The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
PSA: If You Aren't A Libertarian, You're A Moron
Poast new message in this thread
Date: August 30th, 2010 10:16 AM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks Look at what government has done/is doing to our economy. There is simply no way that the Founding Fathers ever envisioned this when they were building this country. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15919076) |
 |
Date: August 30th, 2010 10:19 AM Author: pale awkward lodge pocket flask http://www.theonion.com/articles/libertarian-reluctantly-calls-fire-department,4651/ (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15919084) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 10:21 AM Author: glittery mint native One time I was playing The Sims and I had a date over for dinner. While I was cooking, the kitchen caught fire. I attempted to put it out myself, but wasn't up to the task. Both of us were immolated. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15919096) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 10:22 AM Author: pale awkward lodge pocket flask lol this makes me want to try that game (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15919102) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 10:26 AM Author: talented house really tough guy for profit firefighters would be better (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15919116) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 1:06 PM Author: narrow-minded self-centered church sound barrier normal firefighters simply don't have the proper INCENTIVES to really save your life. if only we had an elaborate secondary market of life-saving bounties...then we would see true heroism (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15920232) |
|
Date: September 18th, 2010 12:17 PM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks Your moniker is the only non-flame thing about you. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#16074465) |
|
Date: January 9th, 2011 10:16 PM Author: Soggy cobalt plaza alpha see, e.g., Gangs of NY (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#17015308) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 10:39 AM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks You obviously know nothing about libertarianism, or anything, for that matter. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15919174) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 12:13 PM Author: sinister tanning salon dysfunction Oh so what you're saying is that you're retarded. Thank you for that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15919737) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 6:31 PM Author: Massive french kitchen mad cow disease only you would be so offended by a link to the fucking onion. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15958638) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 6:32 PM Author: shimmering cuck lol at you interpreting NoBama as offended by that link. thanks for playing. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15958650) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 12:55 PM Author: amber step-uncle's house gunner Did the Founders envision equality for ALL? Did the Founders envision stem cell research? Go jerk off to the Federalist Papers asshat (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15920119) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 3:08 PM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks You obviously want to live in a Western European socialist state, so why are you still here? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15921408) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 3:19 PM Author: amber step-uncle's house gunner Actually I want to live under shari'a law and get my 72 virgins. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15921556) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 3:30 PM Author: amber step-uncle's house gunner why are you still here, WASP? isn't Obama ruining ARE country, why don't you go to another country that isn't so obviously marxist, communist, socialist, born in Africa, death panel? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15921675) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 4:06 PM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks Nice. Build a straw man and tear him down. I'm not a conspiracy nut. I just want to elect leaders that believe in the Free Market and individual liberties. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15922056) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 1:04 PM Author: Iridescent magical cuckoldry i find libertarians to be too extreme in their no gov't shit. they are almost anarchists. the credited response is to be a moderate republican. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15920201) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 1:09 PM Author: sooty fragrant nowag cr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15920263) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 1:15 PM Author: amber step-uncle's house gunner Sarah Palin 2012! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15920320) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 1:18 PM Author: sinister tanning salon dysfunction Comments like this reveal you're not just a political troll but you're also most likely mildly retarded. Sarah Palin is nothing close to a libertarian. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15920360) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 2:23 PM Author: amber step-uncle's house gunner My bad, LaunchPad McSame and Caribou Barbie would have been so much better than MAOBama, amirite? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15921012) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 2:39 PM Author: sinister tanning salon dysfunction Not sure what this has to do with libertarianism. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15921141) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 2:41 PM Author: amber step-uncle's house gunner It has to do with political viability (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15921175) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 2:42 PM Author: sinister tanning salon dysfunction So in other words it has nothing to do with the thread topic or any of the sub-discussions. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15921187) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 2:45 PM Author: amber step-uncle's house gunner u mad? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15921224) |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 8:04 AM Author: amber step-uncle's house gunner yeah u was mad (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15928857) |
|
Date: September 7th, 2010 6:45 PM Author: Spectacular cordovan den http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_W1wKNHfSHN4/THiDkBb1W1I/AAAAAAAAAHo/sZvpZvCSPR4/s1600/Y+U+Mad.jpg (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15989152) |
|
Date: September 17th, 2010 11:30 AM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#16067130) |
Date: August 30th, 2010 10:24 AM Author: Thirsty curious immigrant Wealth redistribution works better in other countries. The huge American military budget makes it hard to find room for other things. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15919109) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 10:35 AM Author: Tantric jade temple pervert 4.3% of GDP? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15919159) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 1:08 PM Author: narrow-minded self-centered church sound barrier we have a decent amount of military shit that is not represented in the official military budget NUMBER ONE
and NUMBER TWO, theres no reason why military should scale with GDP. if your GDP is fuckin 80 times larger than most of your antagonist countries, its actually kind of a fucking joke. |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 10:40 AM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks LOL, I'm sure. I bet the Soviet Union was better at redistributing wealth than any of them. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15919183) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 11:58 AM Author: sooty fragrant nowag Well it does work better in little monolithic European countries where everyone has the same genetics and culture and work ethic.
It's still pure shit though.
None of this relates to the military at all. |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 11:59 AM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks Tell that to BHO. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15919627) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 12:31 PM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks PSA: National defense is the ONLY reason the federal government exists. Read the fucking Constitution. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15919910) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 12:57 PM Author: Cerebral coldplay fan u suck my koch birch (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15920140) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 1:21 PM Author: Poppy jewess shrine well and insuring domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare and a whole lot of other specifically enumerated things, but you know its easy to just do a control f for common defense (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15920392) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 2:44 PM Author: Pink Galvanic Theater Don't forget "promote the general welfare."
You haven't read that far, right? |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 2:52 PM Author: shimmering cuck preamble dooder (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15921270) |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 11:59 AM Author: Stirring Meetinghouse Candlestick Maker well that and article i section 8 where the specifically enumerated powers of congress are described. guess you idiots havent read that far either. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15929611) |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 12:10 PM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15929679) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 6:28 PM Author: Hairraiser whorehouse mexican No shit sherlock, it's in the preamble of Article I, Section 8.
Promoting the "general welfare" is broader than all of the other powers. So what the hell good would it to do enumerate the federal government's powers and say that the government is limited to only those powers, if the very first line is a power that encompasses all the other powers and anything else you douches feel like doing to us at any given time?
Even that authoritarian scum Hamilton did not interpret the preamble this broadly, because it's obviously fraudulent to do so. No state would have signed on if they knew they could potentially get screwed royally like they are today.
