Where is the Libertarian explosion coming from?

aDeener

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

governments dont have monetary policies, thats banks

Exile 1798

I think their response to the Global Financial Crisis shows the unseriousness of most Libertarians, or at least those who identify themselves as such.

The origin of the crisis is readily knowable. There was a basic flaw in the American Capitalist system, a flaw that was allowed to grow unchecked because of a lack of government regulation and the degradation and running down of existing regulation. This was predicated by the nonsense belief in the "hidden hand" of the market.

The flaw was that people creating mortgages were able to sell them off to Wall Street Banks. Because the people originally brokering the loan were simply making money from selling it on they didn't do due diligence on whether the mortgagee could afford the loan. Worse then that, they started creating loans and mortgage products specifically designed to sell to people they knew couldn't afford them. The more of these bad loans they made and sold on, the more money they made. These people were merely acting in their selfish self interest – not an immoral thing by itself, but very bad for the wider financial system. Strict regulation on mortgage lending practices and on-selling would have ensured that the self interest of these people was instead tied up with making good loans that were a strong chance of being honoured. A bit like the way it's in someone's financial self interest to rob a bank, but that self interest is altered by the law against robbing banks and the significant penalties that exist against that particular action.

What turned a mere housing bubble into the Global Financial Meltdown was the actions of the big banks who took these loans, securitised them and sold them off in bundles. These securities were incorrectly appraised by Credit Rating Agencies as Triple A or B when in reality they were rubbish. Again no due diligence was done. Credit Ratings Agencies are paid by the issuers of bonds to rate those bonds, therefore a conflict of interest exists. Actually it was no conflict at all, CRA's simply rated bonds as their major customers Bears Sterns, Goldman ect wanted. An epic failure of industry "self regulation." Overtime Wall Street developed new financial instruments and markets based on these rubbish mortgage backed securities. These markets, being new, were virtually outside the bounds of any regulation. They grew to an outrageous size. It is estimated that about 70 trillion dollars worldwide were tied up in these bogus markets. Eventually mortgagees started defaulting, the property bubble burst and these markets collapsed along with the banks and unwitting investors supporting them.

At every step this catastrophic collapse could have been stopped or mitigated by strong government regulation. At every step it was enabled by self interest left unchecked. Yet what is the Libertarians response? And for that matter what is the response of much of the Right? The same old anti-government rhetoric, blame the Unions, blame the home buyers, blame the Greeks, blame the left – blame everyone and everything but their own discredited beliefs about the nature of self interest, "self-regulation", and the negligible role government should play in a modern Capitalist economy.

Their unserious nature is also demonstrated by the fact that they are able to identify for blame a very minor player in the meltdown – Frannie and Freddie – but this where all their analysis stops. To go any further would be unrewarding from their point of view, so they don't. They just stick to the tired government bad, regulation bad dogma that underpins all their arguments. They simply ignore all the evidence that contradicts their outlook, and thus don't allow reality to shape their world view. Much like the Utopian Socialists of old.

thebaldsoprano

Amhran Nua wrote: »

A better name for it would be anarcho-corporatism, the reduction of government and replacing it with a version of social darwinism, as is best evidenced by the complete removal of social welfare advocated by its proponents, and its replacement with charities.

I doubt I'll ever be a libertarian, but what I do like about it is it that brings issues like this to the fore and challenges assumptions we've been making. I've done work for the VdeP in the past, give them a few quid every now and then and more recently have had a couple of friends get help from them. My experience volunteering and the dignity and respect (and efficiency!) my friends were treated with has left me regarding the VdeP very highly.

Now compare this with the social welfare system, they take money from me whether I can afford it or not, help themselves to a good chunk of it through it through bloated wages and staffing levels and then give my friends what's left over a few months down the line... All this done with no respect for my mates who up until recently had been paying their wages.

