NationStates

The Reformed American Republic wrote:

Kowani wrote:The Republican Party is anti-First Amendment,

Not really what the first amendment is for, but ok.

Yes, it actually is.

Idzequitch wrote:

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:So... what is the libertarian belief on “unity”? The Left talks “left unity” and the Right talks “right unity”, but where do you, as mostly right-libertarians, see potential allies?

Unity? Psshh. We prefer to antagonize one another with purity tests. You don't pass the test, you don't get in the club. The club also only has like 17 people in it because the test is so rigorous. This Also helps explain why libertarianism never really manages to take off in America.

I only consider myself a libertarian sympathizer myself, as I'm one of the sort that doesn't pass the purity tests.

Same here, but it's mainly because of my stance on borders and I do think there are instances where capital punishment is appropriate, albeit I support reforming the system so that only particularly heinous and unrepentant criminals get it if there is sufficient evidence, and it should be a last resort.

I'm not a hawk when it comes to foreign policy, but I'm not a non-interventionist either. I think there are times where it is appropriate or just to intervene (if some dictator is practicing genocide, for example.) Serve justice, but don't necessarily police the world.

Those issues are the main reasons why I consider myself a conservative rather than a libertarian.

Kedri wrote:Same here, but it's mainly because of my stance on borders and I do think there are instances where capital punishment is appropriate, albeit I support reforming the system so that only particularly heinous and unrepentant criminals get it if there is sufficient evidence, and it should be a last resort.

I'm not a hawk when it comes to foreign policy, but I'm not a non-interventionist either. I think there are times where it is appropriate or just to intervene (if some dictator is practicing genocide, for example.) Serve justice, but don't necessarily police the world.

Those issues are the main reasons why I consider myself a conservative rather than a libertarian.

Ah, a political pragmatist. Wish there were more of them in the current crazy political climate.

Kedri wrote:So, uhhh... What are y'all's thoughts on open borders?

If a true libertarian state were to exist, where people rise and fall on their own merits without government handouts, then I would support open borders. You cannot have welfare and open borders without bankrupting the state, and in turn, the taxpayers.

Elwher wrote:

Kedri wrote:So, uhhh... What are y'all's thoughts on open borders?

If a true libertarian state were to exist, where people rise and fall on their own merits without government handouts, then I would support open borders. You cannot have welfare and open borders without bankrupting the state, and in turn, the taxpayers.

You…realize states can’t go bankrupt in the modern day, right? Assuming a fiat currency that isn’t tied to anything, and that any debt owned by that state is denominated in its own currency, a state is about as likely to go bankrupt as the Earth is to fall out of its orbit.

Kedri wrote:So, uhhh... What are y'all's thoughts on open borders?

Basically what Kowani said: invisible lines in earth should go bye bye.

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:So... what is the libertarian belief on “unity”? The Left talks “left unity” and the Right talks “right unity”, but where do you, as mostly right-libertarians, see potential allies?

Not a right libertarian but I disagree with the unity concept in terms of entire sides of the spectrum, especially considering the amount of variation in ideologies on any given side.

Kedri wrote:So, uhhh... What are y'all's thoughts on open borders?

Good, but only remotely practical in a perfect world. In an imperfect world, you need to, at least, screen out the worst eggs.

Open borders are probably awful, but not for the reason you think it is, and it is already here, but not in the way you think it is.

Kowani wrote:

Elwher wrote:
If a true libertarian state were to exist, where people rise and fall on their own merits without government handouts, then I would support open borders. You cannot have welfare and open borders without bankrupting the state, and in turn, the taxpayers.

You…realize states can’t go bankrupt in the modern day, right? Assuming a fiat currency that isn’t tied to anything, and that any debt owned by that state is denominated in its own currency, a state is about as likely to go bankrupt as the Earth is to fall out of its orbit.

Not bankrupt in a legal sense, I agree that is not possible; but bankrupt as in not being able to maintain necessary services and a worthless currency.

Kowani wrote:

Elwher wrote:
If a true libertarian state were to exist, where people rise and fall on their own merits without government handouts, then I would support open borders. You cannot have welfare and open borders without bankrupting the state, and in turn, the taxpayers.

