use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g.reddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
reddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
see the search faq for details.
advanced search: by author, community...
3,284 users here now
Welcome to r/atheism, the web's largest atheist forum. All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome here. Please read our FAQ.
Please link directly to any images or use imgur to avoid being flagged as blogspam
Recommended reading and viewing
Thank you notes
Related Subreddits <--the big list
Chat: #reddit-atheism on irc.freenode.net
Watch: #/r/atheism on reddit.tv
Read The FAQ
Submit Rage Comic
Submit Facebook Chat
Submit Meme
Submit Something Else
reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›
If Only... [x-post from r/libertarian] (i.imgur.com)
submitted 8 months ago by indrora
[–]seagramsextradrygin 37 points38 points39 points 8 months ago
Reminds me of a quote from last week's episode of Bill Maher.
What do we want?
Gradual Change!
When do we want it?
Incrementally!
[–][deleted] 20 points21 points22 points 8 months ago
Was that the one where he came out in support of SOPA, while simultaneously telling us he knew nothing about it?
[–]seagramsextradrygin 9 points10 points11 points 8 months ago
yup. Maybe the week before, I watched both episodes close together so I forget which it was.
[–]DeathIn6 1 point2 points3 points 8 months ago
When I saw that piece I instantly closed my media player, deleted all his stuff from my HDD and promised myself not to watch him ever again.
[–]guy_lovejoy 1 point2 points3 points 8 months ago
this is by no means a new quote :)
[–]DrSmoke 8 points9 points10 points 8 months ago
This is how we should run the entire planet.
Unite Earth, so we can colonize space, dammit.
[–]lollerkeet 6 points7 points8 points 8 months ago*
Let's wait until humans are worthy of the rest of the universe.
In galactic terms, I have this fantasy that getting rid of religion is like learning to walk.
[–]nonsensepoem 0 points1 point2 points 8 months ago
Agreed. For fuck's sake, I'm already extremely embarrassed by the people my government sends abroad.
[–]darwin2500 0 points1 point2 points 8 months ago
What is the peer-reviewed evidence in favor of colonizing space?
[–]scragar 2 points3 points4 points 8 months ago*
Sun will eventually die like all other stars, extinction level events are common on this planet.
Spreading out is a good idea for the species.
[–]HPDerpcraft 156 points157 points158 points 8 months ago
Why was this in r/libertarian?
[–]the8thbit 10 points11 points12 points 8 months ago
The praxeology subreddit demands evidence!
[–]wellactuallyhmm 5 points6 points7 points 8 months ago
As a frequent r/libetarian (and non-Austrian) I think this is hilarious.
[–]YodaTuna 134 points135 points136 points 8 months ago
Because of the huge amount of data showing that free market health insurance is better than single payer health insurance.
Oh wait...
[–]baronvoncarson 26 points27 points28 points 8 months ago
I really cannot understand what Americans have against public healthcare. Public healthcare (and a good education system that includes everyone; public schools, etc) is the corner stone of a decent society.
Public healthcare is amazingly great here in Australia. Some of the horror stories I hear about people without healthcare in America makes me wonder what the hell is going on there. Why you no have free public healthcare for those who cannot afford private!?
Madness.
[–]HobbledNinja 17 points18 points19 points 8 months ago
Another Aussie here. I cannot imagine the kind of stress and worry all you people in the US must have about health care.
No job and no insurance = you're fucked.
That constant nagging worry that if you fall off the rails for even a little bit your life could be ruined must take it's toll. As an ignorant outsider it kind of makes American society seem really harsh and unforgiving, almost brutal.
In the socialist paradise that is Australia even the poorest of the poor don't have to wory about what to do if they get sick, they know they can just show up at the nearest public hospital.
[–]Runningflame570 7 points8 points9 points 8 months ago*
It's NOT just if you lose your job. Private insurance doesn't cover 100% of any expensive procedure. Heck, it didn't cover 100% of routine check-ups in at least most cases until the government forced it to in the PPACA.
Healthcare in the United States is crap, even if it's slightly less crappy after the PPACA passed and that is why (along with our overall incredibly unhealthy practices), most bankruptcies are caused by healthcare expenses, and most people who go bankrupt due to this had health insurance.
[–]a_can_of_solo 1 point2 points3 points 8 months ago
in American you're often better off with out a job some times depending on the state, the people who get super fucked are people who have a little something, ie: some equity in a house and an all right job
[–]Forlarren 2 points3 points4 points 8 months ago
Go die in a ditch is a very common "solution" here.
[–]armand11 2 points3 points4 points 8 months ago
I think it's more that they have something against public, government-managed programs. It would be a great idea if people felt the government had a better track record.
That being said, I personally support the idea of public healthcare. A healthier society is better and I'm willing to pay for that. But over time public service operations seem to deteriorate for a number of reasons whereas private business has shown to thrive over time (albeit by bullshit, at times). Doesn't make it an easy call for most American voters, I think.
EDIT: Grammar
[–]Eat_Poop_And_Die 11 points12 points13 points 8 months ago
r/atheism is gonna love this.
Vermont has the best health care system in America. Mississippi is the worst.
Vermont is the biggest moocher (welfare/nanny states). Mississippi is the second biggest.
Vermont is the least religious state in the United States. Mississippi...I think you're catching on.
