As simplistic as it is, I think these hit the points well. Both groups are angry at what they say as elites controlling and wreaking havoc on the economy and the ordinary people's lives. The difference being the scapegoat. However, I think it hits it on the head with the intersections, both government and corporate greed ****ed us over. The issue is, who will bring us back to prosperity? Can we be brought back?
Not as long as corporations can buy elections. Anybody really think citizens united wasn't going to cause a backlash once people figured it out?
by "buy elections" do you mean produce/fund political speech? corporations can't force you to vote for anyone
One word: Somalia. And Jesus Christ, to think I used to believe in libertarianism. I'm tired of the fact that they act like government is inherently evil and anything that benefits the government automatically hurts the people who are somehow outside of a government. Government is a tool. It is capable of doing both good and evil. You know, sort of like a gun. It's off-topic, but I really should open a thread about how our obsession with the Founding Fathers - and more importantly, only those Founding Fathers who happen to take our views is a serious drain on this country. You always hear Libertarians quoting Jefferson or Madison - but what about Hamilton, who was the real capitalist and developed this economy, who started out with NOTHING and earned everything in his world while Jefferson raped his slaves? What about Jay, who figured out an entire branch of the government by himself and crushed those who argued that the federal government wasn't capable of doing anything? When do THEY get quoted? I mean, for Pete's sake, the Founding Fathers completely f'd it up the first time around trying to create a governing document. They were not infallible.
That's not what libertarianism is at all. All government action is at root a use of force. Use of force is only moral in the defense of individual rights. That's the foundation of libertarianism.
So what uses of government are legitimate then. I know that national defense and policing are ok. Name more if they exist.
Oh, I'm highly aware of that line of thinking ( though I've met plenty of extremeist libertarians back in the day who though we didn't need a national defense). But at the end of the day, it's philosophical. Libertarianism is just right-wing Marxism, that holds that freedom is the ultimate - nay, the SOLE - good. As someone who studies Russia like crazy, Russia today under the authoritarian Putin is a lot better off than it was when it was basically was libertarianism after the Communists collapsed.
Defense of persons and property, enforcement of contracts and disputes between parties. Compensation or regulation of externalities that affect third parties. That's about it.
You're conflating libertarianism with anarchy. There was certainly use of force after communism collapsed, it was just gangsters more than government. That's not libertarianism.
and now I can see why you don't post seriously very often....my advice: stick to what you know you can do because, in a certain way, this is more embarrassing than most of the rest of your posts combined.
Just like Stalinism's not communism, right? I'll go ahead and ask. Give me a libertarian society that has existed and thrived. And you automatically lose if your answer is the Gilded Age.
Well not many have existed, tyranny is the natural state of man historically. But the closest might be Spoiler When it was a colony. It would be.
Libertarianism in its purest form leads to anarchy. No one system is perfect, that's the reality. Taking a middle ground usually leads the most ideal system.
I think it has a lot more to do with both sides being fed up with the symbiotic relationship that has developed between Government and Corporations. ie. Lobbyists. When we can all figure out that this is about the 99% of us, and not about pointing fingers at 50%, we might get something done. Something for all of us to think about...