You…realize states can’t go bankrupt in the modern day, right? Assuming a fiat currency that isn’t tied to anything, and that any debt owned by that state is denominated in its own currency, a state is about as likely to go bankrupt as the Earth is to fall out of its orbit.

Except the second assumption isn’t always as true as you make it out to be: a lot of developing and smaller countries will have at least some debt denominated in foreign currencies if they are trying to seek outside capital investment (since their internal capital markets probably aren’t liquid or deep enough to satisfy all their requirements). As such, they absolutely could go bankrupt if they let those debts go too large or their internal currency becomes too worthless.

And that’s completely ignoring all the countries that don’t have full sovereignty over the currency they use, either due to monetary unions or because of an inability to maintain their own currency, any of which could also go bankrupt if their debts got too large.

Elwher wrote:

Kowani wrote:You…realize states can’t go bankrupt in the modern day, right? Assuming a fiat currency that isn’t tied to anything, and that any debt owned by that state is denominated in its own currency, a state is about as likely to go bankrupt as the Earth is to fall out of its orbit.

Not bankrupt in a legal sense, I agree that is not possible; but bankrupt as in not being able to maintain necessary services and a worthless currency.

…That is also not really how currency works.

Prizea wrote:

Kowani wrote:You…realize states can’t go bankrupt in the modern day, right? Assuming a fiat currency that isn’t tied to anything, and that any debt owned by that state is denominated in its own currency, a state is about as likely to go bankrupt as the Earth is to fall out of its orbit.

Except the second assumption isn’t always as true as you make it out to be: a lot of developing and smaller countries will have at least some debt denominated in foreign currencies if they are trying to seek outside capital investment (since their internal capital markets probably aren’t liquid or deep enough to satisfy all their requirements). As such, they absolutely could go bankrupt if they let those debts go too large or their internal currency becomes too worthless.

Yes, thank you for agreeing with me.

And that’s completely ignoring all the countries that don’t have full sovereignty over the currency they use, either due to monetary unions or because of an inability to maintain their own currency, any of which could also go bankrupt if their debts got too large.

I did actually forget about that point, you’re right.

Kowani wrote:

Prizea wrote:
Except the second assumption isn’t always as true as you make it out to be: a lot of developing and smaller countries will have at least some debt denominated in foreign currencies if they are trying to seek outside capital investment (since their internal capital markets probably aren’t liquid or deep enough to satisfy all their requirements). As such, they absolutely could go bankrupt if they let those debts go too large or their internal currency becomes too worthless.

Yes, thank you for agreeing with me.

If you think I was agreeing with you, you didn’t write what you meant to write.

The first statement,

Kowani wrote:You…realize states can’t go bankrupt in the modern day, right?

isn’t qualified by anything. The second statement (which you qualified with the assumptions) I don’t have any problem with, but the fact you didn’t qualify the first statement meant you were implying that those assumptions were pretty much always true. That’s not the case, for the reasons I outlined above, and it’s therefore eminently possible for a state to go bankrupt in the modern day (even ignoring the cases like Greece where they are in a monetary union).

It’s also a clearly wrong statement in practice, considering Lebanon defaulted on its sovereign debt in March this year (https://www.aljazeera.com/ajimpact/leba ... 00108.html) and it’s not exactly alone in having to do that in modern times (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... ebt_crises).

Much to my delight, the Atlas Shrugged film is free on YouTube.

Northern Davincia wrote:Much to my delight, the Atlas Shrugged film is free on YouTube.

Probably one of the worst films ever made off one of the worst books ever written.

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:Much to my delight, the Atlas Shrugged film is free on YouTube.

Probably one of the worst films ever made off one of the worst books ever written.

When did you read the book?

Northern Davincia wrote:

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:Probably one of the worst films ever made off one of the worst books ever written.

When did you read the book?

