(07-31-2017 07:56 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  One thing is clear after reading this thread. Members of the 2 gang system are as clueless about Libertarianism as Libertarians are.

Because LPers are clueless about the real world

(08-01-2017 12:20 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 07:56 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  One thing is clear after reading this thread. Members of the 2 gang system are as clueless about Libertarianism as Libertarians are.

Because LPers are clueless about the real world

Nonsense my friend, some are no doubt, ancaps that don't understand the difference between philosophy and practicality are certainly clueless. The minimal government and classical liberal groups base their political beliefs on the real world.

(08-01-2017 06:11 AM)DexterDevil Wrote:  

(08-01-2017 12:20 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-31-2017 07:56 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  One thing is clear after reading this thread. Members of the 2 gang system are as clueless about Libertarianism as Libertarians are.

Because LPers are clueless about the real world

Nonsense my friend, some are no doubt, ancaps that don't understand the difference between philosophy and practicality are certainly clueless. The minimal government and classical liberal groups base their political beliefs on the real world.

I'll grant you that to some extent. But my beef is with those who want to eliminate a govt function than are clueless as to the consequences of those cuts. Rather they wave a magic wand and declare that issue is magically solved. For example Paul wanted drastic CDC cuts only to backtrack as soon as the Ebola crisis hit. Or if you take away regulations, you make it significantly harder to go after polluters and those who abuse employees/consumers.

All these problems the LP literally wishes away and declares them magically solved

(08-01-2017 06:17 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-01-2017 06:11 AM)DexterDevil Wrote:  Nonsense my friend, some are no doubt, ancaps that don't understand the difference between philosophy and practicality are certainly clueless. The minimal government and classical liberal groups base their political beliefs on the real world.

I'll grant you that to some extent. But my beef is with those who want to eliminate a govt function than are clueless as to the consequences of those cuts. Rather they wave a magic wand and declare that issue is magically solved. For example Paul wanted drastic CDC cuts only to backtrack as soon as the Ebola crisis hit. Or if you take away regulations, you make it significantly harder to go after polluters and those who abuse employees/consumers.
All these problems the LP literally wishes away and declares them magically solved

Other than anarcho-capitalists, most libertarians are pragmatic enough to recognize that those are problems which need to have solutions. What they don't buy is the idea that command and control regulation is the only solution. The free market provides better solutions in many cases.

How about keeping the regulations that enable us to go after polluters and those who abuse employees/customers, and getting rid of the rest? Of course, many of those issues have alternative solutions that work better than regulation, and libertarians support those alternatives. But no bureaucrat in DC is going to support any solution that makes his/her job redundant.

(08-01-2017 06:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-01-2017 06:17 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-01-2017 06:11 AM)DexterDevil Wrote:  Nonsense my friend, some are no doubt, ancaps that don't understand the difference between philosophy and practicality are certainly clueless. The minimal government and classical liberal groups base their political beliefs on the real world.

I'll grant you that to some extent. But my beef is with those who want to eliminate a govt function than are clueless as to the consequences of those cuts. Rather they wave a magic wand and declare that issue is magically solved. For example Paul wanted drastic CDC cuts only to backtrack as soon as the Ebola crisis hit. Or if you take away regulations, you make it significantly harder to go after polluters and those who abuse employees/consumers.
All these problems the LP literally wishes away and declares them magically solved

Other than anarcho-capitalists, most libertarians are pragmatic enough to recognize that those are problems which need have solutions. What they don't buy is the idea that command and control regulation is the only solution. The free market provides better solutions win many cases.

How about keeping the regulations that enable us to go after polluters and those who abuse employees/customers, and getting rid of the rest? Of course, many of those issues have alternative solutions that work better than regulation, and libertarians support those alternatives. But no bureaucrat in DC is going to support any solution that makes his/her job redundant.

and there's your problem. I'm willing to bet a large percentage of the regulations you consider inconsequential and can be removed without repercussions are actually consequential and have serious repercussions if repealed. I'm also willing to bet your "free market can solve these problems" is something you believe is possible on paper...but in practice will prove itself to be a complete failure.

so we are literally nowhere closer to where we started. you literally waved your magic wand noting that you will only keep the effective regulations with no clear mention of whether that means moving only a few regulations or a large number of them. then you wave the "free-market solves everything" and treat it like a get out of jail free card anytime your argument is falling apart and act as if it solves anything when it is really just meaningless. the beauty of capitalism is that it sparks innovation. the ugliness of capitalism is that it encourages people to cut corners and give no regard to the consequences of their action. you are literally arguing a system that has people seeking innovation because greed drives people is going to encourage that, while simultaneously encouraging people to not be greedy and be generous to the enviroment, consumers, and workers.

i hate to call out fo like this because I love the guy and he's a great poster. but I once saw him argue that regulations are redundant because no company will pollute because of the threat of a lawsuit. he implied regulations are unnecessary because the lawyers will take care of things. why do companies get sued? because clear-cut rule violations makes it so easy to slam them in court. hell one of the most high profile movies on said topic ended with the private lawyer going bankrupt and having to give his case to the EPA because only they had the power to bring the company to court.

the free market will self regulate and can be trusted to regulate itself has got to be one of the dumbest thought processes in all of human history.

and that's not even the worst part of your post. you claim:

Quote:most libertarians are pragmatic enough to recognize that those are problems which need have solutions.

and yet as I have established in this thread it looks highly likely that a majority of LPers support a repeal of the CRA if not a super-majority. you are telling me the same group of people wanting to do that (which is batsh*t crazy) are not going to go batsh*t crazy when it comes to regulations?