Getting rid of social welfare entirely would be a step too far for me, but having it delivered through private charities and giving taxpayers a say in how their money is spent are two things I'd definitely support - things I wouldn't have thought about had it not been for libertarians.

ei.sdraob

aDeener wrote: »

governments dont have monetary policies, thats banks

The central banks are firmly in bed with various governments, they try to give an appearance of "independence" in order to prevent confidence in the "scheme" from collapsing

ei.sdraob

Exile 1798 wrote: »

The origin of the crisis is readily knowable. There was a basic flaw in the American Capitalist system, a flaw that was allowed to grow unchecked because of a lack of government regulation and the degradation and running down of existing regulation. This was predicated by the nonsense belief in the "hidden hand" of the market.

nothing to do with central banks printing money like no tomorrow and rates being at record lows?

it was state meddling in markets that triggered the events

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Early insurance originates around the risky maritime trading industry, circa 1500 BC. The more modern variants can be traced back to Babylon and China around 2 or 3 BC.

actually Scottish Widows is the first example of modern insurance companies, none of the earlier ones applied detailed data analysis and mathematics in order to calculate risk, premiums and payouts

/

Amhran Nua

Exile 1798 wrote: »

At every step this catastrophic collapse could have been stopped or mitigated by strong government regulation.

It actually was prevented by the Glass-Steagall act, repealed under Clinton at the behest of Citigroup, an act put in place after the great depression to prevent another great depression. Didn't take long to land us in a global collapse after that.

Amhran Nua

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Now compare this with the social welfare system, they take money from me whether I can afford it or not, help themselves to a good chunk of it through it through bloated wages and staffing levels and then give my friends what's left over a few months down the line... All this done with no respect for my mates who up until recently had been paying their wages.

The welfare system has become a millstone around the neck of the exchequer at the moment because it was never intended to support as many people as it does. During the years of plenty, long term unemployment was at or around 1%-2% of the workforce, including disability. Payments were increased and benefits extended because of this low figure, and high tax returns. Now that tax returns have collapsed and unemployment skyrocketed, the ill-advised nature of the decisions taken is becoming clear.

The solution is not to remove the idea of unemployment benefits however, its to create more employment and jobs, an area where government policy has been sadly lacking to date. They just seem to have no real idea what they are doing in that area, no plan, no goal.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

actually Scottish Widows is the first example of modern insurance companies, none of the earlier ones applied detailed data analysis and mathematics in order to calculate risk, premiums and payouts

Say what you like about the Babylonians, but they were no slouches when it came to the oul mathematics.

Cannibal Ox

I think it's partly down to the left swinging over the past hundred plus years from movements that challenged the state to movements that largely work with the state. Human rights, trade unions, civil rights, environmental movements, all spring from the left, and almost all of them see the solution within the state, rather then without. If you're dissatisfied with the modern state, where can you find a credible alternative in left that doesn't appeal to the state? Even the large majority of the egalitarian movement sees solutions within the state.

That's a generalizations, and the crisis in Greece at the moment, and the response, is probably a good critique of that, but in general I'm just thinking that if someone is frustrated and maybe alienated from the state there doesn't seem to be a credible alternative within the umbrella of left movements that appeals to the kind of consumer culture and particular standard of living that we've come to expect. I think the libertarian movement, probably on the right, does provide a sort of alternative ideological framework to the state and a vision/dream of life that is appealing to the sort of life we expect and want. Whether it's credible or not is a whole different story.

thebaldsoprano

Amhran Nua wrote: »

During the years of plenty, long term unemployment was at or around 1%-2% of the workforce, including disability

That's interesting alright, have you got a link for this?

joehanley55

as someone mentioned before the internet is having a huge influence in getting more people to accept the paradigm that the government is a bad thing. it was much easier for the government to control media when it was dominated by tv newspapers and radio through licences and regulations.

but aside from this, even watching mainstream media these days there are none stop examples of how useless the government is at everything it does. libertarians or anarchists or watever you want to call anti-statists shouldnt even need to convince people, the absolute joke that acting governments are should be obvious enough.

people need to, and are starting to realise that it is not a matter of getting the right people in, as every government ever has failed at more or less everything, cept wars and killing, but even in then its just gov vrs gov so one gov has to lose.

sadly throughout history government has proven itself as inevitable as murder or disease and it is likely to always exist is some way or another, in any society in the past without government, government has always emerged. but just like disease and murder, we should take any steps we can to reduce the damage that government does.

