Apparently, your self-worth as a man requires women groveling at your feet. That's pretty sad and pathetic.
Yes, I'm sure you read every source that anyone ever throws at you, for anything. What happens in the real world is that we make assessments on the probability of a source providing actual insight. Thereligionofpeace.com is a site that is identical in insight and accuracy as Stormfront is. I've read both sites a while back, and both are idiotic, wrong, and scary in very similar ways. As a result, I don't read them anymore, and I don't pay attention to people using them as sources.
If you want me to take you seriously, you'll provide references that won't waste my time.
Citing the site thereligionofpeace.com for anything about muslims is like citing Stormfront for anything about blacks, jews, and sundry non-whites. It makes you a bit of a loony.
Hilarious. You know little about how bills get to the senate floor for a vote, do you? Here, let me help you: http://www.coons.senate.gov/learn/bills/. The Senate majority leader has almost nothing to do with what bills get voted on in the Senate. So your anger is quite misplaced, and probably should be directed at all the people who have elected a democratic majority to the Senate. But that would mean that you would acknowledge that you are a minority in some areas, and can't just ram your ideology down other people's throats.
I find it also exceptionally hilarious that this attack is coming from the Tea Party, considering that they are nominally libertarian. Buffet, Gates, and Adelson ARE their masters of the universe - at least, they would be, if the Tea Party or the libertarians had any sort of consistency in their beliefs. Instead, this diatribe exposes them for what they really are: run of the mill politicians who are just more xenophobic and nativist than the other politicians. Economically, they are just like the unions that they hate: upset when someone with more money than them uses that money in a way that they dislike.
Sessions can go fuck himself with a chainsaw.
Close. I attack people because of the stupidity of their arguments, and the stupid source of their stupid arguments. In this case, some white, suburban, barely teenage boy read Atlas Shrugged and got a raging hardon imagining himself as John Galt. It's sad, really.
The threat of democracy doesn't lie in the distinction between direct voting and representative voting, but in the idea that whatever is popular should be the law.
Then explain how the Constitution came to be. And explain very carefully how it neither was put into place because the majority of the people in power at the time thought it was a good idea, and how it also wasn't the result of an autocratic group of people forcing their will onto others. Just a little tip: you should read the entire Constitution, how it used to look like, what it looks like now, and why it has been changed. It's kinda fascinating all the stuff that got put into there for no other reason than that it was popular and helped people get elected. Too bad the Constitution for you is some magic pixie dust.
Well. One reasonable reply. I guess I should be reasonable as well then.
No that's wrong, libertarians are "like" the current government, just smaller.
But that's the crux of the problem: I haven't seen a workable definition of government that isn't like the current one, just smaller. It either devolves into anarchy, or creates a system that is indistinguishable from the current one, except with fewer laws. And that government has no system to prevent the creation of laws that would be identical to the current one.
Yes, that's the libertarian platform. The difference is in how large the government is and what its responsibilities are, not fundamental changes like eliminating lawmakers... honestly that's a ridiculous notion.
Then do explain: how does a libertarian government not become the current one? I mean, outside of being fully staffed by libertarians, who all adhere to the same notions of government, property, and morality? Which, by the way, is the definition of sectarianism, which is hugely destabilizing to a society. Unless, of course, you further assume that everyone is a libertarian, but then we're right back to my main beef with libertarians: completely unrealistic expectations of how people work.
Somalia and Sudan both have central governments with overreaching power in the areas they control based on Islamic law that any libertarian would find abhorrent. Furthermore, there are a number of competing governments disputing territory within each country, also seeking to impose Islamic law (but, you know, the "true" Islamic law).
I can create a central government in my house that has overreaching power in areas that... well, pick whatever you want. My government doesn't matter though, because the US government has far more power to impose its notions on mine, if it ever finds out that they clash and decides to do something about it. My powers are completely at the mercy of the US government's powers. In other words, it's no power at all. Now, what if I could repel the US government's force? Well, that's completely implausible, but it would mean I could create my own government. And I'd have to, because well, that's what a collection of rules and people enforcing those rules are.