[–]Glucksberg 0 points1 point2 points 8 months ago
So it's not about economics, it's about religion?
[–]_l_ 0 points1 point2 points 8 months ago
Until seeing it so many times, I don't think I fully realized just how much I hate the name "Mississippi" for a state. It doesn't even seem 'merican.
[–]Seicair 51 points52 points53 points 8 months ago
Well, there's no data to show such a thing, because as far as I know, there is no free market healthcare in all the developed world.
[–]crankybadger 96 points97 points98 points 8 months ago
You can't have free-market healthcare. It's an essential resource and any smart profit-driven company would take advantage of that. If you take away regulation then the gulf between pay-in and pay-out grows wider. Then you regulate to try and keep the companies from running wild and your free-market isn't "free" any more by Libertarian standards.
Libertarian principles work well for the little things in life: The grocer, the gardener, the housekeeper. It completely breaks down when the barriers to entry in a sector are so damned high that they protect the status-quo and prevent any meaningful competition from emerging in the first place.
[–][deleted] 28 points29 points30 points 8 months ago
Why is food not "an essential resource" like medicine? You make it seem like the grocer is somehow less important....
[–]ThirdFloorGreg 64 points65 points66 points 8 months ago
Barrier to entry. The grocer is less important because he's easier to replace.
[–]crankybadger 19 points20 points21 points 8 months ago
Yeah. Anyone with a cardboard box full of vegetables is a grocer, and anyone with a handful of seeds and a patch of dirt is a farmer. It takes a lot more to replace a whole insurance company.
[–]ThirdFloorGreg 16 points17 points18 points 8 months ago
I think you may be understating the barriers to entry of those fields just a bit.
[–]crankybadger 23 points24 points25 points 8 months ago
Not really. I see street vendors that do that all the time, quite literally. An old lady and a box of Bok Choi is a grocer.
It's even more common in Africa and Asia where it's just the way business is done.
You can inspect the produce, make your decision then and there, pay cash. Your transaction is then complete. This is where the free-market excels.
Would you buy health insurance from some guy on a street corner?
[–]EternalArchon 7 points8 points9 points 8 months ago
The growing, planting, seeding and transferring of food is an immense and complicated economic transaction that requires an insane amount of education, time, planning, and capital. Huge amounts of money are transferred in futures markets on just sugar cane. Years of study and millions of dollars of research are done on the boxing, shipping, gene replacement, soil analysis, complex grafting techniques, fertilizer development, and a myriad other aspects of the industry down to the tinniest detail. But what do you "See?" You as a laymen receive a can of beans and think, "Wow this must be a simple industry!" only because competition strives to enable such transaction to be of absurd ease and of low price.
The medical industry on the other hand is wrought with hundreds of thousands of laws pertaining to everything from the shape of syringes to drug scheduling. Everything from drug creation, distribution, and medical education is strictly controlled to increase barriers to entry and constrict completion. It may well be the most complicated and regulated industry in America. I know doctors who have 4 or 5 assistants just to fill out bureaucratic paperwork.
Health insurance is important and useful for catastrophic care, but for the majority of doctor visits the use of a health insurance is crazy. You NEED food but do you have grocery insurance? Would I "buy health insurance from some guy on a street corner?" No, but that's not how vast majority of Americans receive it. Instead they get it through employers, another government mandate. This prevalent use of a separation between client and user is common yes and horrible, causing massive waste as consumers rarely bother to research prices. However, it is a not a symptom of the intrinsic nature of the industry. Instead it is primarily injected through government regulations!
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 8 months ago
Most insurance companies reinsure their pools with other companies to limit their exposure. Other then the financial regulations in place that raise the barrier for entry I could establish an insurance company from my apartment tomorrow by making use of the secondary reinsurance market to deal with risk.
The same is true for nearly all financial service industries you care to mention, the barrier for entry is created by regulation not by the nature of the industry itself.
[–]Bob3333 7 points8 points9 points 8 months ago
Regulations like actually requiring you to pay up on your customer's claims instead of taking their money and running. Stupid regulations - always stopping a brilliant money-making scheme.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 months ago
You understand that fraud would still be illegal in a libertarian society right? Your argument is nonsense.
[–]bantam83 1 point2 points3 points 8 months ago
Why would I buy insurance with a track record of not paying out? Insurance companies would go bankrupt if they were subject to laws of the market and didn't have government enforcing sector-wide regulations that only ever help the lobbying giant corporations. Government is in bed with big business and you know it. Why would you want these corporations to have government power - and don't say you don't, because all government power is bought in one way or another, so supporting government at all is supporting corporatism.
[–]whatevesbro 3 points4 points5 points 8 months ago
You got it.
[–]ManicParroT 4 points5 points6 points 8 months ago
Food is in fact heavily subsidized and regulated. Look at agricultural subsidies in the US and EU. Look at the FDA.
The notion that food is brought to you by a laissez faire free market is fundamentally incorrect.
[–]mimeismoney 2 points3 points4 points 8 months ago
But those subsidies create an economy where players like Monsanto and McDonalds are rewarded and healthy, non-contaminated produce and meat is hard to come by.
[–]ManicParroT 3 points4 points5 points 8 months ago
Are there problems and distortions in the world food market? Abso-fucking-lutely. But this misses the point of my argument, which is that the food market is not a free marketplace, as some people would have us believe.
