Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

All liberatarians are derailing assholes

TheCanManTheCanMan Registered User regular
edited April 2007 in Debate and/or Discourse
Ok not all Liberatarian are idealistic wack-jobs, so how about an intelligent discussion about this topic? Personally, I'm very much in favor of the idea of self-ownership. I could easily do without all the legislated morality bullshit. I really don't need the government to save me from myself. And I really don't see why anyone would object to less government intrusion into our personal lives. Someone tell me why I'm wrong without being a total douche about it.

TheCanMan on
«13456715

Posts

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    This is from my thread:
    moniker wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    I really don't need the government to save me from myself.

    How about others? I'm going to assume you aren't insane enough to propose the privatization of police and fire departments, so what about the products and externalities that others produce. Also, governmental intervention to provide services and means to rural areas. Services like electricity, or roads.

    I'm not so much talking about stuff like the privatizing the police force. I'm more talking about all the stupid ass laws that tell me how to run my life even though the actions they are legislating don't directly effect other people. Stuff like seat-belt laws (except for minors), and helmet laws, and laws against smoking pot, or all the taxes on cigarettes in a attempt to force people to stop smoking.

    It impacts others in the terms of health care costs being increased across the board in order to help all the people flying through windshields, getting cancer, and spliting their heads open since letting them die isn't a good solution.

    What are you views towards building codes, the FDA, EPA, &c.?

    tea-1.jpg
  • Me Too!Me Too! __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    This is from my thread:
    moniker wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    I really don't need the government to save me from myself.

    How about others? I'm going to assume you aren't insane enough to propose the privatization of police and fire departments, so what about the products and externalities that others produce. Also, governmental intervention to provide services and means to rural areas. Services like electricity, or roads.

    I'm not so much talking about stuff like the privatizing the police force. I'm more talking about all the stupid ass laws that tell me how to run my life even though the actions they are legislating don't directly effect other people. Stuff like seat-belt laws (except for minors), and helmet laws, and laws against smoking pot, or all the taxes on cigarettes in a attempt to force people to stop smoking.

    I think that's part of the problem. The bulk of reasonable liberatarians realize, even if they *feel* that we'd be better off with no government at all, that it's simply not feasible, and would rather just roll back a number of (in their, and my, minds) incidences of government far overstepping their role.

    Unfortunately, the only ones we ever hear from are the ones like EM, who make all the others look bad by association.

  • GooeyGooey Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    2 threads enter, 1 thread leaves!

    919UOwT.png
  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User
    edited April 2007
    We had a huge thread on why you not using a seatbelt does affect other people.

    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • FunkyWaltDoggFunkyWaltDogg Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    I really don't need the government to save me from myself.

    How about others? I'm going to assume you aren't insane enough to propose the privatization of police and fire departments, so what about the products and externalities that others produce. Also, governmental intervention to provide services and means to rural areas. Services like electricity, or roads.

    *see the other thread*

    If we're discussing it in this thread, let's discuss it in this thread.

    EDIT: Or in the other thread. Whatever.

    Burnage wrote:
    FWD is very good at this game.
  • KNYTEKNYTE Registered User
    edited April 2007
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    One of the problems associated with not "saving people from themselves" is that a huge portion of Americans don't have health insurance. Seatbelt laws keep you and I from paying for the other guy's health care when he goes through his windshield, since "let him die" is not an acceptable option.

    Maybe that's not an acceptable option for you. If I'm too stupid to wear a helmet while I'm on a motorcycle, I'd be perfectly accepting of the fact that when my head bounced off the street that I'm basically done.

    Were that to actually occur I'm inclined to think that your feelings on the matter would change.

    The best defense is a good offense.

    "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms, history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall"
    - Adolf Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.
  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Doc wrote: »
    One of the problems associated with not "saving people from themselves" is that a huge portion of Americans don't have health insurance. Seatbelt laws keep you and I from paying for the other guy's health care when he goes through his windshield, since "let him die" is not an acceptable option.

    Of course manditory seatbelt laws manage to protect drivers at the expense of more accidents, and increased danger to pedestrians...so they're not exactly all that helpful.

  • SavantSavant Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Is this including only Libertarians who identify themselves as such, or does it include more moderate groups which have libertarian tendencies but refuse to go the whole nine yards? I think I heard the term Classical Liberal used around here somewhere for that.

