J'accuse le libertarians

c_man

matthew8 wrote: »

We can't take your word when talking about libertarianism because you think it's anarchy.

It's always the way. But then I suppose people can be confused enough by differing political beliefs, since in our country anarchists are always leading the way in anti-cuts marches :pac:

c_man

RichieC wrote: »

Have you heard of the fire brigade refusing to put a house down because the person didnt pay tax?

There was far more to that case than presented above. IIRC, the house was in a county that didn't offer any fire service. The nearby city offers the service at a fee which is fair enough considering. He never paid, not even after the first time they answered a call and put out a fire a few years ago.

One mans stupidity doesn't make any kind of valid point.

simplistic2

RichieC wrote: »

Have you heard of the fire brigade refusing to put a house down because the person didnt pay tax?

I love this!

I'm willing to put my house on it that your the type of individual often chirps "ignorance of the law is no excuse" at those that get screwed by the laws of the state.

20Cent

This is the story being referred to. Suppose it would be the norm in libertarianland.

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html

The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late. They wouldn't do anything to stop his house from burning.
Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton. But the Cranicks did not pay.
The mayor said if homeowners don't pay, they're out of luck.
This fire went on for hours because garden hoses just wouldn't put it out. It wasn't until that fire spread to a neighbor's property, that anyone would respond.


Would policing be the same?

Suryavarman

20Cent wrote: »

This is the story being referred to. Suppose it would be the norm in libertarianland.

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html

The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late. They wouldn't do anything to stop his house from burning.
Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton. But the Cranicks did not pay.
The mayor said if homeowners don't pay, they're out of luck.
This fire went on for hours because garden hoses just wouldn't put it out. It wasn't until that fire spread to a neighbor's property, that anyone would respond.


Would policing be the same?

The firefighters were correct in what they did. If you waited until you crashed your car to get car insurance I very much doubt you would find a company to insure you. The same standards should apply to this fire service.

The only people i've heard arguing for privatised policing are anarcho-capitalists. Most libertarians would argue that maintaining a police force is one of the few functions of the state. Other functions would be an army to protect national security and courthouses to enforce contracts and try criminals. I personally believe that the state should provide prisons and roads also.

matthew8

20Cent wrote: »

This is the story being referred to. Suppose it would be the norm in libertarianland.

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html

The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late. They wouldn't do anything to stop his house from burning.
Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton. But the Cranicks did not pay.
The mayor said if homeowners don't pay, they're out of luck.
This fire went on for hours because garden hoses just wouldn't put it out. It wasn't until that fire spread to a neighbor's property, that anyone would respond.


Would policing be the same?

I would leave the firefighting and policing services to the government.

RichieC

Suryavarman wrote: »

The firefighters were correct in what they did.

leaving the fire there so long it spread to another propery was the right thing to do?

Suryavarman

RichieC wrote: »

leaving the fire there so long it spread to another propery was the right thing to do?

Not putting out the fire on the property that hadn't paid the fee was the right thing to do. Maybe the should have acted before the fire spread but they were still right to leave the other property burn.

20Cent

Suryavarman wrote: »

Not putting out the fire on the property that hadn't paid the fee was the right thing to do. Maybe the should have acted before the fire spread but they were still right to leave the other property burn.

Libertarianland sounds lovely.

Suryavarman

20Cent wrote: »

Libertarianland sounds lovely.

It sure does. Imagine that, a world were people actually have to pay for the services they receive.

Memnoch

matthew8 wrote: »

Libertarian thinking:
Individuals>government

Non libertarian thinking:
Government>Individuals

I know which side I'm on. But 20cent and company believe the government knows best how to spend my money.

This has always been the fundamental flaw in libertarian thinking. And I think it highlights either the inability to understand basic human nature and/or exposes the deep, dark truth on which (modern)libertarian philosophy seems to be built, i.e. that equality is irrelevant or unimportant.

It is a total and complete misunderstanding of the role of government. While all men may be born equal, all men are not born with equal advantage. There are people who are born in wealthy families who can afford better education and gain numerous other advantages that allow them to exploit those who are not born with such opportunity and choice.