I attempted to over a decade ago when I was in high school during a more edgier period in my life. Reading summaries of it later on in life told me the rest of what I needed to know about it, which is a bunch of rich people fucking off from a hilariously dystopian to Rich People Utopia like a bunch of babies only to come back later on to commit terrorism and to give long winded multi-hour speeches about how awesome they are and how awesome it is to be narcissistic, sociopathic and rich. It's such a long, boring and stupid book with insufferable and unlikable characters with a shitty message and Ayn Rand is a war criminal for writing such a travesty of literature and how anyone can make it through reading it with their mind intact and take anything good from it is beyond me.

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:When did you read the book?

I attempted to over a decade ago when I was in high school during a more edgier period in my life. Reading summaries of it later on in life told me the rest of what I needed to know about it, which is a bunch of rich people fucking off from a hilariously dystopian to Rich People Utopia like a bunch of babies only to come back later on to commit terrorism and to give long winded multi-hour speeches about how awesome they are and how awesome it is to be narcissistic, sociopathic and rich. It's such a long, boring and stupid book with insufferable and unlikable characters with a shitty message and Ayn Rand is a war criminal for writing such a travesty of literature and how anyone can make it through reading it with their mind intact and take anything good from it is beyond me.

Summaries are not always reliable or accurate. This interpretation I have noticed to be most common among people who have not read the book, but blindly follow the opinion of folks who might or might not have read it. If I were criticize Star Wars on the basis of promoting terrorism, it would be laughably incorrect.

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:When did you read the book?

I attempted to over a decade ago when I was in high school during a more edgier period in my life. Reading summaries of it later on in life told me the rest of what I needed to know about it, which is a bunch of rich people fucking off from a hilariously dystopian to Rich People Utopia like a bunch of babies only to come back later on to commit terrorism and to give long winded multi-hour speeches about how awesome they are and how awesome it is to be narcissistic, sociopathic and rich. It's such a long, boring and stupid book with insufferable and unlikable characters with a shitty message and Ayn Rand is a war criminal for writing such a travesty of literature and how anyone can make it through reading it with their mind intact and take anything good from it is beyond me.

You're mad because she took the Soviet diction and turned it against Sovietism

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:Ayn Rand is a war criminal

Ok.

Hey, I think I have found a worthy quote to add to my signature!

Taihei Tengoku wrote:

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:I attempted to over a decade ago when I was in high school during a more edgier period in my life. Reading summaries of it later on in life told me the rest of what I needed to know about it, which is a bunch of rich people fucking off from a hilariously dystopian to Rich People Utopia like a bunch of babies only to come back later on to commit terrorism and to give long winded multi-hour speeches about how awesome they are and how awesome it is to be narcissistic, sociopathic and rich. It's such a long, boring and stupid book with insufferable and unlikable characters with a shitty message and Ayn Rand is a war criminal for writing such a travesty of literature and how anyone can make it through reading it with their mind intact and take anything good from it is beyond me.

You're mad because she took the Soviet diction and turned it against Sovietism

Objectivism is essentially capitalist dialectics. It is at its core, very Russian.

Objectivism at least in the economic sphere is an establishment ideology. The Republican party promotes that book constantly and they try to live by it. In their doctrine of Fusionism they mix Rand type economics with strong social conservatism.

The Liberated Territories wrote:

Taihei Tengoku wrote:You're mad because she took the Soviet diction and turned it against Sovietism

Objectivism is essentially capitalist dialectics. It is at its core, very Russian.

Objectivism is fascist Libertarianism. "We will force you to be free!"

The Reformed American Republic wrote:Objectivism at least in the economic sphere is an establishment ideology. The Republican party promotes that book constantly and they try to live by it. In their doctrine of Fusionism they mix Rand type economics with strong social conservatism.

Eh no not really, the establishment philosophy is solidly keynesian. Its just the conservatives prefer war spending and the liberals welfare spending.

The Liberated Territories wrote:Eh no not really, the establishment philosophy is solidly keynesian. Its just the conservatives prefer war spending and the liberals welfare spending.

It's not even Keynesian anyway, because Keynes was smart enough to realize you need to cut spending to save money during good times, then use your money reserves to save the economy during recessions. Politicians now just want to spend everything to buy votes.

Fusionism isn't even real, nobody besides teenager polisci neophytes use that term.