:pac::D;):p:o:rolleyes::):mad::(:eek:P:cool:

Exile 1798

ei.sdraob wrote: »

nothing to do with central banks printing money like no tomorrow and rates being at record lows?

it was state meddling in markets that triggered the events

Nothing do with printing money no, something to do with interest rates yes. Off-course low interest rates played a role in the housing bubble. That doesn't account for the catastrophic economic collapse though.

Central Banks have an important role to play in modern economies. Anyone who says they can be done away with is a quack.

What matters is the people running them and the philosophy behind them. The awful former head of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan, to his credit, has since admitted that he was wrong to believe that that regulation wasn't required because the self interest of big investment banks would prevent them from taking absurd risk. It would be nice if Libertarians could admit the same.

Amhran Nua

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

That's interesting alright, have you got a link for this?

I haven't the time to go rooting through the CSO at the minute, first google link was here though.

The CSO said more than half of the annual increase was in long-term unemployment, bringing the number of people under this heading to 89,100. The long-term unemployed now make up one-third of total unemployment, compared with just over a fifth a year earlier.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

thebaldsoprano

Amhran Nua wrote: »

During the years of plenty, long term unemployment was at or around 1%-2% of the workforce, including disability.

Not according to this document.

CSO Live Register Age by Duration April 2007 wrote:

Of all claimants on the Live Register in April 2007, 34.6% of males and 22.6% of females were long-term claimants.

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Says who? Who is to say that a truly private financial system would have similarly collapsed and left the less well off in total ruin. I mean in a system whose players act in complete self interest wouldn't bankers prioritise building up their pay and pensions? And if the company goes bust why should they care. They have an untouchable pension and will be rehired elsewhere. You have argued in favour of these last two things, contractual agreements and all that

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Amhran Nua

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Not according to this document.

Which supports what I was saying, being a bit less than a third of 4.6%, or between 1% and 2%. And that was when unemployment was climbing quickly.

aDeener

ei.sdraob wrote: »

The central banks are firmly in bed with various governments, they try to give an appearance of "independence" in order to prevent confidence in the "scheme" from collapsing

nonsense, think you ought to head to the conspiracy theory forum. the ECB is in charge of monetary policy for all within the euro area, they most certainly are not in bed with the irish governments fiscal policy or any other euro area governments.

thebaldsoprano

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Which supports what I was saying, being a bit less than a third of 4.6%, or between 1% and 2%. And that was when unemployment was climbing quickly.

My mistake, you're right. Total employment was 1998000, according to this giving 2.2% of the workforce in long term unemployment.

ei.sdraob

aDeener wrote: »

nonsense, think you ought to head to the conspiracy theory forum. the ECB is in charge of monetary policy for all within the euro area, they most certainly are not in bed with the irish governments fiscal policy or any other euro area governments.

You haven't been watching the news today no?

Amhran Nua

aDeener wrote: »

nonsense, think you ought to head to the conspiracy theory forum. the ECB is in charge of monetary policy for all within the euro area, they most certainly are not in bed with the irish governments fiscal policy or any other euro area governments.

Indeed, prior to the collapse the ECB had gained itself quite the reputation for the odds of it taking action being inversely proportional to the amount of pressure put on it by national governments.

Exile 1798

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No no no, that's a cop out.

Your using knowledge gained from hindsight to suppose that this is what the heads of these banks knew and thought at the time.

They didn't know they would get bailed out, indeed they didn't even understand their own predicament. That's the point. They were taking risks that they didn't understand. And remember that Lehman Brothers was allowed to go bankrupt.

In Libertarian argument the response to the crisis is painted as the cause of the crisis.. It's like blaming the Fire Brigade for fires. If only the Fire Brigade didn't exist, then everyone would be more careful and conflagrations wouldn't occur.

Amhran Nua

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

My mistake, you're right. Total employment was 1998000, according to this giving 2.2% of the workforce in long term unemployment.