The point of government is so that the masses are not exploited for the profit of a few wealthy and powerful individuals.

The most important and indeed BASIC function of government is to PROTECT the individual from exploitation and indeed allow them to BE an individual.

The assumption that libertarians have, that greatly reducing or nearly eliminating government will somehow result in greater freedom for all is idiotic to the point of bafflement.

All it will do is allow the few to oppress the many. So in the end the choice the individual must make is whether they trust in the democracy of government or the tyranny of unchecked individual power. This is not to say that government cannot be perverted. It can and it has. But invariably, it is perverted to serve the ends of the exploitative few, the same few that would be even more unashamed and uncorrectable under the much vaunted libertarian philosophy.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

A valid point, given the context. It raises the wider question: is a society better off with a fire service that will selectively allow individual houses to burn down?

The pragmatist centrist would suggest that society as a whole is better off if there's an assurance that all fires will be dealt with, which implies that society as a whole should be paying for fire services, which means taxes.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

SupaNova

Memnoch wrote: »

This has always been the fundamental flaw in libertarian thinking. And I think it highlights either the inability to understand basic human nature and/or exposes the deep, dark truth on which (modern)libertarian philosophy seems to be built, i.e. that equality is irrelevant or unimportant.

Equality is very important to libertarians. The view of equality is different is all. Property rights and the non initiation of force are what should be protected equally.

Your view of equality is that of everyone should be equally rich or poor, which necessitates inequality when it comes to protecting property rights and the initiation of force.

It is a total and complete misunderstanding of the role of government. While all men may be born equal, all men are not born with equal advantage. There are people who are born in wealthy families who can afford better education and gain numerous other advantages that allow them to exploit those who are not born with such opportunity and choice.

Just because people are born into wealthy families does that make it right to take larger proportions of property? I don't think so unless you hold the Marxist belief that the rich are that way through exploiting the poor.

The point of government is so that the masses are not exploited for the profit of a few wealthy and powerful individuals.

The point of government from a Libertarian point of view is to protect individual rights. To protect the minority from the majority. To protect property you have legitimately earned from being redistributed.

The most important and indeed BASIC function of government is to PROTECT the individual from exploitation and indeed allow them to BE an individual.

Agreed. What about those who have become rich legitimately by working hard and providing goods and services? Should they be protected from individuals who just want to redistribute their wealth because they have more of it?

The assumption that libertarians have, that greatly reducing or nearly eliminating government will somehow result in greater freedom for all is idiotic to the point of bafflement.

How will reducing government interference in the economic freedom and personal freedom of individuals lead to less freedom?

Are you for more economic and personal interference into the lives of individuals?

All it will do is allow the few to oppress the many. So in the end the choice the individual must make is whether they trust in the democracy of government or the tyranny of unchecked individual power. This is not to say that government cannot be perverted. It can and it has.

The role of government from a Libertarian viewpoint is to protect property rights and protect you from the initiation of force. There is checks against tyranny of theft and initiation of force

But invariably, it is perverted to serve the ends of the exploitative few, the same few that would be even more unashamed and uncorrectable under the much vaunted libertarian philosophy.

Who are you talking about when you say the exploitative few, the rich in general? Is it because you believe that you can only get rich through exploitation?

If you look at the people who have benefited the most from our current system it would be bankers, and they sure as hell are not calling for a libertarian approach which would be competing free market currencies, or a hard money standard, limiting their ability to inflate and the massive profits of fractional reserve lending.

Your whole post has a Marxist communist tone, that the rich are exploiting the masses, and we must redistribute their wealth.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Um. That's being selective. It's an entirely rational and completely transparent basis for the selectivity, but it's still selectively allowing houses to burn down.

The question I'm posing is whether there's a benefit to society as a whole to a system that ensures that no houses will ever be left to burn down. It's hard to argue with the idea that there is such a benefit, which in turn incurs a cost. The question is whether the cost (a tax) outweighs the benefit (the reduced likelihood of a selective fire spreading out of control).

It also means that fire insurance for homeowners is socialized onto those who don't own property. Is it fair and reasonable to expect the unpropertied to be taxed more heavily to provide fire insurance to the propertied?

The simple answer is a property tax.