Who's the idiot? |
|
Date: September 4th, 2010 11:01 AM Author: electric messiness crackhouse He didn't argue that promoting the general welfare was an unlimited power, the argument was over whether the government exists for a purpose other than national defense, which it clearly does, as one can see by merely reading the preamble. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15962718) |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 5:41 PM Author: avocado disgusting legal warrant LOL 60% of the budget is wealth redistribution and that's not enough for you huh? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15932213) |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 7:39 PM Author: shimmering cuck (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15933162) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 12:12 PM Author: sinister tanning salon dysfunction Yes, they're morons. But more importantly, they're unethical criminal thugs. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15919717) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 12:14 PM Author: nubile stead You're all so cute in your stripped polo shirts, bowl hair cuts and ugly glasses, walking dick to dick with some other virgin to your federalist society meetings! Let me take a picture to send your mom! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15919757) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 12:16 PM Author: sooty fragrant nowag *poses* (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15919770) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 12:26 PM Author: histrionic seedy international law enforcement agency location (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15919867) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 1:12 PM Author: arrogant lettuce (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15920294) |
|
Date: January 9th, 2011 9:04 PM Author: idiotic ivory jap newt lol http://haircutsformen.org/buzz/graphics/termgraphics/bowl.jpg (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#17014811) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 12:25 PM Author: Contagious state shitlib 911 was an inside job.
INSIDE JOB! |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 12:29 PM Author: sinister tanning salon dysfunction Hey, bro, maybe you misread the thread title. It's "libertarian" not "liberal." The 9/11 conspiracy theorists are all far left. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15919892) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 12:30 PM Author: Submissive masturbator trailer park rofl (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15919900) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 12:38 PM Author: Contagious state shitlib So wrong. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15919988) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 12:39 PM Author: Contagious state shitlib Here you go: http://norcaltruth.org/2010/05/03/911-truth-discussed-at-kansas-libertarian-national-chair-debate/
On Saturday April 24, Libertarian National Committee Chair candidates Ernest Hancock and Wayne Root debated at the LP state convention in Kansas. 9/11, and 9/11 “truth” were brought up a number of times during the debate
Hancock told the audience: “I will not back off from this 9/11 investigation."
INSIDE JOB |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 12:44 PM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks There are all kinds of Libertarians, just like there are all kinds of Democrats, many of which WANT a more socialist state and brag about it out loud. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15920042) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 12:46 PM Author: Contagious state shitlib Good job trying to ignore my post.
Yes, there are all kinds of libertarians... it just also happens to be true that it was libertarians who drove the 911 conspiracy theory bus.
Shit, dude, your OWN CANDIDATES for chairman of your party are fucking debating this shit. Explain yourself. |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 9:34 AM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks Reminder: Howard Dean, the former chairman of the DNC is a raving lunatic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_t-80QAqtSg |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 9:58 AM Author: Contagious state shitlib Are you actually in law school? Because what you are doing here would sink you on any exam. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15929059) |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 10:03 AM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks Because of the glut of idiot liberal law professors? I'm actually a 2L at one of the nation's premier law schools, thank you for asking. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15929070) |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 10:05 AM Author: Contagious state shitlib No. Because of your inability to respond to my point. Admit you are wrong. Because you are.
|
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 10:09 AM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks EXCUSE ME? You're the one who started to employ ad hominem attacks on Libertarian Party leaders, rather than debating the merits of Libertarian political theory and the Free Market. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15929084) |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 10:13 AM Author: Contagious state shitlib you: The 9/11 conspiracy theorists are all far left.
me: http://norcaltruth.org/2010/05/03/911-truth-discussed-at-kansas-libertarian-national-chair-debate/
On Saturday April 24, Libertarian National Committee Chair candidates Ernest Hancock and Wayne Root debated at the LP state convention in Kansas. 9/11, and 9/11 “truth” were brought up a number of times during the debate
Hancock told the audience: “I will not back off from this 9/11 investigation."
Note that this was THIS YEAR (2010).
you: oh shit, you pwned me. i guess i'll ignore your post and respond with irrelevant nonsense.
Wait, this is flame, right? Shit. Never mind, carry on, carry on...
EDIT: also, I don't think you know what "ad hominem" means. |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 10:42 AM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks This: (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15919892) isn't me. HTFH.
I never said that. There are all kinds of conspiracy theorists out there, and they have all kinds of political beliefs. Again, if you'd care to debate the merits of the Free Market and Individual Liberty, I'm game. |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 3:33 PM Author: amber step-uncle's house gunner Aww, somebody didn't get to share with the other kids on the playground (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15931203) |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 3:35 PM Author: shimmering cuck sorry you're dumb. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15931214) |
|
Date: September 1st, 2010 2:25 PM Author: amber step-uncle's house gunner sorry the priest hurt you (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15939433) |
|
Date: September 1st, 2010 2:34 PM Author: shimmering cuck lol @ the non sequitur (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15939494) |
|
Date: September 4th, 2010 11:04 AM Author: electric messiness crackhouse wow u got pwned badly in this exchange (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15962728) |
|
Date: September 4th, 2010 1:40 PM Author: shimmering cuck i made two posts about the above poster being stupid. how did i get pwn3d again? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15963656) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 2:45 PM Author: Pink Galvanic Theater SECRET LIBERALS TRYING TO DEFAME LIBERTARIANS (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15921223) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 12:39 PM Author: Exhilarant trust fund rofl (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15920007) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 12:46 PM Author: thriller slate spot lol u silly motherfucker (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15920062) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 1:23 PM Author: Cream electric furnace parlor Outted as a fifteen year old striver in A.P. U.S. History. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15920408) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 2:46 PM Author: Pink Galvanic Theater lol; you don't know shit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15921227) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2010 11:09 PM Author: Spectacular cordovan den [NoBama] (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#16762242) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 1:10 PM Author: Mustard floppy half-breed http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15920268) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 2:33 PM Author: shimmering cuck i think you post this as you believe it to be a well founded, researched, and written piece refuting libertarian principles.
however, i have read it (all) and would like to report that it is a well written, poorly researched, and unfounded smear. all it does is say, "look at this quote from a dude that libertarians like, it doesn't make 100% good sense, geez libertarians must be dumb." end of argument.
it uses the point-and-laugh technique. disappointing really.
|
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 2:36 PM Author: exciting spruce stag film depressive I lulzed at this one:
"The foremost defenders of our freedoms and rights, which libertarians prefer you overlook, are our governments. National defense, police, courts, registries of deeds, public defenders, the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights, etc. all are government efforts that work towards defending freedoms and rights."
