I'm a Liberal Liberatarian!

farfromglorified wrote:

Considering the production costs and ease of entry into a free-market for these products, yes. That would be pennies-per-use, not pennies for a lifetime supply or something on a grand scale.

I assume thats without the "legalize and tax the hell out of it" crowd getting involved.

farfromglorified wrote:

Certainly pollution is an aggressive act and people have every right to reject it. I have a hard time blaming only "rich individuals and corporations" (as the original question implied) for auto/truck emissions, however.

what about the ones in power holding back other technology? what about the bush administration's great scheme to lower gas prices by lowering the environmental restrictrions (which ended up saving us....fuckall)? or destroying anwr to drill for oil when just raising the current fuel efficiency standard just 3 more miles to the gallon would save us more oil than even the best estimates of anwr?

i knowyou said blame ONLY, and i agree w/ that, but i think they have a higher level of blame

take that case, in i think illinois where the guy made his own alternative fuel and the government came in and said he couldn't make his fuel for himself anymore unles he obtained a fuel manufacturing permit (or something), for which he didn't even qualify for!!

they certainly don't give the majority of ppl very many options

1970RR wrote:

I assume thats without the "legalize and tax the hell out of it" crowd getting involved.

Hehe...yes. Which, in all actuality, would happen.

El_Kabong wrote:

what about the ones in power holding back other technology? what about the bush administration's great scheme to lower gas prices by lowering the environmental restrictrions (which ended up saving us....fuckall)? or destroying anwr to drill for oil when just raising the current fuel efficiency standard just 3 more miles to the gallon would save us more oil than even the best estimates of anwr?

i knowyou said blame ONLY, and i agree w/ that, but i think they have a higher level of blame

take that case, in i think illinois where the guy made his own alternative fuel and the government came in and said he couldn't make his fuel for himself anymore unles he obtained a fuel manufacturing permit (or something), for which he didn't even qualify for!!

they certainly don't give the majority of ppl very many options

I don't disagree with much of this, but I'm not sure if you expect me to. Do I think corporate welfare and stupid regulations are good things? No. Do I think choice and free innovation are good things? Yes.

farfromglorified wrote:

Definitely! There are many good corporations in China, just like there are many bad ones.



Of course. But I buy gas produced from American & Canadian sources for a myriad of reasons. And my gas-use days are going to quickly come to an end period, thanks to Honda's new hydrogen car.



Violence and theivery are certainly bad things. But just because you're being paid a small wage, doesn't mean you're being stolen from or assaulted. Just as often it means the person you're being compared against lives in a country with a minimum wage, something upheld via violence and theivery.

And true libertarianism solves all this.

Get outta here.

farfromglorified wrote:

Solves what?

Keeping our country out of unneccessary war. Allowing American corporations to effectly colonise small nations to do slave labor...

farfromglorified wrote:

It would be tough to fight "unneccessary wars" absent $1 trillion in tax revenues, forced conscription, and fiat currency, yes. Libertarians stand opposed to those things, so that's a start. War, however, is a much bigger issue than dollars and soldiers, so Libertarianism alone does not necessarily preclude "unneccessary war". It would simply make it much harder to wage.



Libertarianism here would do little to stop American corporations from effectively colonising small nations. Libertarianism there certainly might, depending on the people involved.

Libertarianism is a political ideal, not an entire moral and economic system. So it seems a bit odd to be applying it to the vague problems you mention and certainly would not, alone, be the solution to those problems.

A political ideal, and you are? A libertarian?

gue_barium wrote:

A political ideal, and you are? A libertarian?

I'm not a Libertarian, although their political views are closest to my own.

farfromglorified wrote:

I'm not a Libertarian, although their political views are closest to my own.

How do you differ from a Libertarian?

gue_barium wrote:

It would be if you did a revision to many of FFG's post with a pre-emptive "In My Ideolgy" or "My ideology works like this". He doesn't come across that way, though. And whenever he is challenged he falls back into the "what value is to me? or what value is it to you?" mode.

It's a tiresome shtick.

I see that he's absolutely 100% right. And I'm joining in because I think many people blur this point and create inaccuracy due to not discerning that one detail. I am one of these people, who has not naturally recognized this until now, and I relate to the many on this board, sharing similar worldview traits, so I know the mindset, and that "we're" going wrong here. Political views are complementary to moral or economic views, and yet there is differentiation.

I believe in integration, so I recognize that the discernment he points out here, is in our understanding and comprehension with logic, and that makes a BIG difference in terms of our degree of understanding ourselves and our systems. Ultimately, though, these divisions don't really exist in reality, because a human system isn't even separate from the external system, much less the human ideals within said human. So, when we reintegrate ACCURATE logic in with the big picture where many of us have strengths, this is where "we're" going "right" and where I think farfromglorified might be less savvy in grasping.(ie. leaving morality disconnectd from human political or economic decisions)

Again, though, I think the blurring of that line has had dangerous and power-imbalanced consequences through time. I'll grant you that, farfromglorified.