Yes, people generally don't like being unemployed and are quite happy to get ahead under their own steam, there is no lack of motivation in the Irish workforce. The problem is the system was set up with a serious lack of foresight and planning, which is why we're in so much trouble today. If the government had a clue they would be promoting jobs and enterprise, taking advantage of that strongly motivated, educated and intelligent workforce.

joehanley55

aDeener wrote: »

nonsense, think you ought to head to the conspiracy theory forum. the ECB is in charge of monetary policy for all within the euro area, they most certainly are not in bed with the irish governments fiscal policy or any other euro area governments.

sorry to laugh but HAHAHAHA

who do u think the ECB are? how can they be so perfect and unbiased when everyone else in the world is. its made up of people. self interested people. and these people are influenced by other selfinterested groups and people. most importantly, the governments or the eu. who made the ecb, and who theoretically can get rid of it, or at least reduce its funding?

really, the idea that the ecb is not in bed with government interests, or that any group that pruports to forcefully act in the interest of others for the greater good will be effective, you clearly are the one whos got a whopper of a conspiracy theory on your hands

:pac::D;):p

ei.sdraob

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Indeed, prior to the collapse the ECB had gained itself quite the reputation for the odds of it taking action being inversely proportional to the amount of pressure put on it by national governments.

And today they turn around and buy 600+ billion worth of junk from the most messed up eu states

yes they are very independent :rolleyes:

no pressure at all from the emergency EU ministers meeting yesterday

Amhran Nua

ei.sdraob wrote: »

And today they turn around and buy 600+ billion worth of junk from the most messed up eu states

yes they are very independent :rolleyes:

no pressure at all from the emergency EU ministers meeting yesterday

You'll note I said "prior to the collapse", since much of your argument is predicated on the idea that government interference with the ECB caused the collapse, I hope you see the point being made...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ei.sdraob

Amhran Nua wrote: »

You'll note I said "prior to the collapse", since much of your argument is predicated on the idea that government interference with the ECB caused the collapse, I hope you see the point being made...

You are correct in saying that ECB didnt lower rates as much as others (FED,BOE etc) and is still higher than them

but they did go with the flow

anyways since money flows across borders very easily and Ireland is wide open

all it takes is the likes of the Japanese or the Americans to lower rates and a carry trade starts flooding money into other higher rate economies

Do you deny that cheap credit (expanded money supply creating a wall of money) from abroad is responsible for fuelling ours (and other states) asset bubbles?

right now this wall of money has moved to China (and left us) and they will endup with their own bursting asset bubble soon enough...

Exile 1798

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes.

Have you ever heard of the burning of Rome, the great fires of London?

Amhran Nua

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Do you deny that cheap credit (expanded money supply creating a wall of money) from abroad is responsible for fuelling ours (and other states) asset bubbles?

Germany, among others, had access to the same rates and didn't have a property bubble...

Laminations

ei.sdraob wrote: »

You are correct in saying that ECB didnt lower rates as much as others (FED,BOE etc) and is still higher than them

but they did go with the flow

anyways since money flows across borders very easily and Ireland is wide open

all it takes is the likes of the Japanese or the Americans to lower rates and a carry trade starts flooding money into other higher rate economies

Do you deny that cheap credit (expanded money supply creating a wall of money) from abroad is responsible for fuelling ours (and other states) asset bubbles?

right now this wall of money has moved to China (and left us) and they will endup with their own bursting asset bubble soon enough...

And how exactly would libertarianism sto the same thing from happening with privately run institutions flooding a Market with cheap money?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ei.sdraob

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Germany, among others, had access to the same rates and didn't have a property bubble...

people in Germany are a bit more mature and civilised (here in Ireland we forgot what bad times look like)
they also have a problem with demographics

Laminations wrote: »

And how exactly would libertarianism sto the same thing from happening with privately run institutions flooding a Market with cheap money?

how would you create money out of thin air if the money is based on gold or a basket of metals or energy?

Laminations

ei.sdraob wrote: »

how would you create money out of thin air if the money is based on gold or a basket of metals or energy?

that's an argument for changing financial indexing, it's not an argument against government involvement

aDeener

joehanley55 wrote: »

sorry to laugh but HAHAHAHA

who do u think the ECB are? how can they be so perfect and unbiased when everyone else in the world is. its made up of people. self interested people. and these people are influenced by other selfinterested groups and people. most importantly, the governments or the eu. who made the ecb, and who theoretically can get rid of it, or at least reduce its funding?

really, the idea that the ecb is not in bed with government interests, or that any group that pruports to forcefully act in the interest of others for the greater good will be effective, you clearly are the one whos got a whopper of a conspiracy theory on your hands

