I have explained this many times.

First off anarchy and libertarianism are very different. We support rules and laws. We support a government. We support enforcement.

The reason why there is no working example is because the people in power want to keep their power and get more power. That shown in pretty much every society. With libertarianism you do not boss others around.

Second it is not fundamentally selfish or self-centered, in fact it is very very far from those adjectives. It is very much about protecting OTHERS. No one person is more important than another. Everyone's liberties must be equally protected. Protecting the minority from the majority. Every individual is just as important as the next and every individual is more important than society. Not about yourself, but about individuals and liberty. That libertarianism is about liberty should be self-evident. It is not about I got mine. That is not libertarianism. That is not protecting liberty of the individual.

__________________
May your paradise always be green, you liberties always be full, and may the ignorance of you enemies not drive you to be pro-nuke.

"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself
into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and
trying to lift himself up by the handle."-Winston Churchill

Damn it, Skerlnik! Get it through your thick skull that it doesn't matter whether these or other agencies are valuable, important, etc., THEY'RE ILLEGAL!!!! If you want to make them legal then AMEND OR REPLACE THE CONSTITUTION. Why the hell is that so damned difficult for you to understand?????

Besides, why the hell does it have to be the FEDERAL government that does all these things? Why can't the states (which do actually have the power within their respective borders, limited only by their respective constitutions) do these things?

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

I know. We go the rounds on it, reach tentative agreement/detente, and then usually, you'll say something I'll think is goofy, and off we'll go.

Only superficially. My argument has been that paring government back to what it was in 1781 makes it so powerless and weak, it would be absolutely conducive to anarchy. Chan seems to have a more hard line on this than you, true.

But seemingly only ones that champion individual desires over what's good for society as a whole. The debate over the smoking this was a classic example. It appears that if one person wishes to defy the wishes of a majority, then that majority can piss off.

No, the reason is that it simply doesn't work on any sort of large scale. I resent your implication that governments sits around cackling, gleefully rubbing their hands together, hatching plots against people.

With libertarianism, like in ANY form of government system, you DO "boss people around". It's just reduced to opinions of what laws will be, and who has the most force to employ.

That's precicely what I do not hear in the arguments. I hear "Why should I have to abide by X?" or "I should be able to do X if I wanted to, and who are you to stop me?"

What other message should I take from that line of argument?

Libertarians tend to act as if they are constantly victimized. Even though this is the most free nation on earth. What libertarians appear not to realize is that everyone ELSE is ALSO curtailed from doing X.

What I never hear from libertarians are suggestions that deal with society as a whole, I never hear about how other people are protected from an individual that is doing something that is not good for others.

Your stated willingness to desmantle the FDA and allow any drug, untested, and unregulated, to be on the market is disturbing. It appears as if you are for the "right" to cheat people, to lie, and to place all the burden of responsibility onto the consumer for being stupid. What would stop any of that, in the absence of regualtion? What guarantees can you offer the consumer that he won't be harmed, or even gets consistent product? Should we leave it up to pharmaceutical companies, who put profit over anything else to self-regulate? Is the "free market" so important that DEATHS are an acceptable by-product? What kind of society is that? Just what would be acheived?

There's always a balance between liberty and security. I think libertarianism is WAY too far on the liberty side, and leads to dysfunction.

__________________
The poor object to being governed badly, while the rich object to being governed at all. -- G. K. Chesterton

Government is evil. But the issue here isn't government in general but one particular country's FEDERAL government. It doesn't matter that there are "things that our federal government enables that is [sic] unseen and unacknowledged" if those things are unconstitutional. What you do not seem to be getting through that thick skull of yours - and what is really pissing me off about you - is that the Constitution is the LAW that governs the federal government.

You are so full of crap on this one!!!!!!!! The federal government does NOT only enact laws and regulations when something is "out of hand" (Out of hand according to whom?). Are you saying with the million or more laws on the federal books that in every instance things in the United States were getting out of hand? That American society was on the brink of collapse? Again, we're referring to FEDERAL government and you damned well had better learn how to get these things straight! Stop trying to insert local government into discussions about federal government.