The reason that Somalia and Sudan are important is because they show what happens when a central government is unable to enforce its laws. As you pointed out, another type of government replaces it - automatically. Maybe not in the same territory, but as you said, it always starts somewhere in the territory of the old government, because the old government doesn't care, doesn't have the resources to care, or can't enforce the fact that it cares. In the case of Somalia and Sudan, it's a combination of all three.
There are two reasons that this process matters. One, it shows how a new type of government can come about very quickly. Two, it shows empirically that the new governments always take a very different approach to ruling. More islamist, less authoritarian - whatever you want, but it's going to generally be the antithesis. And that's to be expected, since being prepared to die for the new style of government requires very strong opinions about how much different things should be. There's also the possibility that someone just decided that they'd rather be the ruler, but I'm assuming that's not what libertarians are all about.
This means that there are two reasons why failed states like Sudan and Somalia - or heck, Mexico is skirting really fucking close to that - put the lie to libertarian claims of perfect government. If libertarians would be really so keen to cast off the shackles of the old government, those places are great to start from scratch. I mean, resource wise it stinks, but at least there's so much chaos that you can quickly create your own state according to your own rules, and you'll be much more likely to be able to enforce your own ideals than anywhere else. Yet no libertarian wants to go to those places to start their Galt's Gulch. Furthermore, if libertarian ideals are so obvious, so beneficial to society, there'd be a place where it would have been tried already, and would have succeeded. The fact that all of the revolutions throughout history have never, ever, led to something close to resembling a stable libertarian society tells me that it cannot work long term or on a large scale. You can argue if you want that the pioneers in the American West were the closest thing to a libertarian society, but look what they decided to do: ditch the libertarian ideals and come together in a democracy. There are lots of reasons why that ideal died out, but at the core, it just wasn't as successful at producing the ability to defend the pioneers territory from encroachment as the alternatives.
Now, there is one more argument that I often hear when I get to this stage: yes, but the pioneers only failed because they didn't understand libertarianism, and were misled by others, lied to, and overpowered by evil, power-hungry people. I can only roll my eyes at that, because that is word for word the plaintive cry of every disappointed communist out there, ever. It's why every commune fails at some point. If your best explanation for why I should try your approach is that no one has ever done it right, and you're asking me to ignore thousands of years of history and decades of psychological research that show that it won't work... yeah, good luck with that. I hear there are some sand dunes that haven't been claimed yet. Go try your luck there. Just do it without me.
Awwww.... how cute. Changing the subject, are we? Let me just clarify your position for you: I want a government big enough so that it protects me from people I don't like, but too small to protect those who don't like me from me.
Of course, you'd be the knight in shining armor saving everyone around you, so no one would need to be protected from you. Everything you do would be for the greater good of everyone around you. I'm sure of it.
Congratulations, you can't read, and are using the Federalist papers as a bible.
1) When he's talking about a pure democracy, he's talking about what's commonly known as direct democracy. The Swiss are the closest thing we have to one, and it's still pretty far away from one. When he's talking about a republic, he's talking about what's commonly known as representative democracy.
2) He's acknowledging that it only applies to very small groups of people. Communes have been frequently tried, and most of them don't last all that long. That's why they're not the model for large-scale governments.
3) If you'd read further, you'd realize that the Federalist papers are still worried about factionalism in a representative democracy, and hope that representatives don't band together in a way that mimics the banding together of people in a direct democracy. Guess what happens to people in any situation? They band together.
4) You're quoting someone constructing a theoretical position of government as if it is a reality. In other words, you're no better than priests quoting the bible and pretending that it is literally the truth. The founding fathers were smart and well educated, but they weren't infallible. Merely saying "Constitution!" or "Federalist Papers!" means nothing. All it tells me is that you don't think.
Keep digging that libertarian hole. I haven't found one yet who deserves any respect.
