra-constitutional agendas.

 

I view Libertarians, brainwashed zombie liberals and religious freak conservatives all alike. Idealistic models of society that will never come to fruition. My interest is to be left alone. I suppose the Libertarian is best at that so your allegations of fraud should be opened up a bit more. I see pure corruption and an evil joy in droning citizens in Obama (i.e. a "liberal"). I saw nothing but a warmonger in Bush (i.e. Conservative). What have you got to lose?

 

Obamacare technically is constitutional. It's just not a very good idea, at least not the parts that the republicans added to it, such as the mandate.

 

No, the Republicans created the mandate in 1987. They had no part in adding it to the 2009 bill that became Obamacare. But yes, both parties support Obamacare.

 

Obamacare isn't any more constitutional than Social Security or prohibition. Cite for me the passage in the Constitution that authorizes Obamacare?

Both parties, and most Americans, accept that the Constitution should be so loosely interpreted so as to render it useless. We have no rule of law to constrain our government. If you accept that "... promote the general welfare" means that the FedGov can do anything it so desires as long as they call it "general welfare" - then you are effectively arguing for something more in line with democracy, and against the rule of law, as anything could be argued as "general welfare".

Obamacare is an afront to common sense, an understanding of history, and freedom. I have never met, nor ever read a libertarian who advocated for democracy or any centralized means of controlling and coercing people. Libertarians are very consistent - the name of the game is freedom.

The most effective means by which to ensure the greatest amount of freedom, with the most effectively empowered, yet limited government, is that of a republic. And the most effective means of administering government that must serve basic societal needs - specifically, a federal republic.

Most libertarians I know, and I myself being a libertarian, advocate for some version of what America was founded as. Narrowly empowered, decentralized, strictly limited government.

 

How many republican votes did it get again?

 

We should start that debate again. The Affordable Care Act is a tax statistically on WHITE people. Dunce-boy Obama should have proposed UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE if he was a liberal. He isn't. He is a corrupt pile of Forrest Gump garbage. If he was a Ralph Nader- style liberal (i.e. practice what you preach), I might have actually considered voting for him.

 

The thing about Ralph nadar is that he is a moron, that is why people won't elect him.

 

Disagree. Nader is definitely not a moron. He never hid his grades. He is idealistic and that can be legitimately construed as moronic.

 

Most non-libertarians advocate the initiation of force, and thus, are less civilized than a well raised 5 year old.

 

..... This seems like a tad bit of a very exaggerated overgeneralization to me. Though Libertarians have a broad range of beliefs in common we usually agree that government should have a clear, well defined specific and limited role in society. The Federal and State governments should both have their roles and limited authority as checks and balances to eachother in my opinion, as of right now i think the federal government is a much larger concern as they control a much larger portion of the tax burden. The federal government holds more power and thus a risk of greater abuse, keeping the authority and responsibility at a bare minimum reduces the risk of severe costs of corruption coming from government. We are all people, we do good and bad things i think its important that we remember our flaws and our grandure throughout our history so we can learn from mistakes and improve on society.

 

Read Rothbard carefully and think about it with every part of your mind!
He wrote one of the most genuis pieces of law and state philosophy that have been brought to paper!
He created a new way of putting of things, matching them and a new logic behind it, leaving the one, on which our world and basically the economic and state System was built.
Despite so many tragedies, so much death and war whatsoever, humanity has always had hope.
In my opinion, Rothbard gave various reasons and Input to believe in such hope for our world nowadays.

 

None. They didn't have to vote for it. Obama and his Congressional supermajorities gave them the opportunity to get Romneycare/Heritagecare passed while still being able to claim to oppose it.

It's all political shenanigans.

 

Props...good post. this sorta supports my belief that "Left" Libertarian is an oxymoron.

To perhaps better explain, I don't think it's really possible to hold the left's almost fundamental positions on economics, business, taxes, regulations, socialized health care, and redistributive transfer payments (falsely interpreted as "general welfare") and still claim to support the "maximum liberty" tenets engraved over the door of Libertarianism.

All or nothing, in my opinion...one can't support maximum "social" liberties while demanding the "lucky" pick up the tab, and claim to be a "libertarian"

 

Not that it is the same plan heritage had, but they are a think tank not the Republican Party. To blame obamacare on republicans is mental origami.

 

I don't see how healthcare is different from any other market. If you want to argue that the state can provide the best healthcare, then you must argue the same for everything else. Which is lunacy.

The elephant in the healthcare problem waiting room is that there hasn't been a free market in healthcare in America or any other nation for a century now. Big Healthcare and Big Pharm cozied up to Big Brother just like the banks and automobiles and most industries.

 

States are just based on ruin and false promise, ruin is what they do, and the monopolies trying desperately to get involved.

 

Left libertarians were the first known libertarians, so I respectfully disagree. However, I am curious, my good friend. What do you see as the "fundamental positions" of left libertarians?

 

Could you name left libertarians, please?
I once read someone, explaining that anarcho-capitalism is THE left theory of politics, not what People might associate with left, but left as making room for individual rights.
Wasn't quite convinced. What is your approach?