You can try and argue that the food market would be better without government subsidies and regulations, but you can't hold it up as an example of the free market working to supply a basic good, because this is simply not the case.
[–]mimeismoney 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
I don't believe that the US food market is an example of a "free market" precisely because of those subsidies.
[–]justicia311 1 point2 points3 points 8 months ago
Ignoring the fact that there is not a single developed nation that does not heavily subsidise its agriculture sector.
US farms would be totally non-viable without government funding, so yes, food is treated as medicine.
You can't have free-market healthcare. It's an essential resource and any smart profit-driven company would take advantage of that.
Shhhhh! Some people don't understand what a rational, profit-maximizing firm does when it has a product with a perfectly inelastic demand curve.
[–]blackberrydoughnuts 1 point2 points3 points 8 months ago
It's not perfectly inelastic. Not all healthcare at least. For any health problem that is not immediately fatal there are multiple choices: you can do nothing, you can treat some of the symptoms, or (if applicable) you can choose from different treatment options.
For instance: poor vision? Lasik, contacts, glasses, or squinting. An infection? Take antibiotics or antivirals, take a painkiller, or wait for it to clear up. Missing limb? Bionic replacement or a wooden one.
People's choice will be influenced by cost. If something's expensive enough people will choose cheaper treatment options. The only exception is something like insulin where you literally need it or you'll die. Even then, someone might choose to die if the cost would put his family in deep debt.
Keep in mind not all libertarians want healthcare to be a for-profit business.
[–]HPDerpcraft 5 points6 points7 points 8 months ago
How would they......regulate...this
[–]wellactuallyhmm 1 point2 points3 points 8 months ago
Well, a libertarian perspective would be that everyone who used a local hospital would buy into it to some degree. Perhaps the hospital would sell "insurance".
Hospitals would operate as common ownership property, and be run democratically by the doctors and nurses that staffed them. Patients who bought into the hospital would also have a say in the hospitals affairs.
It wouldn't need to be regulated, actually. By involving everyone in the decision making process it's very difficult for a few people to entrench themselves in power positions and act in an anti-competitive fashion. The free market would actually work.
[–]DublinBen 2 points3 points4 points 8 months ago
That sounds exactly like socialism. I think all but a libertarian socialist (aka. social anarchist like Chomsky) would reject this solution for not being capitalist enough.
[–]wellactuallyhmm 4 points5 points6 points 8 months ago
Not very surprising considering I'm a libertarian socialist.
I'm not saying that I don't support capitalism where it works, but I think that most institutions would work better under (obviously voluntary) libertarian socialism.
[–]DublinBen 0 points1 point2 points 8 months ago
As a socialist I'm frankly surprised that so many libertarians can make the step to abandon government, yet not see collectivism as the obvious alternative. I don't know why so many insist on propping up the current economic order.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 months ago
Hi, there. I classify as libertarian I guess. Perhaps more extreme; I'd label myself a voluntarist. So long as it's voluntary it can be as non-profit as you like and I have no issue.
Do you think that there's anything voluntary about the capitalist system?
[–]Scaryclouds 1 point2 points3 points 8 months ago
Also there are several other factors that differentiate a health insure from a grocer or auto mechanic. For example one does not use health insurance until they are sick, so a person might not realize the quality of their health insurance until it is too late. Another would be it can be hard to predict what kind of coverage you need. A plan that gives excellent coverage to rare forms of cancer may cost more than one that doesn't, but people might think they will never get cancer and/or a rare cancer.
Compare this to a grocer, if a grocer doesn't have the food you want (or is below the quality you want) you can just go to a different grocer without necessarily putting money down and that other grocer will happily take your money. Also you can change grocers as needed, if you need certain specialty items you can just go to a specialty grocer that one time and still shop at your regular grocer.
It's an essential resource and any smart profit-driven company would take advantage of that
Only 12% of hospitals are for profit, 8% of ER's.
[–]crankybadger 0 points1 point2 points 8 months ago
How many insurance companies apart from Blue Cross are not for profit?
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 months ago
Very few, insurance is not the same as healthcare.
[–]neurosnap 2 points3 points4 points 8 months ago
It's an essential resource and any smart profit-driven company would take advantage of that.
Like the current system? So instead the system we have now is one that favors organizations like the AMA, AARP, and health insurance companies.
Government intervention leads to inefficiencies because it is extremely difficult to centrally plan a system like health care or any economy system. The goal should be to create a framework where individuals seek their own personal interests, which will ultimately benefit society as a whole. This is called the free market. The invisible hand.
[–]Scaryclouds 17 points18 points19 points 8 months ago
Government intervention leads to inefficiencies because it is extremely difficult to centrally plan a system like health care
So then why do countries with single payer universal healthcare systems have among the lowest expenditures in health care and still maintain a quality of care meeting or exceeding the US'? (while giving health care to everybody which the US doesn't)
any economy system
The US economy has been much more stable since the implementation of many modern regulatory system during the 20th century. During the 19th century boom/bust cycles were more frequent and more severe. Further can you point to a country which has less regulatory interference than the US, but has had greater economic prosperity? The countries with the highest standard of living, the Scandinavian countries, have much larger governments than our own.