:pac::D;):p

seeing as the ecb is made up of people with self interests in various different governments, then how the hell could the ecb be in bed with all the governments. ffs :rolleyes: that could not possibly work as there are too many conflicts between the euro area governments fiscal policies.


say for example, if france is employing a loose fiscal policy and ireland a tight one, explain this to me genius how exactly the ECB is going to be in bed with both of them? :rolleyes: and thats just 2 economies, trying employing that to the euro area as a whole

ei.sdraob

Laminations wrote: »

that's an argument for changing financial indexing, it's not an argument against government involvement

he raised a question about an issue that is at the core of government involvement

governments are not willing/able of cutting back on waste (As seen in Ireland and Greece) so eventually they resort to inflating the money (today's events) supply making everyone poorer equally

its easy to inflate money when its nothing more than paper or digits on computer screens

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Hold on there a minute, how do you mean people in Germany are more civilised and mature? Don't mistake the actions of the government for the general character of the people, the political system in Ireland is set up in a really bad and self defeating manner that puts the focus on the parish pump, neither constituents nor TDs had much motivation to focus on the national picture. We have a chance to change that now, lets hope enough people hear about it and support a change.

I agree with you regarding Ireland having its share of issues
but your answer to the problem is "change" to a different parish pump called "Amhran Nua"
libertarian answer is to knock-down the above top down approach and replace it with a bottom up approach (if thats what the people want of course...) which is centred around people and contracts between people
that's where our opinions separate

now me being realistic i understand that people in power will not relinquish it easily, but unlike the commies, the libertarians have no intention of starting revolutions etc and by the vary nature its unlikely any coherent group would ever be formed, but its possible that some parties will take a more "libertarian leaning" approach to their policies and give people more freedoms (the very fact that its the state who has to give citizens freedoms and not the other way around is why the current system is so messed up)



I made an example earlier in another thread that Libertarianism is like Atheism (lack of belief in state) while all the other "isms" are like various religions....

Amhran Nua

ei.sdraob wrote: »

people in Germany are a bit more mature and civilised (here in Ireland we forgot what bad times look like)

Hold on there a minute, how do you mean people in Germany are more civilised and mature? Don't mistake the actions of the government for the general character of the people, the political system in Ireland is set up in a really bad and self defeating manner that puts the focus on the parish pump, neither constituents nor TDs had much motivation to focus on the national picture. We have a chance to change that now, lets hope enough people hear about it and support a change.

BluePlanet

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Odd for a Libertarian to suggest that it should be easier for a government to demolish perfectly good buildings.

To support the Libertarian position are you arguing that the government should just let the fire burn?

Laminations

ei.sdraob wrote: »

its easy to inflate money when its nothing more than paper or digits on computer screens

and it'd be equally easy for private firms to do same under a libertarian system.

ei.sdraob

Laminations wrote: »

and it'd be equally easy for private firms to do same under a libertarian system.

if they want to gamble with numbers on screens then that's their problem, there are trillions of derivatives out there few times larger than the world economy

the only reason that the banking fiasco became our problem, is because the government made it our problem

ei.sdraob

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I made an example earlier in another thread that Libertarianism is like Atheism (lack of belief in state) while all the other "isms" are like various religions....

on further thinking and to get back on the subject of the thread
the above quote/example is probably why more people are claiming to be Libertarian

the state has shafted a lot of people...

just like the Church has equally "shafted" its parishoners resulting in some people turning away from religion

joehanley55

aDeener wrote: »

seeing as the ecb is made up of people with self interests in various different governments, then how the hell could the ecb be in bed with all the governments. ffs :rolleyes: that could not possibly work as there are too many conflicts between the euro area governments fiscal policies.


say for example, if france is employing a loose fiscal policy and ireland a tight one, explain this to me genius how exactly the ECB is going to be in bed with both of them? :rolleyes: and thats just 2 economies, trying employing that to the euro area as a whole

ya sure, but i guess what you have to understand is that in general, governments have the same interest, whether one countries fiscal policy is slightly looser than antohers, its still a highly controlling centralised fiscal policy and believe that if they didnt have that policy than society would collapse.

so the ECB has the obvious answer to support fiscal control at a centralised level, and as far as the little differences between different governments, they will probably just make self intersted decisions and support whoever will give them the most in return, cuase in the end, they are just a self interested group who will try and get as much power for themselves, however they can.

