re: Did Trump cause the Libertarian party to go to Shite?

The problem was Ron Paul was both the most sane guy in the party, and everyone else was there because it was the largest party that was pro-pot.

These idiots bought what BLM was selling hook line and sinker.

quote:

---

I was libertarian as frick until I got a glimpse of the party. Now I’m just … partyless? No fun at parties?

ETA: such is not to say I don’t still share in libertarian ideals, I just don’t think they are workable as planks of political platforms in this stupid climate of ours.

---

Pretty much this.

quote:

---

Please do describe which parts of ''pure libertarianism'' doesn't work exactly and why

---

First off, I am much more of a libertarian than I am a conservative so I’m not denigrating the general ideas of the ideology. That said, I realize that there are some inherent flaws that must be addressed and by addressing those flaws, it is no longer a pure system.

I could write a book on this but let’s just stick with laissez fair capitalism. Sounds great in theory, but a capitalist system without ANY sort of controls or guidelines ends up with most of the economy split into monopolies and a very small elite class who make vast fortunes being served by vast numbers of lowly paid workers living in poverty with zero chance at escape. This is bad for everyone except the owners of the monopolies.

“Low crime” is not a political philosophy. It’s the result of policies and maybe just as importantly, the culture and values of the people. I wouldn’t want to live under “pure” conservatism any more than pure liberalism. Both of those would violate my libertarian leanings. In a perfect world there would be some balance of the 3 that would appeal to the vast majority of people. Unfortunately an ideal world doesn’t exist and we live in a system that gives us 2 choices, both of which are usually bad.

quote:

---

Also Gary Johnson seemed to set the party in a shitty direction

---

Y’all had your shot at sound fiscal policy (frick the Fed) and a foreign policy that wouldn’t demand our children and our taxes to police the world. I can’t imagine voting for Obama or McCain over Ron Paul.

quote:

---

Sounds great in theory, but a capitalist system without ANY sort of controls or guidelines ends up with most of the economy split into monopolies and a very small elite class who make vast fortunes being served by vast numbers of lowly paid workers living in poverty with zero chance at escape. This is bad for everyone except the owners of the monopolies.

---

Technology has a way of breaking down monopolies.
Railroads give way to highways.
Oil gives way to electricity.
AOL gives way to DSL.

Monopolies sound scary. But in reality, the scary part would be corporatism in our political landscape (which isnt a pure free market system any longer).

And your fear pandering of a handful if employers in a country of 350 million people being enslaved... lol.

quote:

---

controls or guidelines ends up with most of the economy split into monopolies

---

Ironically, monopolies often appear due to government regulation rather than natural reasons.
The only origins of monopolies that can exist without government intervention are the on the markets that have a limited capacity of natural resources ( like oil ), and , even then, we have this idea that a monopoly is inherently bad for the consumer, when in reality, a monopoly that is bad , aka, a monopoly that sustains a price that causes societal looses since it's over the equilibrium point, can only subsist with the help of the government.

If we go back to the times of Rockefeller, and analyze the prices of oil during his monopoly, we will see they weren't in any way worse than after it was divided.

So in summary, not al monopolies are bad ( overprice ) for the sake of being monopolies, and not all markets can generate natural monopolies ( only the ones limited by resources and infrastructure ).

quote:

---

class who make vast fortunes being served by vast numbers of lowly paid workers living in poverty with zero chance at escape

---

This would be the case if
A) All markets could generate monopolies, which as I explained they don't.
And
B) We were speaking of inefficient monopolies. In the long term, no inefficient monopoly can sustain it's life over time. Also, we have exampls of people saving money in absolute poverty and opening their own business even during siad cirumstances.

So even if we play along with the ridiculous example of a completely deprived world were everyone is salve to a monopoly, we have evidence that still will not stop progress and decentralization of wealth.

quote:

---

“Low crime” is not a political philosophy

---

No crime tolerance then.

quote:

---

In a perfect world there would be some balance of the 3 that would appeal to the vast majority of people

---

This is what is usually known as the grey point fallacy, and it's something so dumb it can be proven mathematically wrong.

A says 2+2=6
B says 2+2=4

''Moderate People'' well the answer must be in the middle, 2+2=5 !.

quote:

---

I voted for Ron Paul and Gary Johnson FWIW.I voted for Ron Paul and Gary Johnson FWIW.

---

Lmfao SOME libertarian you are then. Nothing says libertarianism as forcing people to work for one another. And you claimed you are against slavery ? Oh the irony, voting for the guy who literally wants to force people to work for others.
Shut up and go bake me a gay cake.

That’s a huge mass of pseudo intellectual nonsense you just spewed there. Yes monopoly can happen due to government regulation. It can also happen with no regulation. Mostly it has to do with the cost of market entry for competition. What tends to happen though is at first consumers get a good deal while the business is consolidating the industry and then the screws get tightened.

No crime tolerance - you realize that “pure” no crime tolerance would mean the death penalty for jaywalking right? Or maybe Singapore where people get caned for spitting on the sidewalk?

Your last point - you assume political philosophy is math. One side is 100% right on everything and one side is 100% wrong on everything. This is rarely if ever the case.

quote:

---

frick right off defending Russia on this, you treasonous lunatic.

---

Comprehension problems, dumbfrick?

.

quote:

---

He literally says in an interview that the government should force people to work for others

---

His actual statement literally says no such thing. At least not clearly. He was clearly trying to thread the needle there and although I agree with whoever the author of that piece was about the solution being to just go to another baker, ok, I disagree with his (maybe) position on that one issue. Does that disqualify him from getting my vote? Are we trying to run some ridiculous purity test? Was I supposed to vote for Hillary instead? Or Trump whose policies are better than hers but still not as libertarian as Johnsons? If you’re waiting for a politician to 100% match your own views, you’re gonna be waiting a long time.

Simple fact of the matter is that any pure system only works if you have a homogeneous and probably small population whose people are all on board with living under that system. Any diversity of thought will necessitate some degree of tweaking. The debate is on how much to tweak.

Regardless, my political philosophy is pretty much do whatever the hell you want to do, just don’t ask me to support it or pay for it. And that tends to alienate me from both sides since both R’s and D’s want to control people in their own ways.