EDIT:
Further, the '08 financial crisis was to a great degree the result of a lack of regulation (as well enforcement).
[–]jawston 1 point2 points3 points 8 months ago
I wish more people knew this.
[–]Scaryclouds 0 points1 point2 points 8 months ago
Yup, if it wasn't the sub-prime crisis that set off the cascade it would had been something else. It is like blaming the flood for a dam bursting.
[–]crankybadger 13 points14 points15 points 8 months ago
There you go slinging phrases like "centrally planned" and "invisible hand" like they're somehow going to prove a point.
If insurance could be sold without regulation, why would anyone pay out? Ever? Fear of lawsuits? They'd just sue you into oblivion with your own money and laugh in your face.
So obviously there needs to be some kind of rules, and where there's rules there's regulation.
You can't truly free-market this sort of thing because of the complicated long-term relationship between insurer and insuree. The contract they sign is only worth something if the insuree has a reasonable chance of it being enforced.
The invisible hand works very well when you have simple, practical transactions, money for goods or services rendered. It goes haywire when one of the parties is disproportionately more powerful than the other and even more so when the transaction involves something intangible.
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 8 months ago
I'm sorry but this is just pure ignorance of the history of insurance. Long before civil tort was common merchants would insure their cargo, if those companies chose not to pay out the merchants had pretty much no recourse (at the time to invest in or own a company required a title which made them untouchable).
They still did pay out, why you ask? If they didn't then the merchants went elsewhere and when they were asked about InsuranceY they would tell people how they never received a penny from their insured cargo which was lost.
[–]crankybadger 8 points9 points10 points 8 months ago
There was a time when a you could write on a piece of paper that you owed somebody money and that was something you could take to the bank.
Now check fraud is so rampant that I'm honestly surprised it's still used as a method for exchanging money.
This era is entirely different from that one. If you ripped off someone back then word would travel fast, likely faster than you could escape town on a carriage, and no matter where you went you'd be haunted by your reputation.
Now you can rob a million strangers with the click of a mouse and nobody will ever know who you are. A banker can rig a hundred thousand mortgages and nobody will even know their name.
The world is too huge to go back to what worked when enormous cities contained merely a million people.
[–]zedoriah 0 points1 point2 points 8 months ago
Check with your bank. It's possible that you could still do this. Back in highschool econ class somebody wrote a "check" on a 3 1/4" floppy for $10 and gave it to another student. The bank cashed it. Maybe '92?
But to get back on point, would you buy insurance from a company that didn't pay claims? Insurance existed long before the government was regulating it. They paid claims.
If you ripped off someone back then word would travel fast, likely faster than you could escape town on a carriage, and no matter where you went you'd be haunted by your reputation.
Maybe you haven't heard of this thing called "the internet" where word spreads WAY faster than it ever did before. If anything we're in a place where reputation is easier to check online. Things like Angie's list let you check the reputation of painters and maids, and you're telling me it'd be just too hard to check reputations on insurance companies?
[–]neurosnap 1 point2 points3 points 8 months ago
What if a free market system could optimize efficiency and bring down the price of health care? It could also theoretically prevent coercive monopolies from instantiating, because of competition.
What's your suggestion for a health care system? How is a government-funded program going to drive down cost and drive up efficiency? How can it avoid favoritism to special interest groups or inadvertently create coercive monopolies? Insurance is a terrible way to drive down cost because when people are covered, they want the best, regardless of price or need. This may be important for many medical treatments, but there are also cases where it might be a good idea to source one's options a little more frugally.
[–]crankybadger 2 points3 points4 points 8 months ago
It could also theoretically prevent coercive monopolies from instantiating, because of competition.
Why would a corporation want competition? It's bad for business. Look what Standard Oil did when they could undercut the competition until they went bust, then buy them up for pennies on the dollar. Standard Oil owned everything from extraction, production, transportation and retail. You couldn't compete. There was no room for competition.
How is a government-funded program going to drive down cost and drive up efficiency?
Look at any number of countries that do this and pay less per insured than the US does. The United Kingdom is just one example, as there are dozens of others. How about Medicare? It seems to be running quite well, especially considering it's' tasked with insuring the most expensive demographic group.
It drives down costs because a single-source provider is able to dictate prices. It drives up efficiency because there's only one organization to deal with, not dozens of individual ones that bicker and fight all the time.
It's estimated that as much as 30% of the US healthcare costs are attributable to paperwork and administration. Medicare estimates their costs at 5%.
You know that with out a government, companies, including insurance companies would have to maintain a costumer base in order to stay in business right? Not to mention the fact that there would undoubtably be companies that enforce contracts between two parties as an intermediate enforcer. There are thousands of ways fraud could be solved with out a government. It's like saying well if god doesn't do it then who will? Anarchy is similar to theism, deism, and atheism, in that first you believe there needs to be a certain type of government, then you believe there just needs to be a government, and finally you release you don't need a government.
[–]turnerz 1 point2 points3 points 8 months ago
Well I've never actually met someone who truly believes the existence of a government is a bad idea.
Well done, I'm kind of gobsmacked.
[–]zedoriah 7 points8 points9 points 8 months ago
You have /r/Anarchism, but they're just marxists who don't call their government a government (well, the "anarchists" in that subreddit anyway), and there's /r/Anarcho_Capitalism which are like libertarians on steroids.
