why don't Democrats understand libertarians?

Democratic party these days is an oxymoron. So is Republican party. Neither party is for Democracy or the Republic for the people by the people.

 

Have you ever played the game of monopoly? Did you know that the game was invented by a follower of Henry George, to show how land monopoly works? Try entering a game of monopoly after all the “properties” are taken … see how much fun that is.

"It is quite true that land monopoly is not the only monopoly which exists, but it is by far the greatest of monopolies - it is a perpetual monopoly, and it is the mother of all other forms of monopoly. It is quite true that unearned increments in land are not the only form of unearned or undeserved profit which individuals are able to secure; but it is the principal form of unearned increment which is derived from processes which are not merely not beneficial, but which are positively detrimental to the general public." – Winston Churchill

Because I despise anyone getting something for nothing by way of government … and I blame private collection of land rent (by landowners) as the source of government growth, corruption and inefficiency.

 

But the real world isn't at all like monopoly though. And I mean, competition exists between land owners. How exactly is it detrimental for the public? If a landowner takes out too much rent, other will have lower rent and they'll gain more rentees. or?

 

Can you elaborate?

 

Globalists are working to stamp that out.

 

When I hear the term Democrat Senator or Democrat Party used improperly, which is daily now, the same thoughts you have posted come to mind. However, most people use it with no concept of their ignorance and lousy grammar. The Limbaughs and Hannitys of the world have brainwashed the naive lemmings to use the same terms they do. I understand it from them and they know better. But the average guy seems to not. For me, it is an immediate sign of their ignorance and it diminishes, if not negates, the remainder of their message.

 

Wildly popular, but unelectable.

 

Thanks to big intrusive government … take that away and land monopoly would destroy everything … the cities would be burned to the ground. Otherwise, we could take away land monopoly, and government would shrink by popular demand.

But landowners don't contribute anything to production … therefore, everything we give them (or government gives them) is less for producers to receive as reward for their effort. This is why people are getting lazier, the rewards of production are being diluted because landowners are receiving but not giving, which means less reward to the productive workers. High land rents are equivalent to high taxes when it comes to destroying producer incentives … HELLO!

 

Libertarianism is great in theory...but has never put into practice anywhere in the world.

I understand the mating habits of unicorns more than I understand the practicle practice of libertarianism in real world applications.

 

You might want to check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

 

Or it could be that "Democrat Party" takes two less keystrokes to type, which is why I use it sometimes, and also use "GOP" instead of "Republicans." If I thought I could use "USSR" as shorthand for Democrats without getting kicked off the forum, I would. Or sure, maybe it's just intentional programming by Limbaugh and Hannity to use the "hideously derogatory" "Democrat Party," maybe so. yawn.

@ thread, based on the level of leftist understanding on display in this thread, we may as well be discussing "librarians."

 

Are you speaking to me?

"What kind of taxation is least harmful?….My own preference is for a single tax on land" – David Nolan (AZ) founder of the Libertarian Party

 

Although I've certainly had my fill, I can't say the same for the rest of North America. There are occasional bright spots like the repeal of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, but the overall trend is the other direction.

 

I know quite a bit. I'm just boiling it down to it's essence.

 

Not as far as you know.

 

not of Swedish "high culture"

 

It stopped working when we filled up the nation and decided to live in some comfort instead of mass poverty and despair. One of the most pernicious ideas about our past from folks like you is that for some reason, you think life was good back then for the average joe. It was miserable. That is why we changed it.

- - - Updated - - -

Not to mention that most of the land was given away to corporate interests or made valuable by government investments. Think railroads.

 

Complete quote here:

Sorry, but the way you quote that seem a bit out of context.

 

For that matter, here is the complete article:

 

yeah, you probably think you're doing blacks a favor by not calling them the N word too huh

 

I really don't care much for trying to understand the libertarian views of the world. They are nothing more than a side note in American politics. An asterisk, if you will. As another put it, a philosophy, but that's about it. About as relevant as communism in this country.

If you use the term "Democrat" to save two keystrokes after already typing eight, you're just plain lazy. Otherwise, to those who recognize sh!tty grammar and know the difference between and adjective and a proper noun, you just appear ignorant or inflammatory. Either way, it diminishes your message.

 

Ah yes, ad hominem. Speaks so much of your own character that you jump right to that, doesn't it? Nevermind that it was an autocorrect to begin with.

unfortunately

I agree that there is a bit, but a bit is just a bit.

... because they're both coalition parties. The parties themselves are inherently compromises, which few of their own thinking members find fully palatable.

 

Okay, what is a coalition party and what is this coalition made of and who belongs to it? It all members of this party actually believe the same thing and are just using the divisiveness to distract from some agenda, what is this agenda for, and doesn't that mean there really isn't any such thing as a two party system?

 

Trouble is. That's not an argument for libertarianism. It's an argument for the mixed welfare state economy we have now. Where we get growth and quality of living.

 

Libertarianism just seems too idealistic to me. If you want the Constitution enforced, you need enumerated laws. To create and enforce these laws, you need government. To fund the government, you need taxation. In other words, libertarians have to stop calling taxation "violent theft" because they often seem more like hardcore sovereignists.

I've seen libertarians offer nonsense solutions to government, like privatizing everything or using contracts for every transaction. Who will keep corporations honest when everything is privatized? Who will enforce contracts?

I don't relegate libertarians to a bunch of pot-smoking anarchists. However, I do find the movement to be very contrary. Abortion is a good example: the individual 'rights' of the woman may be completely ignored. I quoted the word 'rights' because I know that libertarians are sensitive about the idea of what is a right and what is a privilege... no offense intended.