  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2007
    Doc wrote: »
    One of the problems associated with not "saving people from themselves" is that a huge portion of Americans don't have health insurance. Seatbelt laws keep you and I from paying for the other guy's health care when he goes through his windshield, since "let him die" is not an acceptable option.

    Of course manditory seatbelt laws manage to protect drivers at the expense of more accidents, and increased danger to pedestrians...so they're not exactly all that helpful.

    I've not heard this before. Cite?

  • GodGod Registered User
    edited April 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    This is from my thread:
    moniker wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    I really don't need the government to save me from myself.

    How about others? I'm going to assume you aren't insane enough to propose the privatization of police and fire departments, so what about the products and externalities that others produce. Also, governmental intervention to provide services and means to rural areas. Services like electricity, or roads.

    I'm not so much talking about stuff like the privatizing the police force. I'm more talking about all the stupid ass laws that tell me how to run my life even though the actions they are legislating don't directly effect other people. Stuff like seat-belt laws (except for minors), and helmet laws, and laws against smoking pot, or all the taxes on cigarettes in a attempt to force people to stop smoking.

    It impacts others in the terms of health care costs being increased across the board in order to help all the people flying through windshields, getting cancer, and spliting their heads open since letting them die isn't a good solution.

    What are you views towards building codes, the FDA &c.?

    When costs get that indirect, I think a lot of us go eh, whatever. It's your same reasoning that created fines for parking your car on the lawn. Of course, most people don't really give a shit about seat belt laws, even if they're against them. If you really don't want to wear one, you won't. And if you're not wearing one and get pulled over, you'll put it on real quick if you're smart. I'm shocked that people actually get ticketed for that.

    sky.JPG
  • TheCanManTheCanMan Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    This is from my thread:
    moniker wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    I really don't need the government to save me from myself.

    How about others? I'm going to assume you aren't insane enough to propose the privatization of police and fire departments, so what about the products and externalities that others produce. Also, governmental intervention to provide services and means to rural areas. Services like electricity, or roads.

    I'm not so much talking about stuff like the privatizing the police force. I'm more talking about all the stupid ass laws that tell me how to run my life even though the actions they are legislating don't directly effect other people. Stuff like seat-belt laws (except for minors), and helmet laws, and laws against smoking pot, or all the taxes on cigarettes in a attempt to force people to stop smoking.

    I think that's part of the problem. The bulk of reasonable liberatarians realize, even if they *feel* that we'd be better off with no government at all, that it's simply not feasible, and would rather just roll back a number of (in their, and my, minds) incidences of government far overstepping their role.

    Exactly. My political ideology is pretty much all over the map. I stongly support alot of the conservative ideals, but I'm also so fundamentally against pretty much every single aspect of the Religious Right that I almost without fail vote Democratic. But then I also feel pretty strongly for some of the Liberatarian ideals. So I very strongly agree with bits and pieces of everyone which makes taking sided in the election process a bit tricky for me.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    This is from my thread:
    moniker wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    I really don't need the government to save me from myself.

    How about others? I'm going to assume you aren't insane enough to propose the privatization of police and fire departments, so what about the products and externalities that others produce. Also, governmental intervention to provide services and means to rural areas. Services like electricity, or roads.

    I'm not so much talking about stuff like the privatizing the police force. I'm more talking about all the stupid ass laws that tell me how to run my life even though the actions they are legislating don't directly effect other people. Stuff like seat-belt laws (except for minors), and helmet laws, and laws against smoking pot, or all the taxes on cigarettes in a attempt to force people to stop smoking.

    I think that's part of the problem. The bulk of reasonable liberatarians realize, even if they *feel* that we'd be better off with no government at all, that it's simply not feasible, and would rather just roll back a number of (in their, and my, minds) incidences of government far overstepping their role.

    Unfortunately, the only ones we ever hear from are the ones like EM, who make all the others look bad by association.

    No, they don't. The others aren't actually libertarian, they're civil libertarians, or they're fiscal libertarians, or they're libertarian on certain and some issues because they do understand that there needs to be some governmental interference for a society to function or to address the fact that other people have externalities that do impact everybody else. It might be situational, it might not, but it's a collective action problem which is what governments exist to address.

    tea-1.jpg
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2007
    Hey, waddaya know - a non-joke use of the Merge feature.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • electronicmajielectronicmaji __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2007
    I am not a troll I just got sick of being trolled myself. Moderators clearly overstepping their boundaries just tries to incite me to anger and in response to their unserious, flaming response ill only give unserious flaming responses.


    at least I know who im voting for come election time

    http://www.kubby2008.com

    Top Weekly Artists
    Electronicmaji.gif
  • imbalancedimbalanced Registered User
    edited April 2007
    I've been waiting for this thread my entire life.

