I find much in common with Libertarians, but I happen to be pro-potential life and think that regulation is a necessary evil (but still dislike it).

So were you guys pleased with Gary johnson's performance? Thanks for that.

Gary Johnson was just a Republican who smokes Pot.

God didn't forsake this site, because he didn't create in the first place.

Kestas rarely responds to people calling him God anyway...

Flum is a fake libertarian, don't be fooled.

You're a fake socialist though.

Just because I don't like revolutionaries doesn't mean I'm a fake socialist.

Just because I don't like private property, doesn't mean I'm not a libertarian.

Libertarianism is nice on paper but easily devolves into powerful individuals using that freedom to buy control of the state to protect their assets because who's to tell them they can't or even shouldn't under libertarian rule? Then you have big government Republican-like rule that is no longer libertarian. Admittedly this is very similar to the pitfall from the other side of democratic socialist rule that has the mission of creating large government to serve its citizens but is easily corrupted by big money that is allowed to influence policies more than the individual voter. The ideals of both libertarianism and socialism are noble but easily corrupted by individualistic greed that will ultimately corrode the liberties of a libertarian society or the justice in a socialist society.

This site is being actively manipulated by liberals and tumblrfags and does not reflect anything like mainstream opinion. Just so you know ;-)

I like this site's community...

Jamie, if you think this forum is overrun with liberals, I have some others I can show you.

Jamie this website is far from being purged of a liberal presence

Oh that reminds me gotta cash this month's Correct The WebDip check

@y2k - no, it is very different. In one case your money buys you into the powerful class. In the other the powerful class confiscates your money and thus become wealthy...

@Fluminator: I was making sarcastic reference to Fiedler's thread about liberals and tumblrfags manipulating the forum. Don't you remember it? It was on the front page for about 6 months.

Oh lol. I missed it.

The original thread was:

threadID=1216284

It spawned a number of parody threads including threadID=1216313

Yes they are different orathaic, but the root cause of individualistic greed getting the better of a theoretically well intentioned way of governing is very similar, it's just different how the issue manifests itself.

Humans will exploit any system they get their hands on. That does not make all systems equally good or bad.

You could look at diplomacy websites, and argue over multi gamers, and what kind of system the site needs to have in place to prevent this kind of abuse. That is a common problem across web systems.

But the general problem is across all systems where humans interact for power/influence/status/personal gain (whether emotional, material, or otherwise)

But again, not all systems are equal. Big governments are associated with big states. The USA and USSR, smaller socialist states, like Iceland, don't experiece the kids of problems you described. It has more to do with the size (and thus total amount of power condensced in one organisation) that results in corruption on the level you are describing.

A libertarian/socialist paradise with only 150 individuals could probably run fantastically (based solely on peer pressure) but that doesn't mean i would tecommend implementing those systems on a scale of 100s of Millions of people.

I wouldn't consider myself a literal libertarian but it is the closest thing to my actual views. I think some government regulation is a nessecity; I am okay with federal systems such as healthcare and energy; I don't think government should interfere in your personal life but I think economy and security are open game.

I would say I'm a weird socialist-libertarian

I'm *mostly* libertarian on domestic issues and the relationship between citizen and state. Too hawkish for the Libertarian Party, however.

@CB, it is not weird at all.

The 'classical liberal' in european conversation maps fairly well onto libertarian.
Meanwhile the modern european liberal is closer to social liberal (so pro-government support, anti-government interference) - so at some point the definition moved from left to right...

(This wasn't the case in the US where the terms meant something else, history and geography confusing matters...)

I'm more of an anarchist. No matter what your big government system--socialist, democratic, libertarian--power and wealth corrupt the leadership. Therefore, the best system is to have no central government at all. Small communities can then coexist as socialist or libertarian without corruption. Of course, this is purely theoretical since the power vacuum is going to be filled ... and it will inevitably be filled, due to the root of evil in mankind, by an entity that wants to control and manipulate others.

People kill each other. 1 + 1 > 1. Ergo, libertarianism fails.

Q.E.D.

@'it will inevitably be filled'

Or immediately be filled by community level hierarchy. Which will slowly develop.

The question is why do you assume there will be no corruption at the community level? And what is the ideal scale for co-operation / corruption?