Amhran Nua

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I agree with you regarding Ireland having its share of issues
but your answer to the problem is "change" to a different parish pump called "Amhran Nua"

Okay, what you're saying here is that policies and concepts should grow out of the grassroots level, based on people with experience in those areas. This is in fact what we are doing. You can blame centralised authority all you like, but there are no guarantees that decentralised systems work any better, as evidenced by several Cantons in Switzerland, home of direct democracy, only being forced to give women the vote fairly recently.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

the libertarians have no intention of starting revolutions etc and by the vary nature its unlikely any coherent group would ever be formed

This is why anarcho-corporatism is the best title for it.

Laminations

ei.sdraob wrote: »

if they want to gamble with numbers on screens then that's their problem, there are trillions of derivatives out there few times larger than the world economy

the only reason that the banking fiasco became our problem, is because the government made it our problem

Again it appears your issue is with THE government (i.e. FF) same as me, not with government in general. This exemplifies where the rise in libertarianism is coming from, as I said before, an unhappiness with this governments performance

meditraitor

ei.sdraob wrote: »

on further thinking and to get back on the subject of the thread
the above quote/example is probably why more people are claiming to be Libertarian

and because this particular state shafted us then the best way forward is for us all to become our own little states? come on--- Libertarianism is a nonsense concept which should not be taken serious

ei.sdraob

meditraitor wrote: »

and because this particular state shafted us then the best way forward is for us all to become our own little states? come on

its just a theory trying to answer OPs question

I better quickly convert to your Church of Statism, nothing like having the high priests of Revenue Commissioners pounding you up the rear until you agree to pay for their shiny new Church of NAMA :eek:

meditraitor wrote: »

Libertarianism is a nonsense concept which should not be taken serious

Thats a very in-depth answer...

Laminations wrote: »

Again it appears your issue is with THE government (i.e. FF) same as me, not with government in general. This exemplifies where the rise in libertarianism is coming from, as I said before, an unhappiness with this governments performance

Would other governments acted differently with regards to NAMA, bailouts and public sector/welfare waste?

joehanley55

Laminations wrote: »

Again it appears your issue is with THE government (i.e. FF) same as me, not with government in general. This exemplifies where the rise in libertarianism is coming from, as I said before, an unhappiness with this governments performance

its sad that people have been tricked into believing that if you get the "right" people in to control peoples lives and tell people what to do that everything will be okay. history has shown this just isnt true. in the history of mankid, the right people have never gotten in. ever!

libertarians have realised this, and they see that the only logical answer is to return as much power as possible to people so that we can control our own lives.

maybe libertarians are more confident in thier ability to take care of themselves and statists are scared at wat would happen to them if the state was not their to impose their will on others. maybe...:eek::(:rolleyes::(:rolleyes::mad::D:pac:

Laminations

Just while I have the attention of libertarians, how would your ideology deal with the prevention of a tragedy of the commons? Or how woul you deal with repeats of Fingers Fingleton? We are constantly reminded the man did not break any laws however with his mismanagement he has enriched himself and harmed others, why should he care that his institution is in the toilet when HD sits on €27million?

ei.sdraob

Laminations wrote: »

Just while I have the attention of libertarians, how would your ideology deal with the prevention of a tragedy of the commons? Or how woul you deal with repeats of Fingers Fingleton? We are constantly reminded the man did not break any laws however with his mismanagement he has enriched himself and harmed others, why should he care that his institution is in the toilet when HD sits on €27million?

you wouldn't get a tragedy of commons when there is no "commons" :cool:#

lets not forget that Fingers was helped along by a certain government

Laminations

joehanley55 wrote: »

maybe libertarians are more confident in thier ability to take care of themselves and statists are scared at wat would happen to them if the state was not their to impose their will on others. maybe...:eek::(:rolleyes::(:rolleyes::mad::D:pac:

and that's why you won't findany poor or disabled libertarians, people who don't need help and resent giving it.