    When I was growing up in Arkansas, I was a little bit jarred as to where I belonged on the political hierarchy. Bill Clinton looked cool when I was a "kid" so I thought I agreed with his point of view, bridge to the 21st century! Neat! Then I started listening more and more to things other than economy and I found out *shock* I am not a Democrat.

    Several years pass and I had been clinging onto the Republican party (loosely) because it was closer to my own moral upbringings. My parents vote Republican, they are not rich and are considered "new money" -- my dad went to medical school while in the Navy, retiring after 15 years of service. I agree with many things they do: abortion, free market economy, lower taxes/government spending, etc. But there are some things that they miss completely that I can't stand, such as invasion of privacy, security over rights, overreaching law and governance, patent/copyright law to name a few.

    I took one of those political spectrum tests and I was strongly libertarian, so much so I was very close to anarchy (man, I think that could be a sign). I don't like the mentality that everyone should go to college no matter what, I don't like all the programs we spend money on that actually raise taxes and help a few individuals. I want tax law to be simple.

    I want my rights to be god given, and nobody to infringe on them for the sake of whatever. As long as my rights do not infringe on your own rights, leave me alone.

    The Libertarian Party is supposed to follow most if not all these ideals, the problem is you got wack jobs running it. Hill people that don't seem "normal." Think Pat Buchanan.

    Not to say that there are not NORMAL libertarians out there, here's a list of people you may or may not have known who are libertarian: Dave Barry, Drew Carey, Penn Jillette, John Larroquette, Denis Leary, Howard Stern, Kurt Russell, Tom Selleck.

    I think if most people stepped back from the whole thing and looked at the political landscape today, they would find they are neither Democrat nor Republican. Might just be a libertarian, I know I was shocked when I figured it out. Now I just gotta figure out who should be the figurehead to make the party seem a little more... genuine....

    idc-sig.png
    Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
  • TheCanManTheCanMan Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    This is from my thread:
    moniker wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    I really don't need the government to save me from myself.

    How about others? I'm going to assume you aren't insane enough to propose the privatization of police and fire departments, so what about the products and externalities that others produce. Also, governmental intervention to provide services and means to rural areas. Services like electricity, or roads.

    I'm not so much talking about stuff like the privatizing the police force. I'm more talking about all the stupid ass laws that tell me how to run my life even though the actions they are legislating don't directly effect other people. Stuff like seat-belt laws (except for minors), and helmet laws, and laws against smoking pot, or all the taxes on cigarettes in a attempt to force people to stop smoking.

    It impacts others in the terms of health care costs being increased across the board in order to help all the people flying through windshields, getting cancer, and spliting their heads open since letting them die isn't a good solution.

    What are you views towards building codes, the FDA, EPA, &c.?

    Why isn't just letting them die not a good solution. If I'm too stupid to put my seatbelt on then I'll accept the consequences.

  • GodGod Registered User
    edited April 2007
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    This is from my thread:
    moniker wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    I really don't need the government to save me from myself.

    How about others? I'm going to assume you aren't insane enough to propose the privatization of police and fire departments, so what about the products and externalities that others produce. Also, governmental intervention to provide services and means to rural areas. Services like electricity, or roads.

    I'm not so much talking about stuff like the privatizing the police force. I'm more talking about all the stupid ass laws that tell me how to run my life even though the actions they are legislating don't directly effect other people. Stuff like seat-belt laws (except for minors), and helmet laws, and laws against smoking pot, or all the taxes on cigarettes in a attempt to force people to stop smoking.

    It impacts others in the terms of health care costs being increased across the board in order to help all the people flying through windshields, getting cancer, and spliting their heads open since letting them die isn't a good solution.

    What are you views towards building codes, the FDA, EPA, &c.?

    Why isn't just letting them die not a good solution. If I'm too stupid to put my seatbelt on then I'll accept the consequences.

