Discuss.

[video=youtube;CHceBjttCEk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CHceBjttCEk#![/video]

I guess hes a socialist, but none the less I cant argue with the majority of what he says on the topic of the libertarian youth movement as he referred to it as.

initiate conversation.

I stopped watching at "Libertarianism is basically people blaming the government for everyone's problems" ... Just kidding but really He's mad and wrong. Fiscal & Social responsibility are the key. Its a new day, Not 1815 as he refers to a deregulated business getting children's arms chopped off in factory's.... C'mon man really? We aren't against the wars, we are against the unconstitutional base of them. Ron Paul consistently talks about capitalism and the profit motive..... He's mad Bro and a complete douche.. This guy would have told the founding fathers to fuck off and without a doubt he's voting Obama..

Another fool blaming the financial crisis purely on "wallstreet". What he fails to realize is the GOVERNMENT kept pushing for risky debtors to be able to buy houses. In the early 2000's our democratic Congressmen opposed the idea presented by Bush's administration to create a governement agency to oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie May. They cried out "all is well". They would punish banks if they did not lend to those risky debtors. Also he completely fails to mention rating agency's which were a huge culprit as well. The people who profited off the crisis were smarter then the government and could see this coming a mile away. Its kind of like blaming a gun for someones death..

I do think the rating agency's should be a government entity, otherwise it is a huge conflict of interest on their part.

Another thing is, we need people educated in finance and economics to be regulating, and not just academia educated, we need people who used to work in finance. Not some congressmen who took a week to overlook things and decided "oh this will be a good regulation"

There is a diffrence between good regulation and bad regulation. Some idiots don't understand that..

"The whole word freedom is bullshit." Wow, dude.
"If your driving down the road and your axle has the freedom to break, you're not going to like the results." News flash, happens all the time. Your liberal ideology can't defy physics, idiot.
"Freedom without responsibility is stupid." There is no freedom without responsibility unless you live in a world where liberals safety net everybody.

The funny thing is he doesn't realize that his saying our government is influenced by the 'profit motive' to go to war is actually a solid basis for libertarianism. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is why we aim to remove power from government.

Finally, Ronald Reagan is not a libertarian and I would challenge any of you to show me where libertarianism teaches you to be selfish.

The word libertarian was hijacked by a republican. Also, there is not a single mention of foreign policy here, he basically says quit blaming the government for your problems and then ignores the subject of foreign policy (brief mention of a couple wars says nothing about foreign economic policy) as if it doesn't have an effect on us domestically (not to mention the way it shapes the world). He doesn't understand libertarian, all he knows is that Ron Paul is a fad for morons and I'll give him that, but Ron Paul is not the only libertarian. He is explicating the arguments of morons basically and then making blanket statements against anyone who identifies as libertarian. Instead of doing that, he should make blanket statements against Ron Paul's cult adherents the way UncleBuck does.

The Federal Reserve holding the Federal Funds Rate excessively low and allowing a direct line of credit through the GSE's for an essentially endless and extremely cheap source of investment wouldn't have anything to do with causing malinvestment in housing, it was all the OTC derivatives right? Malarkey. Blaming the housing bubble on Libertarians is fucking stupid because we had the opposite of a Free Market. Its like blaming the Republicans for Michael Moore.

abandonconflict said:

The word libertarian was hijacked by a republican. Also, there is not a single mention of foreign policy here, he basically says quit blaming the government for your problems and then ignores the subject of foreign policy (brief mention of a couple wars says nothing about foreign economic policy) as if it doesn't have an effect on us domestically (not to mention the way it shapes the world). He doesn't understand libertarian, all he knows is that Ron Paul is a fad for morons and I'll give him that, but Ron Paul is not the only libertarian. He is explicating the arguments of morons basically and then making blanket statements against anyone who identifies as libertarian. Instead of doing that, he should make blanket statements against Ron Paul's cult adherents the way UncleBuck does.

Click to expand...

I think you're lost. The neocons stole the Republican party. Ron Paul is a libertarian attempting to restore the Republican party to it's founding. Doesn't matter what your opinions on the man are.

sync0s said:

I think you're lost. The neocons stole the Republican party. Ron Paul is a libertarian attempting to restore the Republican party to it's founding. Doesn't matter what your opinions on the man are.

Click to expand...

I'm well aware that Neocons stole the GOP, in fact that was the focus of my GOP bashing in the first place. I couldn't agree more about Ron Paul wanting to restore it. That does not mean that his brand of libertarian is the only one. I first learned of the word from Noam Chomsky, because I was so awed by his books on linguistics that I wished to know of his political ideology, Libertarian Socialism.