[–]fireballbren 3 points4 points5 points 8 months ago
Ancap, because fuck the initiation of violence.
[–]Glucksberg 1 point2 points3 points 8 months ago
There's much more than those two subreddits:
/r/libertarianleft /r/libertarian /r/Economics /r/DebateaCommunist /r/circlejerk
In all seriousness, these are great resources.
[–]LockeWatts 1 point2 points3 points 8 months ago
Holy shit. You're fucking insane.
[–]turnerz 6 points7 points8 points 8 months ago
The only people who don't think america's health system isn't royally fucked up and incredibly unfair are some americans. No one in Australia, for example, would ever be listened to if they suggested health care should be as privatised as it is in America. It's disgusting what happens there. 30% of forclosures are due to medical expenses. WHAT THE FUCK.
The term is 'captive market'. Well said.
[–]WouldCommentAgain 0 points1 point2 points 8 months ago
I would also mention that the medical field is where the supplier has the easiest time creating more demand. On planet money they interviewed someone who had done a large survey. He said that towns and cities with too many doctors had a lot more tonsils removed etc, and this showed up a lot after the 70s when congress decided to increase the amount of spots in med school to "increases supply and lower demand". Even the most honest physician can easily spend extra resources if he doesn't have enough to do.
[–]Seicair -9 points-8 points-7 points 8 months ago
It completely breaks down when the barriers to entry in a sector are so damned high that they protect the status-quo and prevent any meaningful competition from emerging in the first place.
What I'm reading is "The government has created an industry with an incredibly high barrier to entry, so your libertarian ideas don't work anymore."
If the government removed the barriers to entry it has created, then perhaps libertarian ideas would work. We have no unequivocally proved way of knowing without actually trying it. It is possible that if we actually had a free market healthcare system, we would be worse off than we are now, but everything I know about economics suggests the opposite. Regardless, trying to say that socialist single-payer plans are clearly better than free market plans is not demonstrable, because there are no free market healthcare systems to compare single-payer systems to.
Post I made in another thread a couple weeks ago quoted below-
The government has heavily distorted the US healthcare market in a number of ways.
Medicare and Medicaid are 40-50% of all healthcare spending. And the government dictates what they pay for what procedures. Normal market forces do not work in that case.
Wage controls during WWII had companies scrambling to find other ways of attracting good employees. They settled on offering health insurance. This practice has continued to present day, and now people expect jobs to provide healthcare in an inefficient way. The government even incentivizes such behaviour now with the tax code, keeping that from changing.
Our insurance system is not really insurance so much as prepaid healthcare. I'd like to opt out of my employer's plan, take what they're spending in extra wages, and buy a true insurance policy. Deductible of $5K a year or something. Catastrophic coverage only. (Granted, this would be more feasible if the rest of the things were fixed.)
Government regulations force insurance to cover a number of things at no extra cost, driving up premiums for every customer. Port wine stain removal, for one example.
As NSView said before me, the AMA/government collusion also drives up costs. Limiting the amount of medical schools, and thus limiting the amount of people entering the medical profession each year, drives down supply, and normal market forces respond with an increase in price. Medical professionals in the US are paid significantly more than their counterparts in other countries because of this. (Twice, perhaps, can't remember for sure.)
Insurance covering everything drives up the cost of healthcare as well. When you can't just bill a patient, but need extra employees to deal with insurance companies, your cost of doing business goes up. Insurance as prepaid healthcare is inefficient because it introduces a middleman into the mix that needs money as well.
Conclusion- We have a system that doesn't resemble the free market very much at all because of numerous examples of government intervention.
I can provide sources for any part you wish, if you're curious/skeptical.
[–]ieattime20 6 points7 points8 points 8 months ago
If the government removed the barriers to entry it has created, then perhaps libertarian ideas would work.
And sometimes those "barriers to entry" are "preventative measures against fraud and suit and damages" and "libertarian ideal" is "a nightmare".
The only way for it to ever be cheap to produce nuclear power, for instance, is if all safety measures are thrown to the wind. It's simply not possible for several water companies to all lay line to everyone's house to "compete". Natural barriers to entry exist, then there are unnatural but sane barriers to entry.
[–]DashingLeech 8 points9 points10 points 8 months ago
Why do libertarians automatically assign anything bad straight to the government? In a purely private, competitive, unregulated market, the first company to get a little ahead has every incentive in to invest in keeping their position by keeping out the competition, be it lying, cheating, stealing, sabotage, monopolistic behaviour, cross-market contamination, supply chain exclusion, and on and on. There are a million ways to use size and money to keep out the competition, creating a huge barrier to entry.
This is how competition works. It's how alpha males often keep their position; banish the other males and kill their babies. Reduce future competition. It's the way private rulers (warlords, dictators, monarchies) have kept their position throughout history, and why democracies offer improvement. Democratic governments, when working for the people and not private interests, can set up and enforce common rules (i.e., regulations) to ensure fair competition continues to exist, and winning in a market means actually providing more valuable goods and services to consumers, not just being better at suppressing competition. Unregulated markets are no more free than are lawless counties.
So please, can you explain to me why libertarian always insert "because of government” into every bad thing that comes along. You just did that above, with zero justification. I get that same thing every conversation, so much so I'm convinced libertarianism is a faith-based religion. Can you change my mind?
