[Wolfman]

The idea that political freedom is real freedom is a blatant lie. The power to control others is not freedom, in any universal sense.

And the idea that economic freedom is real freedom is just histarical. I could run the most powerful company in the world, but if I cann't say what I think, then I'm no better off then the wage-slave working for me. Having rights, thats freedom.

And before anyone goes acussing me being from there opposition, I'm not.

[RonPaulalways]

And the idea that economic freedom is real freedom is just histarical. I could run the most powerful company in the world, but if I cann't say what I think, then I'm no better off then the wage-slave working for me. Having rights, thats freedom.

Economic freedom is not the entirety of freedom, but it is one of the most important components of it. It is the freedom to build a life for yourself. The freedom to earn a living, to eat, to have spare time to pursue other interests, etc. When people's economic freedom is limited, they languish, they starve, they wither. It is a cruel and destructive limitation of liberty.

[Wolfman]

I would rather starve be able to complain about it then to be full and have no voice.

[grassroots1]

Economic freedom is not the entirety of freedom, but it is one of the most important components of it. It is the freedom to build a life for yourself. The freedom to earn a living, to eat, to have spare time to pursue other interests, etc. When people's economic freedom is limited, they languish, they starve, they wither. It is a cruel and destructive limitation of liberty.

And sometimes, when people are allowed to exercise their economic freedom, people starve and wither (or are blown up) as a result. I believe it is a cruel and destructive limitation when a person does not have access to the essentials of life. There can be no true political freedom, meaning, no true democracy, without relative economic equity. The freedom you are looking for, RPA, is not a popular kind of freedom. It has required police repression to uphold in the past because of the devastating effects it had on the poorer classes of society. RPA, was Chile under Pinochet a justified situation? Was Pinochet justified in repressing the people because he was upholding his new model of liberalized markets?

[RonPaulalways]

And sometimes, when people are allowed to exercise their economic freedom, people starve and wither (or are blown up) as a result. I believe it is a cruel and destructive limitation when a person does not have access to the essentials of life.

Yes, but that doesn't justify infringing on someone else's freedom.

To react to a bad condition caused by circumstance, by employing coercion against a neutral third party who had no role in creating those bad conditions, is immoral.

In the long run, a society that ignores this principle of individual liberty suffers for it. Capital accumulation and Business creation/expansion (production expansion) happen more slowly with higher taxes and a government without constitutional limits on its power.

[grassroots1]

First, this is only one conception of what 'freedom' is. Your idea of freedom is not the only one that exists.

To react to a bad condition caused by circumstance, by employing coercion against a neutral third party who had no role in creating those bad conditions, is immoral.

To say that capitalists had no role in creating negative conditions and that impoverished people find themselves in their position solely because of 'circumstance' is an understatement at best, and downright false at worst. Of course a capitalist doesn't actively seek out creating those conditions, but that doesn't mean they are automatically absolved of all responsibility. They may have played a part in creating them just to increase their profit margin that much more, I still don't think it's right.

Besides, whether or not you think it is moral, I am entirely happy with supporting a movement to provide sustenance to starving people at the expense of the obscene luxuries of other people. Can you not grasp that concept? Food vs. boat. Food vs. private jet. Food vs. sixth mansion. Do these people really need SUCH rewards for their hard work?

Ultimately the difference between you and I is that you believe the right to private property needs to be upheld to the utmost extent, while I think matter cannot be owned.

Also if you have an answer about Chile...

[RonPaulalways]

Quote:
To react to a bad condition caused by circumstance, by employing coercion against a neutral third party who had no role in creating those bad conditions, is immoral.


To say that capitalists had no role in creating negative conditions and that impoverished people find themselves in their position solely because of 'circumstance' is an understatement at best, and downright false at worst.

The rich have absolutely no role in creating negative conditions for the poor on account of them simply being rich.

Economics is not a zero sum game.

Ultimately the difference between you and I is that you believe the right to private property needs to be upheld to the utmost extent, while I think matter cannot be owned.

I recommend you read Thomas Paine's 'Agragian Justice', on the question of the ownership of 'matter' (property).

http://www.thomaspaine.org/Archives/agjst.html

[grassroots1]

Since they're rich, they had 'no role?' You can say they aren't responsible, or they have no obligations to the poor, but to say they had no role is just false!

[RonPaulalways]

Having a role in creating bad conditions for someone implies being responsible for them. When I say they have no role in the bad conditions someone who's starving finds themselves in, I mean they are not responsible for those bad conditions coming about.

[grassroots1]

And you're wrong on both accounts, in my book. So, about Chile?

[Todd D.]

This is too amusing for words.

Agreed. Watching someone blindly refuse to respond to me is very amusing.

You were the type of guy that bragged about girlfriends at Niagara Falls, weren't you?

I've reduced Todd to posting retarded anigifs because he can't deny what I've said,

I have responded to what you said. Right here. You refused to respond. You still do. When pressed as to why, your response? "I didn't feel there was anything to respond to."

Your words.