Those who think that libertarianism is only what Ron the Paul says it is are the ones who are lost.

I do agree with a lot of what he says though, just needs to point that at the hard core Paulistas. Not at everyone who identifies as libertarian.

The following is a quote, I don't know who said it but it is fucking gospel about the problems with Laissez fair.

Anyone who believes you can have infinite exponential growth on a finite planet is either a madman or an economist.

abandonconflict said:

I do agree with a lot of what he says though, just needs to point that at the hard core Paulistas. Not at everyone who identifies as libertarian.

The following is a quote, I don't know who said it but it is fucking gospel about the problems with Laissez fair.

Anyone who believes you can have infinite exponential growth on a finite planet is either a madman or an economist.

Click to expand...

Neo-Keynesians promote the idea of exponential growth by impeding in the market to promote endless investment and demote savings. Austrians understand that exponential growth is unsustainable and will lead to malinvestment, which is the cause of the boom and bust cycles. Free market economics is an understanding of balance between saving and investment while interventionist believe that recessions should not exist, only perpetual unyielding growth and investment with no consequences. Your quote is generalized. That quote actually promotes Laissez faire and the balance of growth.

and when you compare freedom of man to freedom of a trailer hitch or whatever you are a fucking dumbass.

lifegoesonbrah said:

and when you compare freedom of man to freedom of a trailer hitch or whatever you are a fucking dumbass.

Click to expand...

He was trolling imo.

lifegoesonbrah said:

Neo-Keynesians promote the idea of exponential growth by impeding in the market to promote endless investment and demote savings. Austrians understand that exponential growth is unsustainable and will lead to malinvestment, which is the cause of the boom and bust cycles. Free market economics is an understanding of balance between saving and investment while interventionist believe that recessions should not exist, only perpetual unyielding growth and investment with no consequences. Your quote is generalized. That quote actually promotes Laissez faire and the balance of growth.

Click to expand...

I have to admit I don't understand. I would like to, refer me to a book? The part I am having trouble with is my definition of Laissez Fair I suppose. I equate it with free market capitalism, am I incorrect in this?

The Federal Reserve holds interest rates below market value, therefore they are promoting investment over savings. This occurs because the interest rates are always below equilibrium and it discourages people to save because their return will be minimal at the low interest rates (also due to inflation). Instead it encourages over investment as the costs for borrowing is excessively low. In the housing bubble, congress designated certain government sponsored enterprises (Fannie and Freddie) which allowed for direct foreign and domestic investment that was basically infinite and cheap as interest rates were low. You have to allow for the supply and demand of money to reach market equilibrium to have a balance in savings and investment, which is impossible with Federal Reserve intervention. End Fed intervention and the American people will buy bonds and invest again, we won't have Chinese bankers.

I'm still an amateur at explaining this, I would recommend Cassidy's How Markets Fail, as it tells both sides of the story. (Ignoring the usual Allan Greenspan is a Libertarian fallacy at the beginning)

Or you can go to this link which provides the Austrian free market perspective through blogs of the father of Austrian econ:
http://mises.org/

sync0s said:

I think you're lost. The neocons stole the Republican party. Ron Paul is a libertarian attempting to restore the Republican party to it's founding. Doesn't matter what your opinions on the man are.

Click to expand...

lol, no.

the original republican party fought the civil war to preserve the union/free the slaves. old ronnie disagrees with that republican party.

later on, the republican party was instrumental in passing civil rights. old ronnie disagrees with that republican party.

before that, the republican party was instrumental in a progressive tax code and the estate tax, old ronnie disagrees with that republican party.

what the hell you smoking on, syncos? you're normally much better than that.

UncleBuck said:

lol, no.

the original republican party fought the civil war to preserve the union/free the slaves. old ronnie disagrees with that republican party.

later on, the republican party was instrumental in passing civil rights. old ronnie disagrees with that republican party.

before that, the republican party was instrumental in a progressive tax code and the estate tax, old ronnie disagrees with that republican party.

what the hell you smoking on, syncos? you're normally much better than that.

Click to expand...

I might not vote for this guy after all.

abandonconflict said:

I might not vote for this guy after all.

Click to expand...

gary johnson has unquestionable socially liberal bonafides if you're looking for an alternative. that gets closer to the original republican party of days gone by.

LoL!!

......who is Gary Johnson??

j.GrEeN.< said:

LoL!!

......who is Gary Johnson??

Click to expand...

*Post inspired by UB

j.GrEeN.< said:

LoL!!

......who is Gary Johnson??

Click to expand...

he's the guy who is going to earn way more votes than old ronnie could ever dream of amassing. and he'll do it all without the help (if you can call it that) of an uber-annoying army of spambot naive college kid cultists.