That this is supposed to pwn libertarianism in any way, shape, or form is just sad. |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 2:37 PM Author: Yapping indian lodge dog poop u seem mad (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15921128) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 2:39 PM Author: shimmering cuck i'm sure he is, and so am i.
does that make u mad? |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 2:40 PM Author: Yapping indian lodge dog poop nah, don't really care. libertarians are of no consequence. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15921163) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 2:39 PM Author: shimmering cuck it's just simply not true that most libertarians are anarchists. libertarians would hold all of the offices and government functions just mentioned as the true calling of government.
as for all the other shit... |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 2:43 PM Author: Yapping indian lodge dog poop clicked the link, found this:
It's hard to clearly define libertarianism. "It's a dessert topping!" "No, it's a floor wax!" "Wait-- it's both!" It's a mixture of social philosophy, economic philosophy, a political party, and more. It would be unjust for me to try to characterize libertarianism too exactly: libertarians should be allowed to represent their own positions. At least two FAQs have been created by libertarians to introduce their positions. But the two major flavors are anarcho-capitalists (who want to eliminate political governments) and minarchists (who want to minimize government.) There are many more subtle flavorings, such as Austrian and Chicago economic schools, gold-bug, space cadets, Old-Right, paleo-libertarians, classical liberals, hard money, the Libertarian Party, influences from Ayn Rand, and others. An interesting survey is in chapter 36 of Marshall's "Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism", "The New Right and Anarcho-capitalism."
This diversity of libertarian viewpoints can make it quite difficult to have a coherent discussion with them, because an argument that is valid for or against one type of libertarianism may not apply to other types. This is a cause of much argument in alt.politics.libertarian: non-libertarians may feel that they have rebutted some libertarian point, but some other flavor libertarian may feel that his "one true libertarianism" doesn't have that flaw. These sorts of arguments can go on forever because both sides think they are winning. Thus, if you want to try to reduce the crosstalk, you're going to have to specify what flavor of libertarianism or which particular point of libertarianism you are arguing against.
Libertarians are a small group whose beliefs are unknown to and not accepted by the vast majority. They are utopian because there has never yet been a libertarian society (though one or two have come close to some libertarian ideas.) These two facts should not keep us from considering libertarian ideas seriously, however they do caution us about accepting them for practical purposes. |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 2:51 PM Author: shimmering cuck and? wtf does that do?
read this again --> "you're going to have to specify what flavor of libertarianism or which particular point of libertarianism you are arguing against." |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 3:09 PM Author: Yapping indian lodge dog poop "it's just simply not true that most libertarians are anarchists."
dood in the link doesnt say that. |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 3:10 PM Author: shimmering cuck but all his examples and counterpoints to libertarianism use it as a backdrop anyway. that's why he fails so miserably. anyone with an iq over 105 can see right through his shitty analysis. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15921434) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 3:12 PM Author: Yapping indian lodge dog poop so you read the whole thing already?
i havent, dont care. just seems like you really want to dismiss it out of hand. whatever, dont care. |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 3:15 PM Author: shimmering cuck yeah, read it yesterday when a dude posted it. i got to the end and was like, "that's it?" I really wanted it to say some shit to convince me that i don't have it 90% right with libertarianism. i had an open mind. it failed horribly, so i'm not sure why it keeps getting posted. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15921502) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 3:12 PM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks " They are utopian because there has never yet been a libertarian society..."
Try the United States of America when the Founders were still running the Country, faggot. |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 3:14 PM Author: Mustard floppy half-breed yfwgi (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15921480) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 3:15 PM Author: Glassy menage yep, a society that tolerates slavery is very libertarian society. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15921504) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 3:20 PM Author: shimmering cuck property rights dooder.
JUST KIDDING. |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 1:01 PM Author: sooty fragrant nowag (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15930013) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 3:20 PM Author: amber step-uncle's house gunner shhh, don't make light of the FOUNDERS, this is ARE country (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15921570) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 3:21 PM Author: irradiated dopamine Actually, there isn't anything necessarily contradictory to this as long as the government is agnostic to the issue. I think early in the nation's history this is largely how it was. Not that this was necessarily a good policy, but this doesn't prove what you think it does. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15921576) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 3:22 PM Author: Bistre Private Investor if only we could go back to the libertarian mecca which was the first 70 years of America, when the the feds didnt stop us from owning another man. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15921594) |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 1:02 PM Author: sooty fragrant nowag he said "largely" not "completely" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15930018) |
|
Date: September 2nd, 2010 10:41 PM Author: irradiated dopamine "Not that this was necessarily a good policy, but this doesn't prove what you think it does." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15952124) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 3:36 PM Author: disturbing milky digit ratio codepig So if the government is 'agnostic' against the theft of property by private citizens, it's a perfect libertarian society? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15921754) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 4:08 PM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks Quite the opposite. Protecting private property is government's ONLY purpose. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15922080) |
|
Date: September 2nd, 2010 10:43 PM Author: irradiated dopamine Why do you people always insist on arguing on what constitutes a libertarian utopia? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15952143) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 3:21 PM Author: shimmering cuck however, it was pretty libertarian for free whites. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15921580) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 3:21 PM Author: Bistre Private Investor lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15921585) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 4:10 PM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks Actually, the Founders were against slavery, and intentionally framed the Constitution to change once the rest of the world caught up with their ideas. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15922108) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 4:31 PM Author: Glassy menage lol, so in the meantime it wasnt a libetarian ideal society, amirite? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15922306) |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 9:36 AM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks No, but it was a lot closer than we've been since the 1800's.
Think of it this way: they built the foundation and the walls, but the social and economic realities prevented them from putting up a roof, so they used a tarp instead. Then liberals came along and destroyed the foundation, doing nothing to fix the roof. This country has been in shambles ever since. |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 9:39 AM Author: amber step-uncle's house gunner So go somewhere else to build your libertopia. What happened to 'America, love it of leave it!" GTFO (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15929006) |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 9:44 AM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks Why don't YOU love it or leave it? You liberals obviously want a socialist hellhole like western Europe or Canada, so just fucking move there and let us fix our country. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15929014) |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 10:32 AM Author: Sickened lay (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15929174) |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 11:44 AM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks The key issue is that they COMPROMISED and produced one document. I refer to them as I would a rock band. Members in a band who go solo often produce vastly different works than they did when they were with the band, because they have different beliefs. When they collaborate, they produce things that are often substantially different from what they'd produce on their own. Hence my referring to the "Founders" as a unitary actor.