Would you argue that society as a whole should be taxed to provide home insurance and car insurance to all homeowners and motorists? If you believe we should have universal fire insurance, surely all insurance should be socialized in a similar manner?

Only if there's a social benefit to the insurance, and a social cost to its absence.

Lockstep

@Supanova

To multi quote, copy and paste the text you want to quote in between the following brackets:
[*quote=whateverthepersonsnameis*] [*/quote*]


Remove the asterisks and you're good to go.

*Edit*:Didn't mean to sound bitchy! Just letting you know how to multiquote.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I guess at the end of the day it comes down to the question of which town I'd rather live in: the one where I was required by law to pay insurance against my house burning down, or the one where my next door neighbour's house would be allowed to burn to the ground because he was allowed to choose not to pay such insurance.

Certainly there is. If we had limitless funds and an endlessly interventionist government, we could provide all sorts of benefits to society. We could provide everyone with free housing, free food, free electricity, free home heating oil, free transportation, free telephone service and broadband, and so on. There would be tangible social benefits to all of these things — no more homelessness, no more hungry children, no more cold pensioners, no more digital divide — so why not do them?

I'm not that impressed with a reductio ad absurdum response to a quest for a reasonable compromise, particularly when the same argument, equally applied, can be used to justify eliminating taxes to pay for a police force. (Didn't pay your crime insurance? don't come crying to us if you get assaulted.)

Homeowners in the US do pay property taxes (which go to fund things such as public school systems) but fire insurance is generally levied in addition to the property tax to provide ringfenced funds for firefighting services. (Fire insurance is generally also a prerequisite for home insurance.)

When you describe fire insurance as being "levied", do you mean in the form of an additional property tax? If so, isn't that basically what I've proposed?

There's a clear social benefit to providing everyone with free home and car insurance...

Before I head down that rabbit hole with you, please note that I didn't suggest providing people with free insurance. We're talking about the provision of a fire service. A large part of the point of having a fire service is to deal with fires in a timely fashion before they become wider problems.

The case being made here is that it's better to have a fire service that will allow a building to burn to the ground than to have everyone who could ever possibly benefit from the fire service pay for it. And yet, I don't think anyone's suggesting (other than the truly out-there anarchists) that there should be a police service that would sit idly by and watch a house be burgled just because that homeowner hadn't paid for policing.

I will take you up on this point:

...nobody ever again will get into an accident with an uninsured motorist.

This is a good thing. If you're hit by an uninsured driver in Ireland, there is a government fund for redress. If you're hit by an uninsured driver in insurance-is-optional-libertarian-land, who pays the hospital bills? Or are you expected to insure yourself personally against other people's reckless behaviour?

matthew8

Memnoch wrote: »

This has always been the fundamental flaw in libertarian thinking. And I think it highlights either the inability to understand basic human nature and/or exposes the deep, dark truth on which (modern)libertarian philosophy seems to be built, i.e. that equality is irrelevant or unimportant.

It is a total and complete misunderstanding of the role of government. While all men may be born equal, all men are not born with equal advantage. There are people who are born in wealthy families who can afford better education and gain numerous other advantages that allow them to exploit those who are not born with such opportunity and choice.

The point of government is so that the masses are not exploited for the profit of a few wealthy and powerful individuals.

The most important and indeed BASIC function of government is to PROTECT the individual from exploitation and indeed allow them to BE an individual.

The assumption that libertarians have, that greatly reducing or nearly eliminating government will somehow result in greater freedom for all is idiotic to the point of bafflement.

All it will do is allow the few to oppress the many. So in the end the choice the individual must make is whether they trust in the democracy of government or the tyranny of unchecked individual power. This is not to say that government cannot be perverted. It can and it has. But invariably, it is perverted to serve the ends of the exploitative few, the same few that would be even more unashamed and uncorrectable under the much vaunted libertarian philosophy.

The most important equality is equality before the law. The most important freedom is from the government.

Libertarianism has a remarkable track record. The US in the 1800s- marvellous. Rapid economic development. New Mexico 1995-2003- Brilliant fiscal discipline, the people clearly satisfied with how their state was run.

