^^^
For real. The whole thing is started on liberal bigotry about libertarians.
Then a bunch of liberal asshats trolled me with their straw-men and bullshit.
The Soap Box is pretty much worthless. Everybody "already knows everything" so threads just regurgitate the same old troll crap.

[Edited on June 6, 2010 at 7:55 PM. Reason : ]

6/6/2010 7:46:48 PM

^ Feel free to leave. Otherwise man up. You're the only one that looks like an idiot today, kid.

6/6/2010 7:47:46 PM

^
There you go -- You shouldn't go by "looks", but you guys do. Thus the trolls are successful, so they keep on ruining threads.
There was a decent discussion, then liberal trolls fucked it all up.
Ask other TWWers why they don't like the Soap Box...

6/6/2010 7:54:45 PM

Keep going, you can do better than that.

6/6/2010 7:57:29 PM

WHY THE FUCK DO LIBRARIANS OWN THE INTERNET

6/6/2010 8:00:00 PM

Quote :

"There was a decent discussion, then liberal trolls fucked it all up."

6/6/2010 8:00:39 PM

lol

6/6/2010 8:09:13 PM

Quote :

"The Soap Box is pretty much worthless. Everybody "already knows everything" so threads just regurgitate the same old troll crap. "

lol

says the person who's never defended their viewpoint in any thread...

6/6/2010 8:21:19 PM

you guys wonder how I'm so unflappable, its because I know that no one here is going to change their mind

except for maybe a few weak minded conservatives who hear the siren song of polite society. i understand how appealing it must seem to be that token conservative that liberals credit with objectivity. (Yes, I'm looking at you, GrumpyGOP)

6/6/2010 8:23:17 PM

^ hate to burst your bubble, but no one really gave a shit before, and no one does now. sorry.

6/6/2010 9:04:47 PM

^^ i've changed my mind or made up my mind many times based on internet forums... it just won't happen in the span of 1 thread.

If the old archives weren't nuked, you would have found me arguing against gay rights and in support of young earth creationism actually...

And i don't know why you hate on GrumpyGOP...

[Edited on June 6, 2010 at 9:54 PM. Reason : ]

6/6/2010 9:52:21 PM

wow, then you've really spanned the arc of stupidity haven't you

6/6/2010 9:53:12 PM

6/6/2010 9:55:20 PM

we should probably apologize to Supplanter for fucking up his thread.

[Edited on June 6, 2010 at 9:55 PM. Reason : ^^ too far]

6/6/2010 9:55:27 PM

Quote :

"why don't you 2 set the record straight now, and lay out what libertarians actually believe, if it's not what Ron/Rand Paul or the Tea Baggers say?"

Anyone can call themselves a libertarian. I would say libertarianism boils down to maximizing individual freedom. You should be able to do whatever you want, until you infringe upon someone else's freedom. It really is that simple. When you advocate having a government that forces people to act in a certain way, even if they're not harming anyone, that's not a libertarian position.

Ron Paul and Rand Paul differ on quite a few issues, by the way. They're father and son, not clones, and I much prefer Ron's positions. It might be that Rand Paul is just saying what he needs to say to get support of the GOP base, but Ron never had to do that. Also, the whole "Ron Paul and the tea baggers" thing has got to stop. He's commented numerous times that the tea party movement is a bunch of people with a whole lot of different beliefs, and there really is no leader, it's just people that recognize when government is out of control, and it undoubtedly is.

Quote :

"Just to nitpick, you can easily make this case about socially conservative 'pubs as well. Accusing only one side of the spectrum as being against your views is disingenuous."

Not exactly. The social conservatives and the neo-conservatives know what libertarians believe, and they'll attempt to marginalize them within the Republican party, especially during primaries. Liberals, like you, haven't done much research into libertarian theory, so you just dream up a caricature in your head and treat it as reality.

Quote :

"Why do you think this is? Why are there ZERO “real” libertarians in national, or even state-level politics, in spite of the tea bag movement?"

The political climate hasn't been right for it, until recently. It's hard to pander to the ignorant masses as a libertarian. Imagine a politician running on a platform like, "I'm not going to vote for anything that's unconstitutional, and I'm not going to force one person to hand over a chunk of their wages for some bullshit that congress deems necessary. I'm going to vote against every single bill that violates anyone's freedom, even if there are some good parts of the bill." No one has wanted that, because there was an expectation that the government was a supplier of endless free goodies, and it never had to end. The vast majority of politicians today have had to embrace the vote buying mentality, because that's how you get in office when administrations ignore budget deficits.

Now we're in the midst of a deep recession and it's becoming clear to a lot of people that government cannot meet those expectations. European socialism, long hailed as proof that big government can work and work well, is crashing down, despite the fact that their social programs have been more efficient and well thought out than ours. There will come a time when someone has to level with the voters, and we will have to have a balanced budget. We can bring the troops home and save some money there, but there's not a piece of legislation that can stop the ugly demise of our phony economy. My fear is that politicians, with their hazy-at-best understanding of economics, will repeat the mistakes that so many fallen empires have made before.

Quote :

"Lose to who? Who is this freedom-bringing libertarian? Is there ANY actual person on the horizon AT ALL?"

There are plenty of liberty minded candidates running for office this election cycle. I'm not sure that it's viable to run on a pure libertarian platform, though. For instance, I believe that all drugs should be legal. Crack, heroin, meth, all of it. It's your body, and you're free to abuse it any way you like, as long as you don't hurt someone. I could never win an election if I publicly stated those views. I could also never win an election if I admitted to being an atheist.