Your claim shows you simply don't know what you're talking about when it comes to libertarianism. What you don't understand is that trying to bring the FEDERAL government back within its constitutional limits is actually good for American society as a whole.

Yes, my libertarian values are quite opposite your government-loving, freedom-hating, nanny-stater values. What you are again missing is that libertarians aren't saying "no government at all," we're saying "federal government within constitutional limits."

But you're just champing at the bit to put your trust in a huge federal government bureaucracy.

American society from the ratification of the Constitution until Marbury v. Madison and even for a period of time after that.

The founding fathers rightly wanted the federal government to be small and of limited power, dealing only with what goes on outside of the United States and what goes on between states (and not necessarily all of that). The people were intended to largely govern themselves, relying on local and state governments to perform necessary functions like law enforcement.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

And that is why Libertarians have a bad name.

__________________
"When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...."
- The Declaration of Independence

Paring the FEDERAL government back to what it was in 1781, yes. This has nothing to do with local and state governments. Now, as I've said before, if the people want the FEDERAL government to take on responsibilities that would otherwise belong to the states or to the people (you keep forgetting about the states), they can either amend the Constitution or replace it.

The majority can piss off! Are you familiar with the concept of "tyranny of the majority" and why it's a really bad thing?


Yes, we are victimized: victimized by people who want to impose unconstitutional government on us and who want to tyrannize minorities of people.

State and local government.

This is what is pissing me off about you! You're falsely assuming that the result of dismantling the FDA is no testing or regulation at all. You're forgetting about the state governments - the governments that actually have broad powers.

Again, you are forgetting about state and local governments. But perhaps you should read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations.

Why must there be guarantees? The marketplace ensures that crappy products eventually leave the marketplace as people stop buying them. Again, you're forgetting about state and local governments.

Death is an automatic by-product of life: shall we abolish life just because it always results in death? The consumers do the regulating by their buying or not buying various products. Again, you're leaving out the state and local governments.

Boy, if you and I were in the same room I'd smack you upside the head for that statement! I find it utterly vile and offensive. The only responsibility the FEDERAL government has to provide security is to protect the country from being invaded.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

And yet Republicans and Democrats and the media often turn to the libertarian Cato Institute as a respected think tank.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

Well, hello there, Chan!

__________________
The poor object to being governed badly, while the rich object to being governed at all. -- G. K. Chesterton

I almost finished this post and then accidentally closed it out Don't you hate that...

Not only superficially, they are two different things. It is like saying communism and socialism are the same. We would not make it powerless, it would be strong just less oppressive.

Yes, we are individualists. Of course hold the individual over society, that is what it means to be an individualist. I have never know a libertarian that was not. Yes the majority can piss off, we have to protect the liberties of the minorities. I do not fall into most of those minorities and I support all of their liberties. That goes back to the not being self-centered thing.

Over time governments tend to corrupt and continually get worse. We most certainly have a good deal of corruption. They want to stay in power and get more power and more money. Not all politicians, but many yes. Libertarianism minimizes oppression as much as possible. How would you know it would not work, to my knowledge it has never been truly attempted.

You have heard that in arguments from ME all the time.
Regardless of what some people's styles of arguing are that does not change what libertarianism is. The message you should get is what libertarianism truly is. The maximization of individual liberty. If someone only worries about their personal liberties than they are not truly libertarian. If you do not care about all individuals liberties than that is not true libertarianism, including the ones that are not related to you.

The most free nation on earth? I do not know about that. Either way we are continually becoming less and less free. That is the point. As I said it is not about me, it is about every individual.

Harming others is not allowed with libertarianism. Harming yourself certainly is. You should not expect to any time soon. Individuals have enough problems. Once we solve all the problems with individual oppression, then we can worry about any societal problems as long as they do not wrong any individual.

No not lie or cheat. If they sell something that is deadly through lies they should be prosecuted for it. But as I said banning alternatives and foreign products is unacceptable. If people want to risk their health for a possible cure to something then they most certainly should be able to.

I am willing to compromise, but we have to change the current direction we are in.

__________________
May your paradise always be green, you liberties always be full, and may the ignorance of you enemies not drive you to be pro-nuke.