SupaNova

oscarBravo wrote: »

I will take you up on this point: This is a good thing. If you're hit by an uninsured driver in Ireland, there is a government fund for redress. If you're hit by an uninsured driver in insurance-is-optional-libertarian-land, who pays the hospital bills? Or are you expected to insure yourself personally against other people's reckless behaviour?

Compulsory car insurance and its structure along with other compulsory insurance was probably promoted by insurance companies, rather than some benevolent move amongst the population to look out for each other. I am sure insurance companies would offer products that would offer comprehensive insurance that didn't require other parties to be insured if insurance were optional.

RichieC

SupaNova wrote: »

Compulsory car insurance and its structure along with other compulsory insurance was probably promoted by insurance companies, rather than some benevolent move amongst the population to look out for each other. I am sure insurance companies would offer products that would offer comprehensive insurance that didn't require other parties to be insured if insurance were optional.

Yea, double price, thanks.

oscarBravo

SupaNova wrote: »

Compulsory car insurance and its structure along with other compulsory insurance was probably promoted by insurance companies, rather than some benevolent move amongst the population to look out for each other.

If you feel it's better for society to have people make a personal choice as to whether or not they should insure against the possible costs of leaving a third party in need of medical care for the rest of their lives, feel free to explain how.

I am sure insurance companies would offer products that would offer comprehensive insurance that didn't require other parties to be insured if insurance were optional.

So I should take out insurance against the possibility of being crippled by an uninsured driver when I cross the road, and if I don't do so, that's my own stupid fault for making poor decisions?

Sounds to me like libertarianism was invented by insurance companies.

SupaNova

oscarBravo wrote: »

So I should take out insurance against the possibility of being crippled by an uninsured driver when I cross the road, and if I don't do so, that's my own stupid fault for making poor decisions?

You can take insurance against the possibility if you like. There are plenty of other decisions and lifestyle choices you can make to reduce your likelihood of accident and sickness. Your safety is your responsibility, i don't know why that sounds shocking or horrible to you.

Careful crossing the road now, or should government hold your hand to?

Sounds to me like libertarianism was invented by insurance companies.

Why? I would like to see your reasons as to how you could possibly come to that conclusion.

Memnoch

Equality is very important to libertarians. The view of equality is different is all. Property rights and the non initiation of force are what should be protected equally.

Your view of equality is that of everyone should be equally rich or poor, which necessitates inequality when it comes to protecting property rights and the initiation of force.

You are incorrect. My view of equality is that everyone should have equal opportunity to succeed and that someone shouldn't have much greater success in life purely because they had the luck of being born into a richer family or a richer country.

Do you for example think that all children should be entitled to an education? If you do, then why? If you do not then why?

I don't consider property rights to be greater than fundamental human rights, such as a right not to be discriminated against based on something that is not in your control, like your race, for example.

The talk of use of 'force,' by liberatrians is hypocritical since they advocate allowing the powerful and wealthy to use unlimited force.

Just because people are born into wealthy families does that make it right to take larger proportions of property? I don't think so unless you hold the Marxist belief that the rich are that way through exploiting the poor.

I don't believe that anyone deserves unlimited wealth. What the hell is someone going to do with 100 million dollars? It's stupid and wasteful considering how many people are starving in the world because they were born into poverty.

It makes sense that taxes should be graded in a fair way. If someone earning $20k pays 50% tax that leaves them only $10k to live. If someone earning $2 million pays 50% they still have $1 million, on which they can live very comfortably and luxuriously. This isn't about force or marxism but about common sense and practicality.

The point of government from a Libertarian point of view is to protect individual rights. To protect the minority from the majority. To protect property you have legitimately earned from being redistributed.

Paradox. You cannot protect individual rights if you allow those with wealth and power to wield unlimited influence because then that will result in the diminishing of the rights of other individuals. The Murdoch empire is an excellent recent example of this.

What's legitimately earned?

Shell made profits of 8 billion this year. How many families are struggling with heating and electricity bills and losing their homes because of rising energy prices? How many people have suffered directly because of Shell's greed?

Agreed. What about those who have become rich legitimately by working hard and providing goods and services? Should they be protected from individuals who just want to redistribute their wealth because they have more of it?