Most Libertarians have no problem with limited government regulations including those that involve health and safety. While we would like to see some imagination and innovation being done including the private sector in some of these issues, we know that is not likely at this time. All we can hope for is not let government get heavy handed. Johnny has never seen or heard of a government program that he dislikes or thinks needs ending. Just once I like to see him advocate ending a government program or thinking outside the government paradigm for solutions to problems. The Johnnies of the world go straight putting a gun in the room on every damn issue.

(08-01-2017 08:49 AM)john01992 Wrote:  and there's your problem. I'm willing to bet a large percentage of the regulations you consider inconsequential and can be removed without repercussions are actually consequential and have serious repercussions if repealed. I'm also willing to bet your "free market can solve these problems" is something you believe is possible on paper...but in practice will prove itself to be a complete failure.
so we are literally nowhere closer to where we started. you literally waved your magic wand noting that you will only keep the effective regulations with no clear mention of whether that means moving only a few regulations or a large number of them. then you wave the "free-market solves everything" and treat it like a get out of jail free card anytime your argument is falling apart and act as if it solves anything when it is really just meaningless. the beauty of capitalism is that it sparks innovation. the ugliness of capitalism is that it encourages people to cut corners and give no regard to the consequences of their action. you are literally arguing a system that has people seeking innovation because greed drives people is going to encourage that, while simultaneously encouraging people to not be greedy and be generous to the enviroment, consumers, and workers.
i hate to call out fo like this because I love the guy and he's a great poster. but I once saw him argue that regulations are redundant because no company will pollute because of the threat of a lawsuit. he implied regulations are unnecessary because the lawyers will take care of things. why do companies get sued? because clear-cut rule violations makes it so easy to slam them in court. hell one of the most high profile movies on said topic ended with the private lawyer going bankrupt and having to give his case to the EPA because only they had the power to bring the company to court.
the free market will self regulate and can be trusted to regulate itself has got to be one of the dumbest thought processes in all of human history.
and that's not even the worst part of your post. you claim:

Quote:most libertarians are pragmatic enough to recognize that those are problems which need have solutions.

and yet as I have established in this thread it looks highly likely that a majority of LPers support a repeal of the CRA if not a super-majority. you are telling me the same group of people wanting to do that (which is batsh*t crazy) are not going to go batsh*t crazy when it comes to regulations?

First off, you haven't established anything. You have never established anything. You offer unsupported and often absurd opinions, and then simply describe any different opinions as ridiculous, and that seems to constitute establishing things in your mind. In your mind it probably does. Nowhere else.

Second, I don't consider any regulations inconsequential. What I do consider is that many of them have more bad consequences than good. And there are places where the free market has done more good than regulation. By the way, where did I say the free market solves everything, since you seem to attribute that statement to me?

If you want to discuss further, go back, read what I wrote, and respond to that, not your straw men, OK?

We will have an extreme libertarian government at some point.

We are $19 trillion down the road toward extreme libertarianism.

You won't have to argue for open borders, no drug enforcement, no military excursions, etc. because that will happen by default when it cant be paid for.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(08-01-2017 12:19 AM)john01992 Wrote:  Ham- he made a very legitimate point about business trampling the consumer. Bringing that up in the context of the FF is a bit asinine but you didn't go there refuting that. You instead go on about the military proving yet again your incompetence and tendency to fail to address a point. I really have no idea what the military has jack. **** to do about businesses trampling the consumer. And yet you have the gall to act as if this is a competency issue on my part. Nope it has to do with crap like this with you attempting to refute something that has no relevance to the topic at hand time and time again compounded with your ineptitude that prevents you from seeing the lack of a connection.

You do this again by bringing up f***ing soda. That is govt trying to encourage healthy habits by discouraging consumers from buying said product with a tax or ban. That has jack **** to do with the topic at hand. They are similar in that both are "consumer protection" but two fundamentally different types which proves you either know nothing about either or are being a slimeball taking advantage of the two being fundamentally different but having the same name to mislead.

The type that is actually the topic at hand is stuff like airplane seat size, spam robot phone calls, health care, etc. all of those are examples where a business can bully/push around the general public and it's the govt that enacts consumer protections to protect the business from steamrolling the consumer. I didn't pick those three examples randomly, I picked them because we have had recent threads dedicated to each of those topics. And yet did you pick any of them? Of course not because you knew exactly that those examples were exactly what the topic at hand was and perfect examples devastating your argument. Thus you didn't use them and instead you went for an example that doesn't even work with the topic at hand all in your attempt to weasel, slimeball, etc. your way out of an argument.

Even most of this is just BS, but I'll respond to part of it...

It's NOT a legitimate point because it's merely an opinion.... and one based on fear, not on logic.... It's using 'fear' to try and win what you see as an argument rather than 'logic' to try and discuss perspectives on the government.

No democrat, no republican, and almost no libertarians want what you 'fear' to happen.... yet you are somehow convinced that we would be powerless to stop it from happening.

I didn't pick your examples because I was looking for things we'd agree the government shouldn't do... and not things that we agree the government SHOULD do. I have never ONCE suggested the government plays no role in protecting consumers.

Pretty obviously the power to regulate is primarily based in the power to enforce those regulations... Hence my comments about the courts, police and military. That really should have been obvious. If you can stop people from buying a 24 oz coke, but NOT stop them from buying two 16's.... then you really have no power to regulate 'how much' coke someone puts in their system.