I know that Atlas Shrugged is powerful stuff for a teenage boy dipping his toes into political theory for the first time. Don't be too harsh on yourself when you grow out of that phase.
Wow. You really haven't thought your position through, have you? I mean, at all. And by that, I mean that you really have no idea what a government is, how it comes about, what wars are, what causes them, what law enforcement is, or anything related to how humans operate, collaborate, and build societies. I hope you're somewhere in middle school, and you've just not gotten to that part in your education, because otherwise, that kind of ignorance has to be willful.
And by the way, yes, I am confusing libertarian with communists. They both completely fail in providing workable solutions. The best they have is a partial list of facts.
1) A democracy is where 51% of the people decide the needs and force it on the other 49%
1) That's not what a democracy is. Read up on it.
2) As opposed to a system where a minority decides the needs and forces it on the majority? That's why I find libertarians so adorable. They can identify problems, but are utterly blind as to the alternatives. To quote a famous guy who has seen some systems: "Democracy is the worst government system, except for all the others."
2) Most libertarians support the idea of a police force and law enforcement.
And yet, they utterly fail to comprehend that that is what is behind the the power of the government, and behind any abuse that they perceive. That's why they are so contemptible: their preferences are all diametrically opposed, and they are, for some reason, incapable of understanding that.
It is much easier to control "Boss Hog" in some rural county than it is to control "Hitler" in Europe.
Oh, aren't you cute. Taking your history and sociology lessons from a TV show.
I want unbridled liberty. It is messy, ugly and free
Oh, it sure is. Why don't you move to all those countries with tiny national governments that barely reach outside of the capital? You have complete freedom to do whatever the hell you want. As does everyone else around you. Oh, right, those countries aren't "real" libertarian countries. Just like the USSR, China, Vietnam, Czechoslovakia, North Korea and others weren't and aren't "real" communist countries.
Here's a dirty, little secret of your mantra of " Libertarianism oppose to abuses of power, and only want a government big enough to stop abuses of power." Any government that is big enough to stop abuses of power is big enough to be the root cause of them. The only thing stopping abuses of power are the people who are in power. Libertarians are essentially envisioning a benevolent dictatorship, with its scope limited to personal property. Always forgetting that the only thing you truly own is what you can carry in both hands, running at full tilt. And that it is the biggest gun that controls what else you can call property. Better hope that it is yours, comrade.
The problem is that libertarians always try to make the distinction that they're not anarchists and that they're not like the current government, but they fail to do so in any sort of workable manner. Let's take your example of a standing army for defense.
1) It needs to be funded.
2) It needs to be commanded.
1 requires taxes, an organization to collect it, laws on what is taxed, lawmakers to write those laws, courts to enforce those laws, lawyers to argue court cases, law enforcement officers to enforce court decisions, and it's suddenly government all the way down. We're right back to where we were before.
In order for 2 not to be just a different name for a warlord, the commander in chief needs to be an elected civilian. That means elections, representative bodies, separation of powers, and, well, you get the drift. The founding fathers weren't stupid, and created a pretty good system. That same system is what we have today.
Furthermore, a standing army isn't to deal with local warlords, it is to deal with external threats. A police force is there to deal with local warlord-wannabes who think that the government shouldn't have a monopoly on the use of force, and who think that they are better at running the local community than the elected bodies.
There are two types of libertarians. Those who think that government should be tiny, with everyone being some glorious self-sufficient pioneer in the new world. Those are the ones who should be hanging out in Somalia and Sudan, but don't, because those places a shit holes of failed states. Then there are those who think that government should be smaller, specifically in the areas that tells them that they can't do what they want or to do what they don't want to. All other areas, specifically those that they benefit from, are exactly a-ok. Those are called free-riders, and have been identified as a problem since the dawn of time when it comes to the allocation of resources.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: today's brand of American libertarians are the European communists of old: they identify problems just fine, but are advocating completely unworkable solutions and are willing to shit all over everyone else to implement them.