What does "Libertarian" mean to you?

[Studea]

A libertarian in an anarchist in a cheap suit. They want to destroy government, but because they want to do it in the name of "freedom" and "liberty" instead of chaos and anarchy they're given a hearing. Don't ever listen to a libertarian.

[Sibirsky]

Exactly, for a lot of libertarians (including mysaelf) it's not about improving the quality of life or society (Although many more think that limited/no government and Laissez-faire capialism would). It's about the maximization of individual liberty.

Freer market =/= freer people

Less civil laws = freer people

A more free market is indeed the same as a more free people. And is just as important as civil rights.

[The Deleted Chris]

I presume they have feet that properly function.

Unfortunately, that won't always work. If (for example) there's an open path (no door) between the living room and the kitchen and there's a smoker watching TV, you have to choose between cigarette smoke and no food.

Or a can of man the fuck up?

[The Deleted Chris]

A libertarian in an anarchist in a cheap suit. They want to destroy government, but because they want to do it in the name of "freedom" and "liberty" instead of chaos and anarchy they're given a hearing. Don't ever listen to a libertarian.

Excuse me, but we don't wear cheap suits.

[Innsmothe]

Freer market =/= freer people

Less civil laws = freer people

A more free market is indeed the same as a more free people. And is just as important as civil rights.

Care to explain? risky economic gambits tend to restrict civil freedom once it bites the economy in the arse.

[Tagmatium]

Unfortunately, that won't always work. If (for example) there's an open path (no door) between the living room and the kitchen and there's a smoker watching TV, you have to choose between cigarette smoke and no food.

Or a can of man the fuck up?

Christ, walking through smoke won't kill you instantly. It's not fucking Mustard Gas.

[Sibirsky]

Libertarians are prude.

Prudent? Or prudes?

Prudes. They agree with anarchists but are uncomfortable with anarchy.

[The Deleted Chris]

A more free market is indeed the same as a more free people. And is just as important as civil rights.

Care to explain? risky economic gambits tend to restrict civil freedom once it bites the economy in the arse.

Not really, no. Economic deregulation to the extent that allows the emergence of monopolies does restrict freedom, but otherwise a deregulated economy allows for greater personal liberty.

[Servantium]

Prudent? Or prudes?

Prudes. They agree with anarchists but are uncomfortable with anarchy.

Some of us don't.

[Sibirsky]

A more free market is indeed the same as a more free people. And is just as important as civil rights.

Care to explain? risky economic gambits tend to restrict civil freedom once it bites the economy in the arse.

"Risky economic gambits" are the result of moral hazard created by the state.

[The Deleted Chris]

Or a can of man the fuck up?

Christ, walking through smoke won't kill you instantly. It's not fucking Mustard Gas.

Indeed. Must be an American thing, because similar levels of health obsession just aren't in evidence over here.

[The Deleted Chris]

Prudes. They agree with anarchists but are uncomfortable with anarchy.

Some of us don't.

Seconded. It's perfectly possible to be a minarchist.

[Servantium]

Care to explain? risky economic gambits tend to restrict civil freedom once it bites the economy in the arse.

Not really, no. Economic deregulation to the extent that allows the emergence of monopolies does restrict freedom, but otherwise a deregulated economy allows for greater personal liberty.

Monopolies only exist in theory under a free market.

[Sibirsky]

Prudes. They agree with anarchists but are uncomfortable with anarchy.

Some of us don't.

The anarchists' logic is simple. Libertarians would agree with anarchists that the private sector provides better service, better products through competition and so on. The private sector is better than the state at everything. So if the private sector is better than the state at everything, why should the state exist at all?

[Innsmothe]

Care to explain? risky economic gambits tend to restrict civil freedom once it bites the economy in the arse.

"Risky economic gambits" are the result of moral hazard created by the state.

More like unregulated buisnessmen not thinking through their actions and the consequences of said actions.

[Tagmatium]

Christ, walking through smoke won't kill you instantly. It's not fucking Mustard Gas.

Indeed. Must be an American thing, because similar levels of health obsession just aren't in evidence over here.

I am usually put off by people smoking near me when I'm eating, but if I'm hungry and there (oh, dear God, no!) a smoker between me and my food source, then I'm not going to crack out the NBC Warfare suit to go and get it.

I'm damn certain that walking down the pavement of a busy road during rush hour is worse than the above.

But this is tangental.

[Sibirsky]

"Risky economic gambits" are the result of moral hazard created by the state.

More like unregulated buisnessmen not thinking through their actions and the consequences of said actions.

[Servantium]

So if the private sector is better than the state at everything, why should the state exist at all?

Because not all libertarians believe that the privatization of military, courts, and police would be a benefit to their own personal liberty.

[Sibirsky]

So if the private sector is better than the state at everything, why should the state exist at all?

Because not all libertarians believe that the privatization of military, courts, and police would be a benefit to their own personal liberty.

Fair enough. I'm not arguing with you, merely pointing out anarchists' logic.

[Innsmothe]

More like unregulated buisnessmen not thinking through their actions and the consequences of said actions.

No thank you, I might get 'unrealistic world view' on me.

[Stromburg]

Libertarian means small government with no interference in the economy and people life except for enforcing laws, foreign relation and having military.

Wrong, their are two libertarian groups.

One want's increased regulation and buisness responsibility but less government power over what should and should not be illegalised ect.

The other tends to be more traditional conservative by wanting more economic freedom, but doesn't get a shit over civil law as it includes copyright laws.

More regulation means more bureaucrats. Standard libertarian ideas is lesser or none government interference.

[Sibirsky]

No thank you, I might get 'unrealistic world view' on me.

Your views are wrong. For instance, CRA mortgages consisted of just 7% of BAC's mortgage book in the fall of 2008. And 24% of it's defaults. The fact that Fannie and Freddie operated in an inherent system of moral hazard is not questioned. And they had other enormous benefits, tax breaks and government backing. There were incentives on an individual level as well. Everyone is responsible. But everyone was acting based on incentives they were given by a government who's goal was to increase homeownership in the US.

[Innsmothe]

No thank you, I might get 'unrealistic world view' on me.

Your views are wrong. For instance, CRA mortgages consisted of just 7% of BAC's mortgage book in the fall of 2008. And 24% of it's defaults. The fact that Fannie and Freddie operated in an inherent system of moral hazard is not questioned. And they had other enormous benefits, tax breaks and government backing. There were incentives on an individual level as well. Everyone is responsible. But everyone was acting based on incentives they were given by a government who's goal was to increase homeownership in the US.

Duh, those are American stuffs. America is a barbaric and uncivilised country.

Can even build a decent road car to european standards.

[Sibirsky]

Your views are wrong. For instance, CRA mortgages consisted of just 7% of BAC's mortgage book in the fall of 2008. And 24% of it's defaults. The fact that Fannie and Freddie operated in an inherent system of moral hazard is not questioned. And they had other enormous benefits, tax breaks and government backing. There were incentives on an individual level as well. Everyone is responsible. But everyone was acting based on incentives they were given by a government who's goal was to increase homeownership in the US.

Duh, those are American stuffs. America is a barbaric and uncivilised country.

Can even build a decent road car to european standards.

Unable to counter you resort to trolling. Noted.

[Innsmothe]

Duh, those are American stuffs. America is a barbaric and uncivilised country.

Can even build a decent road car to european standards.

Unable to counter you resort to trolling. Noted.

No, I am just in a leg cast and it really fucking itches.