CDIH
In my opinion - Printable Version

+- CDIH (https://www.cdih.net/cdih)
+-- Forum: General Discussion and Entertainment (https://www.cdih.net/cdih/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: The Pit (https://www.cdih.net/cdih/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: In my opinion (/showthread.php?tid=11432)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5


- The Painter - 02-16-2006

Quote:but that doesn't mean i want to adopt every wackjob item on the libertarian platform

I don't either. No one should support their party 100%. That would just make you a mindless robot.


- Keyser Soze - 02-16-2006

i can no longer with confidence approve of something hedcold endorses.


- Ken'sPen - 02-16-2006

HedCold is knee deep in ignorance.


- Mad - 02-16-2006

HedCold is a self admitted follower, don't listen to a word he says, because it'll change in ten minutes when his woman sets him straight.


- HedCold - 02-16-2006

HedCold Wrote:i never said i was a libertarian, but ken's argument is just bad. it also puts alot more faith into the government than he has shown he actually has these days

people who have been against it in this thread, especially kens argument, has been "well this way has worked, lets keep it going"
i'm against that
i'm probably more of a commie than anything, but thats with social programs, not businesses


- Ken'sPen - 02-16-2006

socialist,
the word you are looking for is socialist.


- Arpikarhu - 02-16-2006

Quote:you're making the assumption that they will make decisions based on the greatest good instead of individual benefit, and the very ideals that libertarianism is based on would erode under its own hypocracy.

Private racial discrimination, for instance, lasted a hundred years; and it wasn't ended by businessmen changing their minds, but by blacks and liberals organizing. The Libertarian Party platform actually hopes to legally re-enable private discrimination.

So you think the market will correct those problems. In a few cases it will-- if you wait long enough. But very often it's simply impossible: e.g., the monopolist has made sure no alternatives exist. (One of the railroad tycoons, for instance, was careful to buy up steamship lines.) And though it was sometimes possible to break a monopoly by starting a well-bankrolled competing business, that was no consolation to (say) an oil producer who saw Rockefeller consolidating all the refineries. He could hardly start up his own refinery, and he'd be bankrupt before anyone succeeded in doing so.)

the individual should do what is good for himself. if there are enough people with common needs then their will will be heard. again, voting with your dollar.
as to your comment on discrimination. libertarianism isnt against groups joining to gether to fight an injustice. libertarians whole heartedly support the individuals right to decide to join any cause they so choose.

Quote:Americans enjoy the fruits of public scientific research, a well-educated job force, highways and airports, clean food, honest labelling, Social Security, unemployment insurance, trustworthy banks, national parks. Libertarianism has encouraged the peculiarly American delusion that these things come for free. It makes a philosophy out of biting the hand that feeds you.

libertarians have never encouraged the idea that these things are for free. we say quite the opposite, that these things are very costly. we think some of those government programs are costly and unnecessary.
we dont want our government to force us to do what it thinks is right. we dont want our government to be our mommies.
let the individual take responsibility for themselves. why is it my responsibility to fund someones inability to hold a job? why am i responsible to subsidize someone elses personal reproductive choice?
if i want clean food, i will buy it from a company that i know makes clean food. if i want unemployment insurance, i will buy it. public scientific research? crap! private companies put out more research for less money than any government program (in my opinion of course).
i dont want my government to tell me what to do with the money that i have earned other than to support a basic infrastructure, law enforcement, and a few other basic universal societal needs.
i do not want to be forced at gunpoint, and it is gun point, to support someone else who has not taken the responsibility to provide for themselves. it is a forced redistribution of wealth that was never an intention of the writers of the constitution, is not an aim of the capitlist free market system, and smacks of socialism.