[–]Hamuel 5 points6 points7 points 8 months ago
Let me start with your first post;
Now you do understand that health insurance companies like to package together people in order to reduce the risk and thus reduce the cost? Now think about who gets Medicare and Medicaid; those that need it. A vast majority of what you spend on healthcare is leading up to your death. Imagine if we expanded that risk pool out to healthy young people.
The rest of your argument breaks down after this because you explain how fucked up the current system is; then come to the conclusion that not creating a giant risk pool to reduce the cost and ensure proper care is the wrong idea, and we should try hard with the capitalist one.
You really need to learn how to pick your battles. No one is right 100% of the time.
[–]sourceoritsbullshit 3 points4 points5 points 8 months ago
Libertarian free market theory demands perfect or near perfect information to effectively self regulate.
This is paradoxical since without regulation there is no incentive for industry to provide or even collect that information, which would come at a tremendous cost.
This is an obvious and fundamental flaw in the theory and I've never seen a libertarian agrument that can answer it.
This problem is only intensified in the health sector, where people don't always have the luxury of researching the competition and in emergency/chronic issues are forced to use whichever hospital/facility is closest.
Aside from that obvious issue, there are a ton more that are similar and compound the potential for exploitation of the consumer by the provider.
The government doesn't enact health industry legislation for fun or to interrupt the free market, it does it because there is a fundamental imbalance in the provider / consumer relationship in the health industry.
That imbalance puts the consumer at a constant disadvantage, the providers have all the chips and no need to play fair.
This is simply not compatible with free market theory.
[–]BolshevikMuppet 7 points8 points9 points 8 months ago
And yet all the data shows the the closer to a free market in healthcare a country is (say, America), the less cost-effective and less effective it is compared to single-payer healthcare (say, the U.K).
The libertarian argument of "it didn't work because you didn't do enough of what we wanted" is simply ridiculous.
[–]h0ncho 1 point2 points3 points 8 months ago
[citation.....]
[–]BolshevikMuppet 1 point2 points3 points 8 months ago
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10375877
[–]HPDerpcraft 3 points4 points5 points 8 months ago
There's no data to prove god doesn't exist! Check mate! Same logic. Its likely it wouldn't work, given the best available data.
[–]WouldCommentAgain 1 point2 points3 points 8 months ago
Planet Money did a podcast on health insurance, and they said that basically anything would be better than employer-tied health insurance. For one thing it decreases job flexibility, which is supposed to be one of the strong points of the US job market.
[–]NeilNeilOrangePeel 0 points1 point2 points 8 months ago
Libertarian: Come on guys it's not far now!
Normal Person: FFS you've been saying that for thirty years, but every time we deregulate and privatise things it always seems to get more exploitative, more wasteful, more expensive and generally shittier.
Libertarian: Yeah, but that's because we're not there yet. Trust me it'll be fantastic once we're there.
Normal Person: Damnit, however far we go you always point at the next hill and say it's over there. Have you ever actually been to Free-Marketopia?
Libertarian: Well.. no. But I've read some really great books about it by Rand and Hayek and others.
Normal Person: I dunno man, it's starting to sound a lot like Liberia.
Libertarian: It's not Liberia!
[–]fireballbren 1 point2 points3 points 8 months ago
Give an example of where in the last 30 years a market was "deregulated". If you manage to find one then point out how it ended up badly?
[–]NeilNeilOrangePeel 1 point2 points3 points 8 months ago
Oh I dunno, what about the repeal of the Glass-Steagall banking regulations? That little bit of deregulation ended up giving us a global financial crisis.. oops!
[–]fireballbren 0 points1 point2 points 8 months ago
Funny you say that because repealing Glass-Steagall actually put commercial investment bank under the protection of the FDIC which made them not liable for bad investments with peoples's money. So yes it did help lead to the financial crisis, but it only changed the regulations it did not get rid of them.
[–]auto0880 0 points1 point2 points 8 months ago
gold standard abolished see how that worked out for the world
[–]KarmaPointsPlease 7 points8 points9 points 8 months ago
More importantly, why is it in /r/atheism now?
[–]Scaryclouds 23 points24 points25 points 8 months ago
My thoughts exactly.
[–]TaylorHamAndJersey 1 point2 points3 points 8 months ago
Read it as r/librarian. Think the pic would work there too
[–]TheChosenOne570 2 points3 points4 points 8 months ago
Because those that look to government to solve all of their problems are using the same flawed logic as those that look to religion.
shifting the burden of proof: "explain why government shouldn't do that." You are the one advocating the use of force on others, you explain why it is needed.
false dichotomy: "if government doesn't provide welfare/social security/health care to its citizens, people will die in the streets."
appeal to emotion: "How many troops died for your freedom?" "Do you really want children searching the internet and finding porn?" "Those poor families that struggle to make ends meet" None of these arguments mean anything once you strip away their emotional appeals.
appeal to popularity: "most people say the top 1% need to pay more taxes." As long as more than half the people think its okay, its okay, eh? What iIf more than half the population thought Obama was born in a foreign country, does that mean he was? No. Either you are right or you are wrong and no matter how many people agree with you that doesn't change.