The fact of the matter is that they framed The Constitution to change in a very specific direction (i.e. MORE individual liberties), yet, liberals have hijacked this opening to serve their own agenda.
I think that I learned a thing or two more about Constitutional Law at UT than you did at your "T30." |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 1:30 PM Author: Sickened lay (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15930194) |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 2:50 PM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks READINGCOMPPWNED. No wonder you were relegated to a TTT.
The point is that they left the door open for changes in slavery laws (and other individual liberties) to take place. Liberals used these loopholes to promote their totalitarian Marxist agendas. |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 4:54 PM Author: Sickened lay (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15931864) |
|
Date: September 7th, 2010 6:17 PM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks Uh, look at the back door that liberals have exploited... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15988966) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 3:05 PM Author: irradiated dopamine tcr. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15921389) |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 3:33 PM Author: misanthropic ratface *moves to the Icelandic Commonwealth* *buys a seat in the Althing* |
|
Date: August 30th, 2010 5:13 PM Author: razzmatazz famous landscape painting telephone Libertarianism doesn't work when you have widely held mega-corporations with huge agency cost issues. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15922746) |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 9:38 AM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks What, pray tell, are you talking about? Did you just take a finance course at community college? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15929002) |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 3:38 PM Author: shimmering cuck yeah, there were lots of cool sounding buzzwords there. i have no idea what he said. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15931234) |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 4:13 PM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks Judging from his lack of response, I don't think he knows either. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15931509) |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 9:56 PM Author: razzmatazz famous landscape painting telephone In the context of economics, libertarian principles work best when enlightened self-interest can be relied upon to guide firms to behave efficiently. But when firms scale up and ownership disperses, the disconnect between the interests of the people managing the firm and the people who own the firm tends to grow enormously. This can (and almost certainly does) result in firms employing strategies that maximize the compensation of managers but hurt the mid- and long-term interests of the owners. One obvious consequence of this is that enlightened self-interest cannot really be relied upon to cause large firms with dispersed ownership to behave in prudent, economically efficient ways--at least until the interests of managers can be more closely aligned with those of owners. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15934424) |
|
Date: September 1st, 2010 1:35 PM Author: razzmatazz famous landscape painting telephone (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15939077) |
|
Date: September 1st, 2010 1:38 PM Author: shimmering cuck so what's your new theory of the firm? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15939097) |
|
Date: September 1st, 2010 1:50 PM Author: razzmatazz famous landscape painting telephone If you conceive of firms as single economic entities, I think it's reasonable to assume that they will behave in fairly predictable, self-interested ways in the near-term. The long-term behavior of big, widely held firms is much less predictable and may include "irrational" conduct that destroys value for shareholders and generates negative externalities for other participants in the economy. This provides a justification for the imposition of regulation that may not exist in the context of small firms. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15939172) |
|
Date: September 1st, 2010 2:20 PM Author: shimmering cuck Yeah, that was just a rehash of what you said before. Thanks.
What I meant was, do you have a workable idea or theory of the firm that lines up with the enlightened self-interest necessary for a workable libertarianism? |
|
Date: September 1st, 2010 6:21 PM Author: razzmatazz famous landscape painting telephone I don't know of anything that promises to eliminate agency costs entirely in this context, aside from getting rid of the agents (i.e., unifying ownership and management to a significant extent). But shifting the payoff for performance-based compensation farther into the future would certainly mitigate some of the current problems.
|
|
Date: September 1st, 2010 2:43 PM Author: sinister tanning salon dysfunction If a firm destroys value for shareholders, either intentionally or unintentionally, it will be punished by the market. The near perfect liquidity of the major stock markets makes your concerns moot. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15939573) |
|
Date: September 1st, 2010 2:46 PM Author: shimmering cuck i think what he is saying is that the short-term outlook caused by the importance of market fluctuations (especially because of deferred comp in the form of options) causes managers to disregard the long-term in favor of cooking the books in the short-term to (in the flavor of XOXO) PROFIT LULZ, and then GTFO. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15939611) |
|
Date: September 1st, 2010 2:53 PM Author: sinister tanning salon dysfunction Yes, the dreaded manager who cooks the books for a few years, cash in his options, and then flees the sinking ship. I'm sure this happens, but if it happened more than occasionally investors would wise up and invest in firms that don't engage in such practices.
What I see more often happening is that people are outraged by executive compensation and want it limited out of a sense of "fairness" regardless of the executive's job performance. |
|
Date: September 1st, 2010 3:01 PM Author: shimmering cuck i tend to agree with you, i was just trying to put the other dude's post in different words because i felt you were non-responsive. cool. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15939758) |
|
Date: September 1st, 2010 6:08 PM Author: razzmatazz famous landscape painting telephone I should point out that I wasn't intending to refer to illegal behavior (though cooking the books certainly amounts to an agency cost). I was referring to the pursuit of legal business strategies that tend to destroy value relative to alternative business strategies but happen to create benefits for management (e.g., use of structured products to shift earnings temporally with the primary goal of getting paid today before you jump ship or the negotiation of lucrative golden parachute arrangements in connection with a takeover bid).
The market's ability to punish individuals is of questionable value (if you cash out, it may not matter whether you're able to get a high paying executive position at another company in the future). The real question is whether it can properly anticipate and punish inefficient conduct by even well-regarded managers with the speed and severity required to eliminate agency costs. Historically, it has not been able to. I'm not aware of evidence that suggests significant improvement can be expected in the near future. |
|
Date: September 1st, 2010 7:50 PM Author: shimmering cuck dude, you seem smart, but you need to read a book on style and look up the subchapter on concision. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15941980) |
|
Date: September 1st, 2010 7:59 PM Author: razzmatazz famous landscape painting telephone I tried concision in my original post. It didn't work. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15942082) |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 12:31 AM Author: Sickened lay (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15927570) |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 12:47 PM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks Actually, libertarian ideology is becoming increasingly popular, and will be a force to be reckoned with this November. While you won't likely see Libertarian Party candidates winning, you will see Republicans who have been strongly influenced by libertarian thought take control of both houses of Congress. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15929915) |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 1:40 PM Author: Sickened lay (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15930253) |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 1:42 PM Author: sinister tanning salon dysfunction I disagree in part. What's infeasible is maintaining our current course. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15930265) |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 1:53 PM Author: Sickened lay (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15930327) |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 3:12 PM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks "The absolute worst, though, are Republicans who want to cut taxes while at the same time refusing to put forward realistic or honest proposals for cutting spending to match. They've done as much harm, if not more, than tax and spend liberals."