"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself
into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and
trying to lift himself up by the handle."-Winston Churchill

Sucks. Never as devastatingly elegant and witty as the first time, is it?

Then I'd suggest libertarians, or communists or anyone else that espouses "fringe" positions need perhaps to be more precise and less sweeping. It's the nature of forums to twist someone's actual words into extremist positions, unfortunately, just like Chan considers me a "freedom hating nanny stater".

A difficult line to tightrope, perhaps, then. I consider that stance to be really narrow in focus, tending to ignore some much larger issues.

Of course we have to protect the liberties of individuals. That is rarely ever in question. However, itis necessary in a functional society, to cede some liberties in exchange for security and practicality. Yeah, I know the old saying, and it's silly absolutist rhetoric. Great for bumper stickers, but light on policy specifics.

Without question. Since we've set it up that only the rich can afford to run for office, obviously a sort of privileged aristocracy has developed. And then the rest of us wonder why our leaders are so vastly out of touch with what's really going on.

However, that's as much OUR fault as the government's. We, as a nation, tend to passively accept, rather than become involved in solving problems.

My stance is how can we make government better, more efficient, less wasteful, more effective, more accountable? I'm not convinced that just size is the ultimate solution. Too simplistic. The problems are more complicated.

Our definition on what's "oppressive" seems quite different. Americans have no clue what oppression really is, and I think we have a spoiled, warped idea about it. When government thugs in jackboots are dragging people from their burning homes and clubbing them to death in the street, THEN we can talk "oppression". Whining about not being able to smoke in bars makes you sound like a petulant, spoiled brat teenager.

Ever hear the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf? Save the "oppession" talk for when it actually matters.

And, because there has never been a solid libertarian experiment that lasted any significant length of time, doesn't that tell you something?

Well, there you go. Using the FDA as an example, do you feel that every individual should be free from rampant quackery and fraud? I sure do. I don't have the personal expertise or the facilities to verify the wholesomeness of my food, myself, for example.

I certainly care about all individuals liberties. But I also care about security for those individuals when they elect to band together as a society.

Total liberty IS the definition of anarchy, so obviously you do consider at least some restriction on liberties to be reasonable. It's certainly reasonable to curtail the "liberty" to drive however you want on the roads, is it not?

I can't buy the sky is falling premise, sorry. It always ebbs and flows, according to (in theory) what the people want. Right now, people are screaming for government to put some restrictions on the banking and housing industries, because massive deregulations in the past have backfired. At some point twenty years from now, banks will again lobby for the "liberty" to float stupid loans again, and the cycle will begin anew.

This particular Administration has indeed really overstepped it's boundaries in regards to the Constitution, privacy, accountability and security and sold us this huge lie about terrorism so nobody would stop them, yet it's the Democrats that still get hammered by libertarians. Odd.

And, I'm mostly okay with that, to a point. It depends on the issue -- I am not willing to make blanket statements, there. Many times, what one person sees as only self-harmful, has wider effects that are harmful to society.

In many cases, what happens is blaming the victim: "Well, he should have known that buying a can of beans with no expiration date was going to kill him. Too bad!" No, that's shifting blame, and not an acceptable way to conduct a modern, responsible society.

One very disheartening impression I get from libertarianism is a near total lack of empathy for others. "Sucks to be you", "Oh well", "It's your fault, not mine". Very common to hear that, and I think it's a very pathetic operating motto.

Not sure what you mean by that. Individuals are the parts that make up society. Can't have one without the other.

Completely irresponsible. If people want to risk their health, that's fine, however, it's not government's duty to enable stupid behavior. What alternatives or foreign products do you mean?

If some joker is selling some Do-It-Yourself-Brain-Surgery Kit, or is selling cancer-curing pills, you're damn right I'd want the government (FDA) to shut that crap down. You bet I want to be reasonably safe from fraud, don't you?!?

Would YOU buy some completely untested product? Would YOU really buy some random, unlabeled "miracle cure" syrup from China?

Come on.....

Most sensible thing you've said, joe. And I agree, lots of change is indeed warranted.

__________________
The poor object to being governed badly, while the rich object to being governed at all. -- G. K. Chesterton