anti-nonsense

It's because most libertarians have no compassion, or social conscience and neither do neo-conservatives.

Both are perfectly happy to leave the poor and vulnerable to fend for themselves while they steal, lie and cheat to get a bigger piece of the pie. They are unwilling to give up anything to make society work. All most libertarians and neo-conservatives care about is getting rich and powerful at the expense of those with scruples.

There are some libertarians that are nice people, but they are naive enough to think that if we didn't have rules restricting businesses that it wouldn't end up with the poor as little better then slaves for big businesses. We meed laws to protect workers from greedy bastards.

Also, it never occurs to any of them that they might end up on the bottom in such a system and they wouldn't like that.It's much better to be on the bottom in a socialist system with welfare and minimum wages to protect the poor and those that aren't clever enough to go to university or trade school and get good jobs, or disabled people that can't work well. It's worth paying some of your income if you have a good income to make sure that if you or your kids ever ends up on the rocks there will be money to protect you.

10/25/2007 10:18:09 PM

Dax

Libertarianism
A cross between a libertine and a librarian.
If I had to listen to you AND a youth pervert I would get a major soft on for months if not years.
Unless of course I had pages of the KJV stuffed in my ears so I could escape to service the youth perverts wife

10/25/2007 11:46:52 PM

mad dog

"It's because most libertarians have no compassion, or social conscience and neither do neo-conservatives. "

Actually, most politicians, PERIOD have no compassion. Most so-called 'liberals' pretend to be 'generous' and 'compassionate', but the problem is, is that they use other people's money. If I forcefully took your wallet and gave it to someone else, would that make me compassionate?

"There are some libertarians that are nice people, but they are naive enough to think that if we didn't have rules restricting businesses that it wouldn't end up with the poor as little better then slaves for big businesses. We meed laws to protect workers from greedy bastards."

Actually, more regulations have the tendency to hurt the smaller businesses, which strengthens the bigger ones. Besides, most business regulation is actually co-written by the bigger businesses themselves.

"Also, it never occurs to any of them that they might end up on the bottom in such a system and they wouldn't like that.It's much better to be on the bottom in a socialist system with welfare and minimum wages to protect the poor and those that aren't clever enough to go to university or trade school and get good jobs, or disabled people that can't work well."

Really? Then why do nations that are more deregulated have lower unemployment rates? Why do places that have more welfare have higher crime rates? Why did every nation that was fully socialist either fall under, or at least allow a certain amount of free market activity on its land?

It appears your outlook on humanity is quite negative if you think we need so many regulations.

11/24/2007 11:30:01 PM

Nick

As a bleeding heart welfare-statist, I never thought I'd be supportive of libertarianism, but this world sounds pretty cool. I'm all for jacking off to porn and trips to the ABORTUARY, lol.

11/25/2007 12:48:01 AM

Nibien

Personally, I find snorting my porn jacks me up the most.

3/12/2008 3:07:37 AM

CJ

Ah, the delightful intellectuals of World Nut Daily!

3/12/2008 9:53:55 PM

The Brazilian

To Mad Dog: More wealfare, more crime... Where ? Not in Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, etc... And having a job does not mean so much if the conditions are sub-sub-sub-standart. Do you prefer work in your country or in China ?

2/15/2010 1:07:24 PM