Then, there's the variation on Euthyphro's dilemma: Are laws good because they are commanded by the government; or, does the government make laws because those laws are good? And, how does your answer address things like slavery, jim crow laws, indefinite detention, or even drug laws?
Obviously, these examples don't address all the logical fallacies associated with government worshippers... nor do all government worshippers succumb to all these logical fallacies. However, as a Libertarian, I feel if you are going to make any claim over anyone else (and that's what laws and taxation are), you need to demonstrate why you are entitled to such a claim and why you are more entitled to tell them how to live their lives than they are entitled to live them.
[–]HolyGatoradeBatman 6 points7 points8 points 8 months ago
Because Libertarians do believe in fact based change. We just disagree on where reliable facts come from, which is to be expected since politics and economics certainly aren't hard sciences. I think the less popular ideological groups (atheists, libertarians, progressives) should stop marginalizing ourselves and focus on common beliefs, like what's on OP's sign. Status quo groups want to divide and conquer, and we do half the work for them.
[–]crankybadger 43 points44 points45 points 8 months ago
A "libertarian" may believe in fact-based policies and change, but hell if I've ever found a "Libertarian" who does. They're as extreme in their positions as any other in the extreme corners of the political spectrum. They're driven by ideology, principle, not facts.
You want to come together? It's in the boring, mushy middle. People need identity so they hang on the edges with their cliques and jeer.
[–]weewolf 17 points18 points19 points 8 months ago
There is nothing inherently unlibertarian of any liberal program, as long as participation of said program is made voluntary.
[–]Forlarren 4 points5 points6 points 8 months ago
You can have all the liberal programs you want as long as they don't cost anything.
[–]weewolf 1 point2 points3 points 8 months ago
They can cost anything you like, a million dollars a head if you so wish. As long as you don't force people to join the program.
[–]Forlarren 0 points1 point2 points 8 months ago
Deal, just say off our roads then.
[–]weewolf 0 points1 point2 points 8 months ago
If people chosen not to fund federal highways, and you want to go to the trouble of verifying valid users, sure go ahead.
[–]Houshalter 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
Don't tell me how to live my life or take my property, and I'll be happy to stay off "your" roads. Until then it's not a deal.
[–]sourceoritsbullshit 7 points8 points9 points 8 months ago
This comment could literally be used as an example in the definition of an argument to moderation.
The middle ground of two extremes is not any less idiotic than the extremes themselves, this is a middle ground fallacy and complete bullshit.
[–]Uberhatkat 20 points21 points22 points 8 months ago
No kidding. the libertarians I've run into in life and via electron stream seem to run as quickly as they can from common ground to the kind of ground that smokes and melts their shoes.
People need identity so they hang on the edges with their cliques and jeer.
Where's Statler and Waldorf when you need them?
[–]dr_gonzo 0 points1 point2 points 8 months ago
They're driven by ideology, principle, not facts.
Many people assume that all libertarians are driven by deontological idealogy. And no doubt, some are. But many of libertarians are consequentialists: the drug war is deplorable simply because it's ineffective. Iraq & Afghanistan were bad ideas because they weren't in our national interests. Trade and immigration have a demonstrated track record of improving our economy, so we need less regulation on both. And so on.
[–]crankybadger 5 points6 points7 points 8 months ago
I am trying to distinguish between little-L and big-L here, where in general terms a "libertarian" is someone who believes in de-regulating and downsizing the government as much as you can without negatively impacting society.
A big-L Libertarian tens to be the kind that would abolish all regulation, no matter the reasoning behind having it, and denies that this line of thinking could ever go wrong. They're more religious than pragmatic.
Ending the drug war is something that's to do with social behavior, and on that many political stripes agree that it's a good idea.
[–]Jack_Vermicelli 7 points8 points9 points 8 months ago
Not necessarily- you're drawing a false distinction. The capitalization simply denotes the political party, rather than the political philosophy (which the majority of the party members espouse).
[–]dr_gonzo 2 points3 points4 points 8 months ago
Someone else already pointed it out, but the difference between "big-L" and "little-L" libertarian is simply a distinction between a member of the actual Libertarian party, and one who believes in the libertarian perspective.
The distinction you're describing is between consequentialist libertarians and deontological libertarians (e.g, natural rights theory libertarians.) If you're a libertarian, you can be both, or either, but identifying as a libertarian doesn't automatically mean you are a natural rights-at-all-costs zealot.
In any case, evidence-based change is very much a cornerstone of consequentialist libertarianism... which is why this post was very popular on /r/libertarian.
[–]BasicEcon101 0 points1 point2 points 8 months ago
Bull fucking shit.
I used to post at r/libertarian. I've been flamed more time than I care to count for just quoting Milton Friedman.
Those fucking quacks are too busy sucking Rands dick and taking it from Rothbard up the ass to know a fucking "fact" when they see it.
Is climate change still a liberal fantasy over there?
Maybe you got flamed because you were calling people "fucking quacks" or accusing them of "sucking Rands dick and taking it from Rothbard up the ass".
And sure, there's people there who buy into climate denialisim. There's certainly no consensus of people on that, and plenty who believe in climate science (I'm one of them.)
[–]BasicEcon101 1 point2 points3 points 8 months ago
If someone ignores evidence, they are a quack. You're in r/atheism hawking the economic equivalent of creationism.