Without everyone paying tax, these people wouldn't be able to get where they are today. The protection from the police, from the military, the education provided when they were children, the roads and infrastructure that they use to conduct their business and be successful, the low rates of corporation tax they pay to allow that business to be successful. You can't just say, 'these bits of democratic contribution benefit me so I'll pay tax for those, but not for the stuff I don't need.' That's inherently unfair. The whole point of a society working together is that everyone pays into a pot that provides services for all. Not every individual is going to need every service, but there's someone out there paying for a road they don't use that you do.

How will reducing government interference in the economic freedom and personal freedom of individuals lead to less freedom?

Are you for more economic and personal interference into the lives of individuals?

This is the most important and simple fact that libertarians seem to be blind to , to the point of ridiculousness. It's called lobbying, bribery and corruption. Let's take Murdoch as an example. His media empire makes sure Cameron get's into power. Quid pro quo, the bbc(sky's biggest competitor) gets its budget slashed, the bskyb bid gets approved, more money and profit for murdoch, more power and influence. All resulting in the undermining of democracy and the freedom of the British people. This is something that transnational corporations regularly engage in.

The role of government from a Libertarian viewpoint is to protect property rights and protect you from the initiation of force. There is checks against tyranny of theft and initiation of force

B S. Those checks dissapear when powerful individuals can bribe and corrupt government to deregulate and allow them to do whatever they want. How many tinpot dictatorships are supplied arms by western companies in exchange for exploiting their own population to the favor of these companies?

Who are you talking about when you say the exploitative few, the rich in general? Is it because you believe that you can only get rich through exploitation?

I'm talking about those who get so rich and powerful that they are above the law. There are plenty of these people around. I've no problem with people being rich. I just don't see the point of obscene wealth on the one hand.

And yes, the majority of the rich today are so because of exploitation even if they don't realise it. Whether that be directly or simply through purchasing products that have been made by economic slaves in the third and developing world.

If you look at the people who have benefited the most from our current system it would be bankers, and they sure as hell are not calling for a libertarian approach which would be competing free market currencies, or a hard money standard, limiting their ability to inflate and the massive profits of fractional reserve lending.

And this is a perfect example of why libertarianism doesn't work. Because what you people repeatedly fail to understand is that when someone becomes powerful and wealthy enough they can pervert and subvert the functions of government through 'lobbying,' and corruption. The answer is not to make government weaker and make it even easier for these people to exploit but to make government MORE robhust and prevent any individual or entity from having the power to influence it in their favour to the disadvantage of countless others.

SupaNova wrote: »

Your whole post has a Marxist communist tone, that the rich are exploiting the masses, and we must redistribute their wealth.

#careface. Your whole post has a tone of naivety and ignorance that ignores the reality of what people do when they have unchecked wealth and power and how that does real harm to the majority of ordinary hard working people who are just trying to get by and do the best for their families.

SupaNova

Memnoch wrote: »

You are incorrect. My view of equality is that everyone should have equal opportunity to succeed and that someone shouldn't have much greater success in life purely because they had the luck of being born into a richer family or a richer country.

Your view of equal opportunity to succeed would involve no one being financially better off than the next. Its Marxism.

Take three equal middle class families in terms of wealth and opportunity. One family works hard and is extremely driven to improve their lot in life the second is content with maintaining their current standard of living, the third are lazy and won't be able to maintain their living standard and rightly so. What you are saying is that the middle class family that showed drive business should have a greater proportion of their wealth transferred.

Do you for example think that all children should be entitled to an education? If you do, then why? If you do not then why?

I think widely available education is a worthy goal. But that doesn't have to involve the state.

The talk of use of 'force,' by liberatrians is hypocritical since they advocate allowing the powerful and wealthy to use unlimited force.

They advocate protection of property rights and protection from the initiation of force, that includes the initiation of force by people who are wealthier than you. This has been repeated several times.

I don't believe that anyone deserves unlimited wealth. What the hell is someone going to do with 100 million dollars? It's stupid and wasteful considering how many people are starving in the world because they were born into poverty.