    You're a cold, heartless prick. The reason we shouldn't let them die is because then our insurance premiums will go up.

    sky.JPG
  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Imbalanced, your list of "famous" libertarians is precisely the problem with libertarians. The whole thing is one big joke.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    This is from my thread:
    moniker wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    I really don't need the government to save me from myself.

    How about others? I'm going to assume you aren't insane enough to propose the privatization of police and fire departments, so what about the products and externalities that others produce. Also, governmental intervention to provide services and means to rural areas. Services like electricity, or roads.

    I'm not so much talking about stuff like the privatizing the police force. I'm more talking about all the stupid ass laws that tell me how to run my life even though the actions they are legislating don't directly effect other people. Stuff like seat-belt laws (except for minors), and helmet laws, and laws against smoking pot, or all the taxes on cigarettes in a attempt to force people to stop smoking.

    It impacts others in the terms of health care costs being increased across the board in order to help all the people flying through windshields, getting cancer, and spliting their heads open since letting them die isn't a good solution.

    What are you views towards building codes, the FDA, EPA, &c.?

    Why isn't just letting them die not a good solution. If I'm too stupid to put my seatbelt on then I'll accept the consequences.

    I doubt that point of view would stick around when you're laying on the ground writhing. Not to mention the societal and emotional cost that your corpse would produce.

    tea-1.jpg
  • GodGod Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Sentry wrote: »
    Your list of "famous" libertarians is precisely the problem with libertarians. The whole thing is one big joke.

    You're right, it's just as stupid as trotting out the Hollywood types for "famous liberals". Most libertarians just vote republican.

    sky.JPG
  • imbalancedimbalanced Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Sentry wrote: »
    Imbalanced, your list of "famous" libertarians is precisely the problem with libertarians. The whole thing is one big joke.

    There's literary libertarians too, but I left them out considering the audience....

    idc-sig.png
    Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2007
    Doc wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    One of the problems associated with not "saving people from themselves" is that a huge portion of Americans don't have health insurance. Seatbelt laws keep you and I from paying for the other guy's health care when he goes through his windshield, since "let him die" is not an acceptable option.

    Of course manditory seatbelt laws manage to protect drivers at the expense of more accidents, and increased danger to pedestrians...so they're not exactly all that helpful.

    I've not heard this before. Cite?

    I've heard this too, and I recall seeing actual studies to back it up, though I don't have a link handy. The idea is that people feel safer with seatbelts, and so they drive more recklessly. I still recall the upshot being a net positive.

    At any rate, seatbelt laws are the perfect poster child for libertarian myopia. To wit, sometimes laws that ostensibly infringe upon your ability to be a smacktard actually serve to protect you from other people's smacktardedness. Few things happen in a vacuum, and when your dumb ass winds up splattered all over the pavement, it's not like you're the only one that's affected. More people are late to work, as the mess takes longer to clean up than it would've if your face hadn't exploded. Resources that could be used on other emergencies are squandered scraping your you-chunks off the back of someone's SUV. Much of the libertarian philosophy presupposes that human interaction is a lot more localized than it really is.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    at least I know who im voting for come election time

    So do I. :o

    tea-1.jpg
  • Me Too!Me Too! __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    I am not a troll I just got sick of being trolled myself. Moderators clearly overstepping their boundaries just tries to incite me to anger and in response to their unserious, flaming response ill only give unserious flaming responses.


    at least I know who im voting for come election time

    http://www.kubby2008.com

    Did anybody say you were a troll?
    No.
    And don't try pushing shit onto mods. You brought it on yourself. Will made a topic so that the gun control one wasn't derailed. You're the one who started being a little shit about it.

  • CyberJackalCyberJackal Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Sentry wrote: »
    Imbalanced, your list of "famous" libertarians is precisely the problem with libertarians. The whole thing is one big joke.

    Why is that? Comedians can't have political positions?

  • electronicmajielectronicmaji __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2007
    Bullshit!


    I will probably end up voting for obama because kubby wont get on the ballot here in arkansas...but ideologically the man is flawless


    http://www.kubby2008.com/node/8

    Top Weekly Artists
    Electronicmaji.gif
  • TheCanManTheCanMan Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    God wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    This is from my thread:
    moniker wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    I really don't need the government to save me from myself.

    How about others? I'm going to assume you aren't insane enough to propose the privatization of police and fire departments, so what about the products and externalities that others produce. Also, governmental intervention to provide services and means to rural areas. Services like electricity, or roads.