False. Most proposals have been both realistic and honest, but have been thwarted by the Democrat machine. Thankfully, I think that people are starting to see the light through the wool that the libtards have pulled over our Nation's eyes. |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 4:56 PM Author: Sickened lay (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15931868) |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 5:23 PM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks Sorry you're a faggot liberal. Cutting entitlement programs would be a big step in solving most of our problems, yet many Republicans are bullied into accepting them as things that should exist. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15932049) |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 5:33 PM Author: Sickened lay (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15932136) |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 2:25 AM Author: Bateful School Round Eye itt - dumbass faggot libertarians get megapwn3d (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15928538) |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 9:38 AM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks Really? Why are so many people ITT unable to respond to my responses? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15929004) |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 10:10 AM Author: Judgmental theatre *megaposts* *fails to read threads before summarizing them* |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 11:45 AM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15929498) |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 1:08 PM Author: sooty fragrant nowag (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15930060) |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 3:40 PM Author: shimmering cuck (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15931246) |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 5:44 PM Author: avocado disgusting legal warrant Which parts of libertarianism do the haters disagree with? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15932232) |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 5:50 PM Author: shimmering cuck there usually isn't a cogent reply to this. i'm still waiting. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15932284) |
|
Date: August 31st, 2010 9:58 PM Author: avocado disgusting legal warrant I know. They take the most extreme libertarian philosophies and belittle them. It's like me bashing Democrats and citing hippies who suggest we eliminate cars. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15934447) |
|
Date: September 1st, 2010 3:01 PM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks This. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15939751) |
|
Date: September 1st, 2010 3:17 PM Author: Ruby stain mental disorder I'm generally cool w/ most aspects of it. That most of them deny global warming upsets me though. The fact is, there's no market solution for something this big. Collective, top-down action is required, and it might hurt the economy. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15939880) |
|
Date: September 1st, 2010 3:22 PM Author: sinister tanning salon dysfunction Putting aside whether it's happening, I would say so what? Some waterfront property owners MIGHT lose their homes? That might happen anyway due to hurricanes or erosion and they can insure against it if they want. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15939910) |
|
Date: September 1st, 2010 3:22 PM Author: shimmering cuck THIS. this should be the real debate. adapt baby, adapt. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15939916) |
|
Date: September 1st, 2010 3:28 PM Author: sinister tanning salon dysfunction Agreed. So many people thing they have a right to the status quo. The world is dynamic in many ways and people need to deal with that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15939967) |
|
Date: September 1st, 2010 3:24 PM Author: Ruby stain mental disorder Saying this is all that would happen is ridiculous. That's like saying in 2007 "So what if housing prices drop a little, it'll make it easier for people to buy a home!"
There are so many complexities in the system that changing something like temperature at the rate it's changing is not going to have a negligable impact. |
|
Date: September 1st, 2010 3:27 PM Author: sinister tanning salon dysfunction I would rather live in a warmer world than have someone tell me whether I can use a gas powered automobile or what type of light bulb I must use. Even if I didn't, I would never feel like I have the right to tell other people what to drive or how to illuminate. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15939960) |
|
Date: September 1st, 2010 3:29 PM Author: Ruby stain mental disorder Once again, you think everything will be the same except the temperature will just be a few degrees higher. This shows a fundamental lack of understanding with anything having to do with global warming. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15939969) |
|
Date: September 1st, 2010 3:30 PM Author: shimmering cuck what, pray tell, will happen? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15939983) |
|
Date: September 1st, 2010 3:32 PM Author: Ruby stain mental disorder Here's a pretty good start. If you lol at me for linking you to it, just go down and read the source material instead of the wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming |
|
Date: September 1st, 2010 3:33 PM Author: shimmering cuck before i read, no, i do not lol at people for linking to wikipedia. it is the free market (or nearly so) at work and people love it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15940004) |
|
Date: September 1st, 2010 3:31 PM Author: sinister tanning salon dysfunction Maybe, so enlighten me. Please describe specific problems you foresee and then tell me why that problem gives you the right to control the behavior of others. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15939991) |
|
Date: September 2nd, 2010 9:39 PM Author: Flushed big gas station brethren Massive plankton die-off reduces the amount of oxygen in the air. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15951417) |
|
Date: September 7th, 2010 5:43 PM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks Lol @ anyone who seriously believes that this or any other half-baked excuse can justify government tyranny. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15988692) |
|
Date: September 7th, 2010 5:49 PM Author: sinister tanning salon dysfunction Okay, what are the odds of that happening? What will be the negative consequence of the reduction? What action specifically is necessary to prevent this? How confident can we be that said action will work? What negative effects will your solution have on us?
You see, there is a lot involved in deciding what if anything to do about this "problem." And even then, you must answer the second question: Why is government tyranny justified in this case? |
|
Date: September 2nd, 2010 10:39 PM Author: irradiated dopamine "That most of them deny global warming upsets me though."
I don't think you understand what they're saying. Whether temperatures are getting warmer is a matter of statistics. What most don't agree with is one or more of:
1. That global warming is primarily man made
2. That global warming is net negative
3. That we can largely stop global warming
4. That the costs of 3 would justify the benefits |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 6:43 PM Author: Hairraiser whorehouse mexican I can speak for myself and a number of my libertarian friends on this. It's no so much that we think that global warming isn't happening. Our instincts mostly tell us that it's overblown. I can surely concede that industrialization has side effects, one of which could be heating of the Earth (although I'm not a climate scientist). However, has the Earth not been fluctuating in temperature greatly for thousands of years? How much is due to human activity? What happens when you make Al Gore's chart cover a much longer time frame? Given that all this stuff is coming from the left, my instincts tell me that the left does not understand the opportunity costs. The reason I say this is because every liberal I know is an economic illiterate dripping with Marxist philosophy.