I quoted you line by line, refuting your arguments, somehow you accuse ME of ignoring things, and refuse to respond because "I didn't feel there was anything to respond to."

Classic.

[Michaeluj]

The least Spidermonkey should do is explain what is being ignored, what answer he expects from us, and-using the first two details-explain why we're deluded or being ignorant.

[RonPaulalways]

And you're wrong on both accounts, in my book.

You need to explain why I'm wrong. You can't just make a blanket attack on rich people, condemning them to being held responsible for creating the bad conditions that poor people find themselves in, without justifying it.

Economics is not a zero-sum game. Just because someone is rich, doesn't mean they deprived someone else of wealth in order to attain theirs.

[SpiderMonkey]

I have responded to what you said. Right here. You refused to respond. You still do. When pressed as to why, your response? "I didn't feel there was anything to respond to."

Your words.

I quoted you line by line, refuting your arguments, somehow you accuse ME of ignoring things, and refuse to respond because "I didn't feel there was anything to respond to."

Classic.

*sigh*

I did respond to that. I responded by noting the irony of someone using huge bold, underlined, italic text on the word 'economic' kind of proved my point. I guess you missed that.

Go back to your books with the chewable covers if you find the forum too difficult to read

[Dr House]

So, did you read anything in Todd's post other than the word economic?

[Todd D.]

I responded by noting the irony of someone using huge bold, underlined, italic text on the word 'economic' kind of proved my point. I guess you missed that.

Which, of course, it didn't. Unsurprising really, considering your comprehension of this thread.

You cited a conservative (not libertarian) economic think tank as proof that libertarians don't care about non-economic freedom, which is like posting a link to ESPN and saying "See? This link proves Americans only care about sports, since not ONE link on this website talks about the Iraq War or the Stock Market". That's not what that specific organization is concerned with, so that's not what they reprot on. You then made the leap that because they were referring to economic freedom, that means that is the ONLY type of freedom that libertarians care about, which is obviously goofy to anyone above 2nd grade.

Want libertarian sites that deal with social freedoms? How about the actual LP of the USA?

Drug prohibition does more to make Americans unsafe than any other factor. Just as alcohol prohibition gave us Al Capone and the mafia, drug prohibition has given us the Crips, the Bloods and drive-by shootings. Consider the historical evidence: America's murder rate rose nearly 70% during alcohol prohibition, but returned to its previous levels after prohibition ended. Now, since the War on Drugs began, America's murder rates have doubled. The cause/effect relationship is clear. Prohibition is putting innocent lives at risk.

We defend the rights of individuals to unrestricted freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the right of individuals to dissent from government itself. ...

We oppose any abridgment of the freedom of speech through government censorship, regulation or control of communications media

Libertarians, like other Americans, want to be able to walk city streets safely and be secure in their homes. We also want our Constitutional rights protected, to guard against the erosion of our civil liberties. In particular, Libertarians want to see all people treated equally under the law, as our Constitution requires. America's millions of gun owners are people too.

Law-abiding, responsible citizens do not and should not need to ask anyone's permission or approval to engage in a peaceful activity. Gun ownership, by itself, harms no other person and cannot morally justify criminal penalties.

Crossing an international border to support your family and pursue dreams of a better life is not an inherently criminal act like rape or robbery. If it were, then most of us descend from criminals. As the people of Texas know well, the large majority of illegal immigrants are not bad people. They are people who value family, faith and hard work trying to live within a bad system.

When large numbers of otherwise decent people routinely violate a law, the law itself is probably the problem. To argue that illegal immigration is bad merely because it is illegal avoids the threshold question of whether we should prohibit this kind of immigration in the first place.

The individual's right to privacy, property, and right to speak or not to speak should not be infringed by the government. The government should not use electronic or other means of covert surveillance of an individual's actions or private property without the consent of the owner or occupant

None of these are "economic" issues, with the possible exception of noting economic benefits that a larger work force can bring.

How about the Future of Freedom Foundation? A libertarian organization that advocates both economic freedom (such as refuting New Deal policies) AND social freedom (such as their extensive work on CIA torture abuses, Gitmo, etc.).

Maybe you'd be interested in HarryBrowne.org, dedicated to the late Harry Browne, who ran for President under the Libertarian banner in 2000, and who authored several books on Libertarian thought. The articles section is broken down by topic, and includes sections on the Drug War, Foreign Policy, Gay Marriage, Torture, Iraq, and other non-economic topics central to Libertarian theory.

[Wolfman]

The fundamental problem with this post (aside from it's trolling) is that each of the major branches of political views has a different focus. And if you don't get in depth in to that view point, you're likely to only hear what they have to say on that major view point. Libertarians talk about total economic freedom, Socialist talk about economic equality, Anarchist talk about total freedom, Fascist talk about total security, and so on, and so forth. Unless you actually into the 'meat and potatoes' of the system of thought, you'll probably miss the Libertarian views on immigration, and yadda yadda yadda.

Too bad alot of people only listen to others just long enough to look for a point of argument.