    I'm not so much talking about stuff like the privatizing the police force. I'm more talking about all the stupid ass laws that tell me how to run my life even though the actions they are legislating don't directly effect other people. Stuff like seat-belt laws (except for minors), and helmet laws, and laws against smoking pot, or all the taxes on cigarettes in a attempt to force people to stop smoking.

    It impacts others in the terms of health care costs being increased across the board in order to help all the people flying through windshields, getting cancer, and spliting their heads open since letting them die isn't a good solution.

    What are you views towards building codes, the FDA, EPA, &c.?

    Why isn't just letting them die not a good solution. If I'm too stupid to put my seatbelt on then I'll accept the consequences.

    You're a cold, heartless prick. The reason we shouldn't let them die is because then our insurance premiums will go up.

    Actually, since the insurance companies wouldn't be paying for a few idiots too stupid to wear a seatbelt *cough*Corzine*cough*, I would think that our premiums would go down.

  • GodGod Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Sentry wrote: »
    Imbalanced, your list of "famous" libertarians is precisely the problem with libertarians. The whole thing is one big joke.

    Why is that? Comedians can't have political positions?

    It's just as stupid as saying "Hey, you know who else is a democrat? Susan Sarandon! Sean Penn! Pretty much the whole cast of Dead Man Walking!"

    sky.JPG
  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Sentry wrote: »
    Imbalanced, your list of "famous" libertarians is precisely the problem with libertarians. The whole thing is one big joke.

    Why is that? Comedians can't have political positions?

    Really? Is that what you got from my post?

    Anyone can have a political position, but it's who your representatives are that demonstrate the strength of your political platform. Frankly, if your entire party is only being parroted by comedians, then people are going to view it as what it is, a freaking joke.

    Of course, Moniker is the best at explaining why the party itself is a joke, I'm just speaking in general.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2007
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Actually, since the insurance companies wouldn't be paying for a few idiots too stupid to wear a seatbelt *cough*Corzine*cough*, I would think that our premiums would go down.

    It's generally recognized that human life (even really stupid human life) is worth saving if technology reasonably allows it.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    What are you views towards building codes, the FDA, EPA, &c.?

    tea-1.jpg
  • GodGod Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Sentry wrote: »
    Sentry wrote: »
    Imbalanced, your list of "famous" libertarians is precisely the problem with libertarians. The whole thing is one big joke.

    Why is that? Comedians can't have political positions?

    Really? Is that what you got from my post?

    Anyone can have a political position, but it's who your representatives are that demonstrait the strength of your political platform. Frankly, if your entire party is only being parroted by comedians, then people are going to view it as what it is, a freaking joke.

    Of course, Moniker is the best at explaining why the party itself is a joke, I'm just speaking in general.

    90% of libertarians have nothing to do with the libertarian party.

    sky.JPG
  • CyberJackalCyberJackal Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    God wrote: »
    Sentry wrote: »
    Imbalanced, your list of "famous" libertarians is precisely the problem with libertarians. The whole thing is one big joke.

    Why is that? Comedians can't have political positions?

    It's just as stupid as saying "Hey, you know who else is a democrat? Susan Sarandon! Sean Penn! Pretty much the whole cast of Dead Man Walking!"

    And yet noone makes the claim that the fact that they are democrats invalidates the democratic party as a whole.

  • imbalancedimbalanced Registered User
    edited April 2007
    God wrote: »
    Sentry wrote: »
    Imbalanced, your list of "famous" libertarians is precisely the problem with libertarians. The whole thing is one big joke.

    Why is that? Comedians can't have political positions?

    It's just as stupid as saying "Hey, you know who else is a democrat? Susan Sarandon! Sean Penn! Pretty much the whole cast of Dead Man Walking!"

    I get what you're saying, but I'm trying to battle the image that nobody in the world could possibly be Libertarian. It's different than the "cool" look of being Democrat or the shunned nature of Republicans. It's supposed to let people know it's okay to be something other than Dem or Repub if you think both are wrong, other people have done it before.

    I know the list is silly. But maybe in that list is someone you think is actually pretty smart and decent (I love me some Dave Barry).

    EDIT: If this fits your bill better, here's some Libertarian Nobel Peace Prize winners....