Nobody I know thinks that if you cause harm to the environment that you should not have to clean it up. If the government could make a case that they needed to tax us in order to use the money to clean up harmful effects to the environment caused by pollution then that would be one thing - the people themselves could probably just use a class action lawsuit for this. But what the left of course wants to do instead is layer on a huge tax, and just give the money out to their cronies. Libertarians are going to oppose this to their last breath. It's stupid economics, and it's immoral - standard leftist nonsense. |
|
Date: September 17th, 2010 9:18 AM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks Mad u got owned, libs? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#16066821) |
|
Date: September 1st, 2010 3:43 PM Author: Translucent Bull Headed Kitty Range the more educated you get, the more fiscally conservative and socially liberal you become. basically leaning libertarian though you may still call yourself a democrat or republican. too lazy to look now but have read studies on this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15940073) |
|
Date: September 1st, 2010 4:18 PM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks This. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15940269) |
|
Date: September 1st, 2010 4:26 PM Author: Translucent Bull Headed Kitty Range i bet part of what happens is that the more educated you get, the more you realize just how stupid most politicians are. holy shit, let's NOT give these people more control over stuff. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15940328) |
|
Date: September 1st, 2010 4:28 PM Author: sinister tanning salon dysfunction Yeah. I don't get why people are so terrified about what corporations might do but they feel government is no problem, when the most powerful corporation has but a fraction of the power of the government. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15940336) |
|
Date: September 1st, 2010 9:08 PM Author: shimmering cuck because corporations are held responsible for things while the government is generally not. there just aren't many (notice i did not say none) instances where the government is on the hook for even disastrous outcomes. sure, politicians face reelection and may be ousted, but the government lives on. a corporation could not long survive if it acted similarly to the government. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15942622) |
|
Date: September 1st, 2010 8:01 PM Author: opaque pit This must explain the socially liberal leaning tendencies of the professoriate. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15942089) |
|
Date: September 2nd, 2010 9:28 AM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks Professors are liberal because they don't know how the real world works. They have theories about everything, but these theories are not based in reality, because they almost never have any real world experience. Think about their lives: HS>College>Grad school>Professor. If they ever had to actually work for a living, they'd change their minds quite quickly. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15946468) |
|
Date: September 2nd, 2010 10:34 PM Author: opaque pit Right, they lack street smarts, like the ones you have. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15952052) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:32 PM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks No, I actually don't believe in "street smarts" or any other kind of "smart" other than just plain smarts.
This is the deal: Anyone with half a brain can cook up a theory about anything, including theories that do not correspond with reality. This is the world in which most professors live. They spend most of their time cooking up theories that justify whatever they already believe, and cherry-picking data that fits this (see global warming email scandal).
The fact of the matter is that Keynesian economics and progressive taxation do not work: Businesses can't expand and hire new people if they can't get capital. Without jobs, people can't spend money, which makes businesses have to make additional cuts in employment. Thus begins a downward spiral similar to the one we're in now (thanks in no small part to BHO's "stimulus.") Progressive taxation ends up hurting the very people it is designed to save, because when the "rich" are subjected to higher taxes, that money comes directly out of the pool from which businesses draw their capital. It effectively saves poor people a little money up front, but will ultimately cost them their jobs.
I know that you liberals would love to think that we're all conspiracy nuts like Glenn Beck, but most of us aren't. Personally, I don't think that BHO wants to eliminate the private sector and enslave everyone in a totalitarian state. Rather, I believe that he has everyone's best interests in mind, but just has a poor understanding of how the Free Market operates in the real world. The tragic thing is that he doesn't seem to be open to changing his mind on this issue, and will continue to hurt the very people he's trying to save. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:06 PM Author: opaque pit Just to be clear: the "Free Market" you describe is an ideal based on a formal model, and has never actually existed in the real world (in fact, it involves assumptions that are impossible to replicate in the real world). Your assessment of the "actual functioning" of it suffers from the same deficits as those you accuse, and probably to a larger degree. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15957441) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:09 PM Author: amber step-uncle's house gunner cr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15957466) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:09 PM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks Elaborate. You've basically just said "nuh-uh." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15957467) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:15 PM Author: opaque pit Please, tell me about how perfect competition assumptions hold anywhere in the real world. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15957524) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 5:50 PM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks Just because they don't perfectly fit doesn't mean that they're useless. For instance, look at the laws of physics. Many of these are based on conditions that have never been met. The point is, that they are still descriptive of real-world mechanisms, and, therefore, shouldn't be ignored. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15958308) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 6:20 PM Author: pearl wrinkle goyim the laws of economics are anything but. with a handful of laws you can describe almost all of the behavior of a physical system; with a hundred laws you'd be lucky to describe 10% of an economy. even some of the most basic, self-evident assumptions hold only approximately, like transitivity. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15958559) |
|
Date: September 7th, 2010 4:32 PM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks Sorry you were too busy working on the Obama campaign to pay attention in economics at your community college. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15988203) |
|
Date: September 18th, 2010 1:34 PM Author: Mind-boggling Genital Piercing Market 180 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#16075332) |
|
Date: September 7th, 2010 6:33 PM Author: misanthropic ratface [[For instance, look at the laws of physics. Many of these are based on conditions that have never been met.]]
Wait, what? Please explain. |
|
Date: September 8th, 2010 10:58 AM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks Go back to high school and re-take physics, faggot. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15994189) |
|
Date: September 8th, 2010 10:59 AM Author: misanthropic ratface I have a BS in physics, faggot. Explain what you mean. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15994198) |
|
Date: September 8th, 2010 11:51 AM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks That's doubtful, or you wouldn't even be asking this question. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15994411) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:09 PM Author: shimmering cuck lol, free markets are all over the place dude. sure, maybe there hasn't been an entire nation with a purely free market, but the free market exists all over the place on many different levels. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15957474) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:14 PM Author: opaque pit Please, tell me about how perfect competition exists anywhere in the real world. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15957511) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:15 PM Author: shimmering cuck illegal drug trafficking. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15957522) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:15 PM Author: opaque pit Look up "perfect competition" and get back to me. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15957527) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:17 PM Author: shimmering cuck perfect competition is not the talisman of a free market. sorry, bro. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15957538) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:18 PM Author: opaque pit It's an assumption that is integral to your argument: without it, the "free market" doesn't produce the results you think it does. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15957548) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:19 PM Author: shimmering cuck From wikipedia: "A free market is not to be confused with a perfect market where individuals have perfect information and there is perfect competition."