I do feel that there's a massive movement building in our age group. It's similar to what some people would call "South Park libertarians." It's very different than the Reagan-style libertarianism that emphasizes economic freedom while ignoring "social" freedom, and then ignoring economic realities once in office.

6/6/2010 10:25:42 PM

Quote :

""Why do you think this is? Why are there ZERO “real” libertarians in national, or even state-level politics, in spite of the tea bag movement?""

Because no one ever got elected without promising 50% of the voters stuff paid for by the other 50%. Case in point, the recent health care bill has subsidies for people up to 300% of the poverty line. Coincidentally 300% of poverty ~ 50% of the population.

Also because most libertarians that I know of have no interest in being a politician. One of the side effects of believing in limited government and leaving people the hell alone is that you tend not to seek out the ability to dictate people's lives to them.

[Edited on June 6, 2010 at 10:43 PM. Reason : asdf]

6/6/2010 10:41:35 PM

Quote :

"d357r0y3r: Liberals, like you, haven't done much research into libertarian theory, so you just dream up a caricature in your head and treat it as reality."

I don't think this is fair.

Could you point me to where Optimum has done any of that?

Otherwise, I think you should apologize.

6/6/2010 11:00:03 PM

You're right, Optimum really didn't say anything in this thread to warrant that, so sorry - that should have been directed at moron or McDanger.

[Edited on June 6, 2010 at 11:09 PM. Reason : ]

6/6/2010 11:08:18 PM

Quote :

"Because no one ever got elected without promising 50% of the voters stuff paid for by the other 50%. Case in point, the recent health care bill has subsidies for people up to 300% of the poverty line. Coincidentally 300% of poverty ~ 50% of the population. Also because most libertarians that I know of have no interest in being a politician. One of the side effects of believing in limited government and leaving people the hell alone is that you tend not to seek out the ability to dictate people's lives to them. "

So if you're saying that libertarianism is untenable given the realities of how human psychology and how social groups actually currently work, then what value is there to complaining that things aren't how libertarians want them to be?

It'd be great if we could all work together for the greater good so everyone's needs are met, but no one seriously sits around crying that we don't behave this way.

Quote :

"Now we're in the midst of a deep recession and it's becoming clear to a lot of people that government cannot meet those expectations. European socialism, long hailed as proof that big government can work and work well, is crashing down, despite the fact that their social programs have been more efficient and well thought out than ours. There will come a time when someone has to level with the voters, and we will have to have a balanced budget. We can bring the troops home and save some money there, but there's not a piece of legislation that can stop the ugly demise of our phony economy. My fear is that politicians, with their hazy-at-best understanding of economics, will repeat the mistakes that so many fallen empires have made before. "

Balancing the budget has nothing to do with libertarians. Clinton came pretty close.

You basically mashed together vague rhetoric about "violating freedom" and "government goodies" then wrapped it up with more vague ranting about the deficit and debt.

6/6/2010 11:32:02 PM

Quote :

"Balancing the budget has nothing to do with libertarians. Clinton came pretty close."

Balancing the budget has something to do with libertarianism. When the government runs deficits, who pays the debt? The government forces the country to take on more debt, and that affects the economy and our standard of living. If you force me to use a currency as a medium of exchange and then devalue it, how is that not infringing upon my rights?

Balancing the budget is not purely a libertarian issue, though. In other countries, politicians run on balancing the budget all the time, regardless of their party affiliation. It's an important issue, I don't see why both parties shouldn't be focusing on it. Even when we were running a surplus, we weren't coming close to paying off our debt.

6/6/2010 11:56:04 PM

Quote :

"I also recently pwnt Aaronburro using the full faith and credit clause in a soapbox thread on gay marriage."

I don't recall this. but ok

Quote :

"Clinton came pretty close."

bullshit. if he had "come close," then he would have done something about the elephant in the room that is Social Security. Instead, he just rode the tech boom like a 2-dollar whore and claimed credit for shit he had no hand in.

6/7/2010 12:03:14 AM

Quote :

"Balancing the budget has something to do with libertarianism. When the government runs deficits, who pays the debt? The government forces the country to take on more debt, and that affects the economy and our standard of living. If you force me to use a currency as a medium of exchange and then devalue it, how is that not infringing upon my rights?"

Affects our economy how? Can you cite any historical instances applicable to the US? It takes a "perfect storm" of situations for the debt to be a devastating factor for our economy.

And are you saying that fiat money systems are an offense on your civil rights...?

Quote :

"Balancing the budget is not purely a libertarian issue, though. In other countries, politicians run on balancing the budget all the time, regardless of their party affiliation. It's an important issue, I don't see why both parties shouldn't be focusing on it. Even when we were running a surplus, we weren't coming close to paying off our debt. "

Our politicians do run on balancing the budget. Reagan, the Bushes, and so far Obama are the only ones since FDR to really ignore the debt. This is the exception, not the rule. The US, debt-wise, is in FAR better shape than most of the major european countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt

6/7/2010 12:13:08 AM

sure, they run on balancing the budget, but they do jack shit about it once elected.

Quote :

"It takes a "perfect storm" of situations for the debt to be a devastating factor for our economy."

It also would have taken a "perfect storm of situations" for the housing market to become a devastating factor for our economy, but it most certainly occurred. clearly you already know how it can be bad for the economy.

6/7/2010 12:15:49 AM