    Friedrich Hayek, 1974, Economics. Hayek was one of the leaders of the Austrian school of economics.
    Milton Friedman, 1976, Economics. Friedman is one of the founders of the Monetarist school of economics, which advocates a free-market economy with strict control over the money supply.
    James Buchanan, 1986, Economics. Buchanan won the prize for developing the "Public Choice" school of economics, which analyzes political behavior (of voters, politicans and lobbyists) in terms of self-interest.
    Gary Becker, 1992, Economics. The Chicago-school economist is a leader and former president of the free-market Mont Pelerin Society.
    Kary Mullis, 1993, Chemistry. Mullis won the prize for figuring out how to make unlimited copies of DNA. In the Fort Bragg, California, Advocate News, a reporter noted that Mullis "talks about his Libertarian philosophy" as just one of "his wildly divergent interests. Government, he feels, is best suited to protect groups of people from outside interference, but ill-suited to dictate how individuals should lead their private lives."
    Vernon Smith, 2002, Economics (shared). The public choice economist pioneered 'experimental economics,' using simulations to predict the outcome of regulatory changes (particularly with regard to energy markets).

    idc-sig.png
    Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
  • ElkiElki hegemon globalSuper Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2007
    Speaking seriously though, why do libertarians get such a bad rap?

    Collective action problems.

  • GodGod Registered User
    edited April 2007
    imbalanced wrote: »
    God wrote: »
    Sentry wrote: »
    Imbalanced, your list of "famous" libertarians is precisely the problem with libertarians. The whole thing is one big joke.

    Why is that? Comedians can't have political positions?

    It's just as stupid as saying "Hey, you know who else is a democrat? Susan Sarandon! Sean Penn! Pretty much the whole cast of Dead Man Walking!"

    I get what you're saying, but I'm trying to battle the image that nobody in the world could possibly be Libertarian. It's different than the "cool" look of being Democrat or the shunned nature of Republicans. It's supposed to let people know it's okay to be something other than Dem or Repub if you think both are wrong, other people have done it before.

    I know the list is silly. But maybe in that list is someone you think is actually pretty smart and decent (I love me some Dave Barry).

    I think you should be less concerned about the coolness of your political beliefs. There are other ways of letting people know it's ok to self identify as neither a democrat or a republican than parroting the idiotic LP, too.

    sky.JPG
  • drinkinstoutdrinkinstout Registered User
    edited April 2007
    I am actually amazed that people are able to 100% back and align themseleves with a party to begin, especially ones whos views and opinions are so far in one direction or the other.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    stout's Amazon Wishlist | my lastFM
  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    imbalanced wrote: »
    God wrote: »
    Sentry wrote: »
    Imbalanced, your list of "famous" libertarians is precisely the problem with libertarians. The whole thing is one big joke.

    Why is that? Comedians can't have political positions?

    It's just as stupid as saying "Hey, you know who else is a democrat? Susan Sarandon! Sean Penn! Pretty much the whole cast of Dead Man Walking!"

    I get what you're saying, but I'm trying to battle the image that nobody in the world could possibly be Libertarian. It's different than the "cool" look of being Democrat or the shunned nature of Republicans. It's supposed to let people know it's okay to be something other than Dem or Repub if you think both are wrong, other people have done it before.

    I know the list is silly. But maybe in that list is someone you think is actually pretty smart and decent (I love me some Dave Barry).

    I love Dave Barry too... just not enough to form my own political ideology off of what he says.

    The fact is, Libertarianism works best inside peoples heads, where it belongs.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • GodGod Registered User
    edited April 2007
    I am actually amazed that people are able to 100% back and align themseleves with a party to begin, especially ones whos views and opinions are so far in one direction or the other.

    People don't actually do that, which is why 90% of all libertarians just bite the bullet and vote republican.

    sky.JPG
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    God wrote: »
    Sentry wrote: »
    Imbalanced, your list of "famous" libertarians is precisely the problem with libertarians. The whole thing is one big joke.

    Why is that? Comedians can't have political positions?

    It's just as stupid as saying "Hey, you know who else is a democrat? Susan Sarandon! Sean Penn! Pretty much the whole cast of Dead Man Walking!"

    And yet noone makes the claim that the fact that they are democrats invalidates the democratic party as a whole.

    Because noone (at least noone serious) parrots a list of them as a justification or reason to become a Democrat. If you're best justification to join a party is because of the cool people you get to hang out with at conventions...yeah.

    tea-1.jpg
«13456715
Sign In or Register to comment.