please stop being a dunce. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:23 PM Author: opaque pit So you're going to argue (along with the rest of the libertard flame) that "free markets" of this kind encourage innovation and operate with maximum efficiency and simultaneously claim that you're not assuming zero or low barriers to entry in the process? Hilarious. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15957594) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:29 PM Author: shimmering cuck free markets need not be perfect to be better than a centrally planned one. your problem is that you have it in your mind that serious libertarians think that free markets are perfect. they are not. they are just the best way to allocate resources with the highest possible efficiency in most cases. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15957648) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:32 PM Author: opaque pit And to return to my original point: you know this how? You're relying on a model for which the assumptions do not hold to make claims about the effects of an entirely different political arrangement. You have zero empirical evidence to support your claim: the society you're describing has never existed. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15957670) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:36 PM Author: Boyish area ladyboy lol. Nice. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15957694) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:40 PM Author: opaque pit tyty. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15957726) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:45 PM Author: sinister tanning salon dysfunction If the market is not the best allocator of resources than what is? Is there an objective way to determine the best allocation or is it entirely dependent on subjective valuations? If the latter, whose valuation should we use and why? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15957769) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:48 PM Author: opaque pit There's a simple point I'm trying to make: beyond the obvious social justice issues they raise, your claims about market functions do not have any kind of epistemic authority. We don't actually know that the mode of social organization you're describing will have anything like the effects you claim it will, and you have ZERO evidence to prove it. It's laughable when libertarians like yourself claim they're being "pragmatic". (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15957792) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:52 PM Author: sinister tanning salon dysfunction I am not the person you were previously speaking to. I was somewhat surprised by your line of reasoning since I was under the impression that most educated people embrace the idea that the market is the best allocator of resources, at least in most cases. My questions stemmed from your apparent rejection of that idea. They are the obvious follow ups to someone who rejects the idea that the market is the best allocator of resources. Care to take a stab at answering them? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15957830) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 5:02 PM Author: opaque pit I wasn't intending to reject the short-term efficiency of free market allocation, though I did get a bit loose with my choice of words about four posts up. However, increased innovation, economic expansion/increased growth rates, and low/non-existent unemployment are all assumed by libertarians to follow as a consequence of implementing the "free market". There is absolutely no evidence that any of these results will follow. Furthermore, there are plenty of reasons to think that they won't given the threat of rampant and completely unchecked monopolization and oligopolistic behavior in such an economy. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15957900) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 5:07 PM Author: sinister tanning salon dysfunction That's not entirely true. In fact, in the libertarian beginner's classic, Economics in One Lesson, there is a chapter titled "The Fetish of Full Employment" or something. It states that eliminating unemployment is neither possible nor desirable. There will always be people who value leisure over what they can command on the wage market. Same with innovation. All non-retarded libertarians know that when you subsidize something you will get more of it. This comes back to the allocation of resources. If we want MOAR something than would be provided by the free market (e.g. HIV research), how do we know that moar is better and who gets to make that decision? You're right about the last point, however. And while you claim their is no evidence that free market = more economic expansion, I think if you look at the regulatory climates and taxation burdens in various nations across time, it's clear that less is more when it comes to economic expansion. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15957937) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 5:15 PM Author: opaque pit I honestly don't understand the first half of your post. Monopoly firms do not have an incentive to hire forever, that's the main point I'm trying to make. It's entirely plausible that, in the face of economic stagnation as a result of diminished competition, unemployment will not be a matter of "choice" as traditionally conceived.
Wrt the second point: how do you figure? There's little historical evidence to support that claim. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 5:20 PM Author: sinister tanning salon dysfunction I see no connection between monopolies and employment. If one firm could supply the needs of the entire economy is would need to employ more or less the same amount of labor as multiple firms supplying those needs. Please elaborate.
There's little historical evidence to suggest that economically free nations tend to be better economically than less free nations? |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 6:17 PM Author: shimmering cuck *chooses to ignore evidence*
DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE!!! |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 5:43 PM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks You're treating lack of "perfect" evidence on the libertarian side as evidence in your favor. America has been so successful compared to other countries as a direct result of our markets being more free than TTT socialist countries like France. I acknowledge the fact that, because this is THE REAL WORLD, it doesn't lend itself to fitting perfectly into some faggot women's studies-style theory, but the evidence is right there before your eyes. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15958249) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 6:15 PM Author: shimmering cuck LOL, you think that the free market has never existed? Without resorting to absurdities, there were surely times in human history prior to government regulation of economic activities. To deny this is patently ridiculous.
In addition, nation-states exist and interact in a free market, there is no over-government controlling the actions of nations. Yes, this is a political free market, but that is a distinction without a difference. |
|
Date: September 7th, 2010 1:28 AM Author: Dull Liquid Oxygen i liked this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15985072) |
|
Date: September 18th, 2010 2:08 PM Author: Sepia sex offender marketing idea >They spend most of their time cooking up theories that justify whatever they already believe, and cherry-picking data that fits this (see global warming email scandal). >and cherry-picking data that fits this (see global warming email scandal). >(see global warming email scandal).
you are an idiot.
>
The fact of the matter is that Keynesian economics and progressive taxation do not work: Businesses can't expand and hire new people if they can't get capital. Without jobs, people can't spend money, which makes businesses have to make additional cuts in employment. Thus begins a downward spiral similar to the one we're in now (thanks in no small part to BHO's "stimulus.") Progressive taxation ends up hurting the very people it is designed to save, because when the "rich" are subjected to higher taxes, that money comes directly out of the pool from which businesses draw their capital. It effectively saves poor people a little money up front, but will ultimately cost them their jobs.
i can't see any coherent model here.
|
|
Date: September 1st, 2010 6:26 PM Author: Supple Volcanic Crater Site People just aren't hardwired to think rationally like they do in libertaritopia.
Also, people are likely to get pissed off when you try to take away their entitlement programs and when it would be easy to give them shit like education, health care and food but you don't because of some mantra. In the long run that will cause greater problems for society than the frustration of rich people who have to give up a couple more percentage points of income. |
|
Date: September 2nd, 2010 9:25 AM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks Wrong. Virtually every problem that we have faced in the 20th century onward is a direct result of us straying from our fundamental libertarian principles outlined in The Constitution. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15946456) |
|
Date: September 2nd, 2010 10:26 AM Author: Supple Volcanic Crater Site Industrial revolution, dawg. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15946675) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 3:33 PM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks You have no idea what you're talking about, do you? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15957150) |
|
Date: September 7th, 2010 1:40 AM Author: Supple Volcanic Crater Site Nobody will willingly give up their SS and medicare no matter how many message boards you spam.