Warren Buffet pays himself 100k a year. The massive wealth he owns is invested, directing capital to successful and healthy business that create jobs and provide goods and services. Taking his wealth along with other mega rich entrepreneurs and investors and redistributing, would plunge many many more into poverty and bring economic ruin.

It makes sense that taxes should be graded in a fair way. If someone earning $20k pays 50% tax that leaves them only $10k to live. If someone earning $2 million pays 50% they still have $1 million, on which they can live very comfortably and luxuriously. This isn't about force or marxism but about common sense and practicality.

Graded tax punishes success. The successful middle class family that becomes rich is punished by having a greater proportion of their wealth transferred to people who are unsuccessful.

Paradox. You cannot protect individual rights if you allow those with wealth and power to wield unlimited influence because then that will result in the diminishing of the rights of other individuals. The Murdoch empire is an excellent recent example of this.

I mean how many times are you going to repeat this???

What's legitimately earned?

At its simplest 'by relations of voluntary exchange'. Do you not believe people can become wealthy legitimately or do you hold the Marxist belief that employers are exploiting employees through profit?

Shell made profits of 8 billion this year. How many families are struggling with heating and electricity bills and losing their homes because of rising energy prices? How many people have suffered directly because of Shell's greed?

Oh those evil profiteering capitalists. Should they be required to run at breakeven or a loss? How do you suppose they fund further oil and gas exploration along with research and development?

Without everyone paying tax, these people wouldn't be able to get where they are today. The protection from the police, from the military, the education provided when they were children, the roads and infrastructure that they use to conduct their business and be successful,

To repeat I think most Libertarians agree on having a police force and army. And your fantasy that roads or education wouldn't exist only for government is just that fantasy. There was wide uptake of private schooling in 19th century America before states got involved.

the low rates of corporation tax they pay to allow that business to be successful.

Agreed allowing successful people keep their money allows them to be successful.

This is the most important and simple fact that libertarians seem to be blind to , to the point of ridiculousness. It's called lobbying, bribery and corruption.

Far from being blind from corruption Libertarians whole point is to have a government with limited power and functions. With no option of introducing tax incentives, subsidies, favorable credit for certain groups, etc there isn't a whole lot of use in lobbying politicians who can't grant these favors.

And yes, the majority of the rich today are so because of exploitation even if they don't realise it. Whether that be directly or simply through purchasing products that have been made by economic slaves in the third and developing world.

So buying something from a poor person or moving jobs to a poor country is exploitation???

And this is a perfect example of why libertarianism doesn't work. Because what you people repeatedly fail to understand is that when someone becomes powerful and wealthy enough they can pervert and subvert the functions of government through 'lobbying,' and corruption. The answer is not to make government weaker and make it even easier for these people to exploit but to make government MORE robhust and prevent any individual or entity from having the power to influence it in their favour to the disadvantage of countless others.

Limiting governments role and power to grant favors, thus limiting corruption is the point Libertarian's would make. A government that has the power to grant privileges to any group of people is more courrptable than one without these powers.

#careface. Your whole post has a tone of naivety and ignorance that ignores the reality of what people do when they have unchecked wealth and power and how that does real harm to the majority of ordinary hard working people who are just trying to get by and do the best for their families.

Someone who makes a statement like "the majority of the rich today are so because of exploitation even if they don't realise it. Whether that be directly or simply through purchasing products that have been made by economic slaves in the third and developing world." is the one that's ignorant.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

matthew8

20Cent wrote: »

the only discernable use for libertarianism is to allow one to be a pompous smartarse on the internet.

Or to create jobs faster than any other state from 1995-2003. Gary Johnson, the libertarian governor, created certainty in New Mexico and lowered taxes. This resulted in rapid job growth.

20Cent

matthew8 wrote: »

Or to create jobs faster than any other state from 1995-2003. Gary Johnson, the libertarian governor, created certainty in New Mexico and lowered taxes. This resulted in rapid job growth.

He's a republican, if libertarianism is so good why doesn't he run as one. Also did he reject all gov subsidies while Governor? Did he stop the subsidies paid to oil companies? Don't think so.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The point being made is that such instances are considered shocking now. In libertarianland it would be the norm.