The country will become more and more like a Euro social democracy. Sorry about your tiny pink economic theories. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:29 PM Author: Flushed big gas station brethren "libertarian principles outlined in The Constitution."
like the principle that congress shall have the power to tax and spend to provide for the general welfare. |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 4:35 PM Author: Boyish area ladyboy Between this and the stuff going on above, there's some pretty solid pwnage going on in this thread. I approve. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15957687) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 5:58 PM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks Yeah, of faggot liberals. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15958377) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 6:22 PM Author: shimmering cuck (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15958570) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 5:45 PM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks If you read the Federalist Papers, you'll notice that the framers of The Constitution didn't want or imagine a socialist welfare state.
"General welfare" refers to things like border security and national defense, not re-distributing wealth (which undercuts the very economic system upon which The Constitution was based). |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 6:23 PM Author: shimmering cuck The Constitution has been massaged by liberals into worthlessness. A pity, really. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15958577) |
|
Date: September 3rd, 2010 8:52 PM Author: rambunctious crusty love of her life knife The Constitution did not enact a particular economic regime. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15959394) |
|
Date: September 4th, 2010 9:02 AM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks At which TTT did you study? Read the Federalist Papers. It was obviously based on a capitalist assumption, and doesn't make sense in a socialist context. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15962415) |
|
Date: September 4th, 2010 2:06 PM Author: rambunctious crusty love of her life knife The Federalist papers =! the Constitution. The Constitution certainly permits capitalism, and that has, so far, generally been the economic regime accepted by a majority of American society through the Constitution's democratic processes, but they're not inextricably tied together. Did you even study mid-twentieth century constitutional law at your TTT? |
|
Date: September 7th, 2010 9:58 AM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks The Federalist papers outline what the framers of the Constitution were thinking when it was written. To discount their importance is to turn a blind eye to the very context in which these laws were written. Without context, they are meaningless.
I actually studied UT. |
|
Date: September 7th, 2010 3:29 PM Author: rambunctious crusty love of her life knife The Federalist papers are propaganda pieces written by three people; furthermore, even if we were fully aware of the entire context in which the Constitution was written, we are not necessarily strictly bound to try to maintain frozen adherence to it today in light of our dynamic society. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15987649) |
|
Date: September 7th, 2010 5:53 PM Author: Spectacular cordovan den Also, madison himself founded a national bank and jefferson conducted the louisiana purchase. Obviously those fags were huge hypocrites. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15988783) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2010 7:10 PM Author: Flushed big gas station brethren (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#16239189) |
|
Date: September 8th, 2010 11:30 AM Author: Poppy jewess shrine why put so much emphasis on what 3 out of many were thinking? besides, the constitution itself, not the federalist papers, were instituted as law. if anything the fact that 3 influential framers were concurrently thinking these ideas but they were not explicitly enacted in the constitution implies that they were abandoned, rejected, or softened for compromise (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15994333) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2010 7:23 PM Author: misanthropic ratface The Federalist Papers are what Jay, Madison, and Hamilton thought, not what "the framers" thought. Reliance on them is every bit as problematic as reliance on a House conference report. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#16239254) |
|
Date: September 7th, 2010 10:03 AM Author: beady-eyed zombie-like boiling water Alternatives to capitalism had never even been articulated when the constitution was created. Das Capital wasn't published until almost 80 years after the constitution was written. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15985881) |
|
Date: September 7th, 2010 4:11 PM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks This too. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15987995) |
|
Date: September 8th, 2010 11:15 AM Author: rambunctious crusty love of her life knife lol, this goes against your position, dumbshit (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15994268) |
|
Date: September 8th, 2010 11:21 AM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks Actually, no it doesn't. If alternatives were never considered, how could the Founders possibly have designed the Constitution to fit them? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15994299) |
|
Date: September 8th, 2010 7:10 PM Author: rambunctious crusty love of her life knife How could they possibly have designed it to reject them? (hint: by specifically locking in a certain given economic system. which they didn't do. hth)
constitution sets up a political system, not an economy. |
|
Date: September 17th, 2010 12:04 AM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks Your ignorance is truly amazing. Socialism implicitly limits freedoms guaranteed to us by The Constitution. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#16064965) |
|
Date: September 17th, 2010 2:56 PM Author: rambunctious crusty love of her life knife No, it doesn't. Communism, sure. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#16068193) |
|
Date: September 18th, 2010 12:11 AM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks Um, what? The inheirent government regulation in socialism doesn't limit free enterprise? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#16072412) |
|
Date: September 18th, 2010 12:32 AM Author: rambunctious crusty love of her life knife you are irremediably dumb (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#16072495) |
|
Date: September 7th, 2010 5:51 PM Author: Spectacular cordovan den What about Hamilton's Report on Manufactures? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#15988750) |
|
Date: September 17th, 2010 11:38 AM Author: Clear aphrodisiac wagecucks What about it? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#16067161) |
|
Date: January 9th, 2011 8:51 PM Author: shimmering cuck 180 thread. So much pwnage. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#17014710) |
|
Date: January 9th, 2011 8:55 PM Author: sooty fragrant nowag Who pwned who? Thread is tldr. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#17014744) |
|
Date: January 9th, 2011 8:58 PM Author: shimmering cuck Libertarians +180 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#17014767) |
|
Date: January 9th, 2011 8:53 PM Author: Onyx Bearded Degenerate Rigpig Maybe if you haven't graduated college yet (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#17014723) |
|
Date: January 9th, 2011 8:57 PM Author: shimmering cuck Which law schools should I apply at when I graduate? T3 or bust? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#17014757) |
|
Date: February 8th, 2011 12:31 PM Author: Judgmental theatre After college your perspective will depend on whether you are successful or not. PP will obviously not be libertarian. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#17237844) |
|
Date: January 9th, 2011 8:59 PM Author: Bateful School Round Eye 180. this is the ONLY true thing that has ever been stated on this piece of garbage site. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#17014780) |
|
Date: February 8th, 2011 12:28 PM Author: vigorous parlour (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#17237827) |
|
Date: February 8th, 2011 12:34 PM Author: carmine chapel crotch i have libertarian leanings, but libertarians also seem to be the dumbest educated politically minded people one can meet. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#17237857) |
|
Date: February 8th, 2011 12:44 PM Author: Vivacious Circlehead Credited. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1409571&forum_id=2#17237918) |
|
Date: February 8th, 2011 1:08 PM Author: Well-lubricated sapphire internal respiration lol umad we're stylin on you with our well paying jobs and shit?
PSA: No poor people are libertarian, they are just liberal. |