Listen, you can pretend like r/libertarian welcomes moderates and isn't a bowl of fucking crazy, but the only ones you have a slight chance of convincing are people who have never been there.
Me thinks you're pretending and trying to run defense.
I'm not "hawking" anything. Certainly not "economic creationism" whatever the fuck that means.
On balance I find people on /r/libertarian to be reasonable and willing to discuss issues and policies based on evidence. Certainly there's crazy people, as there are here, on /r/politics, or other subreddits. You're free to disagree, but given the way you've couched your arguments here with hyperbole and insult, I think the problem with your disagreements with folks there might be you, not the entire subreddit.
[–]Ameisen -1 points0 points1 point 8 months ago
Precisely. I've found that Libertarian principles are derived from ideology and not pragmatism - the reverse comes from Socialist (Social Democratic, Progressive) principles, which are derived from pragmatic thought.
Where Libertarian policies are driven by individualism and freedom, Socialist policies should be driven by consensus and avoiding conflict, at least by definition, but this is not often the case.
Both can be taken to absurdist extremes: "Nobody tells me what to do!" vs. "Nobody can do anything we don't all agree on."
Libertarian socialism is the middle ground here actually.
[–]DistractedScholar 1 point2 points3 points 8 months ago
That's an oxymoron.
[–]wellactuallyhmm 2 points3 points4 points 8 months ago
Not really. I'd recommend you read more about libertarian ideas. Here's a nice summary from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
What?
On the economics side its driven by numerous economists over the span of several hundred years (from Adam Smith up) siting down and looking at ways to improve upon what is there already, project behavior of actors in the market and relate controls back to familiar structures in common law. It has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with rationality.
On the social side its driven by the same reason why social democrats deplore the government restricting social liberty, it doesn't work and it goes against the idea that the government should protect us.
Yes we talk about natural rights but that is simply so we can relate our policies back to first principles, it has nothing to do with the reams of supporting evidence we have for those policies.
[–]BetYouCanNotTellMe 17 points18 points19 points 8 months ago
Well then perhaps r/Libertarians should stop supporting candidates who think that states having the power to establish religion is a freedom enhancer. Believe I am wrong? Section 3 and Section 7 of the We The People act support my statements.
Just look at how their brand of "economics" looks upon thinks like facts and the scientific method - it isn't pretty.
[–]Phant0mX 6 points7 points8 points 8 months ago
I just looked that up and you are completely right What the fuck!?! How the fuck does Ron Paul have any sway over a decent chunk of redditors when he repeatedly has sponsored a bill that would stop the supreme court from hearing cases about the right to privacy let alone religion? How the fuck can he be described as "one of the nation’s foremost defenders of our privacy" on his website? I don't normally swear so often in my written communication, but reading this thing seriously blows my mind and has me really pissed the hell off.
[–]cattimiptwax 3 points4 points5 points 8 months ago
Sad, isn't it? It's really just a personality cult.
[–]BetYouCanNotTellMe 4 points5 points6 points 8 months ago
The war on religion by ron paul - http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html is good too.
As is http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul259.html - last paragraph where he says the Bill of Rights doesn't restrict the states.
As to why - they don't really know what he stand for and his r/Libertarian supporters go to great lengths to hide the more interesting things he believes.
Keep in mind this about Ron Paul - he feels that the feds should have zero power while the states should have power unlimited by nothing more than what they can vote themselves. In his world you have no rights unless your state allows you to have them.
[–]Runningflame570 2 points3 points4 points 8 months ago
If we only had the Bill of Rights then he would be correct, but unfortunately for him (and fortunately for tens of millions of black people in the US) we also have the 14th amendment, which happens to include the due process clause.
Not EVERY amendment in the Bill of Rights applies to the state, but almost all of them do.
[–]erchamion 4 points5 points6 points 8 months ago
Paul also has weird ideas on the 14th. He doesn't agree with over 120 years of jurisprudence that say that the 14th incorporates most of the first 10 into state constitutions.
[–]BetYouCanNotTellMe 1 point2 points3 points 8 months ago
The next president will appoint USSC justices...
[–]PopeFool 7 points8 points9 points 8 months ago
Oh, you mean the Austrian School? It's the intelligent design of economic theory.
Do serious Libertarians actually support Ron Paul? I thought it was clear he's an idiot with no understanding of economics.
[–]auto0880 1 point2 points3 points 8 months ago
I know it's so much better working for a Republican or Democrat.
What kind of facts are they asking for? I don't know if its just a statement or you have something to base it on.
[–]robreim 1 point2 points3 points 8 months ago
Because Libertarians do believe in fact based change. We just disagree on where reliable facts come from, which is to be expected since politics and economics certainly aren't hard sciences.
Then what you're describing is opinions rather than facts. Facts are things which are true. Claiming things as facts requires first proving their truth. If economists and polititians can't come to firm, consistent conclusions without contradicting any reliable evidence they have, then they aren't talking in terms of facts.
[–]FordPrefectsDong 3 points4 points5 points 8 months ago
Counterpoint: I have yet to see a Libertarian governing style where public science funding (as opposed to for-profit, and therefore biased, funding) is embraced. So really, the irony is that a libertarian can ask for "fact based change" and "peer review" in principle, but when it comes down to brass tacks, they won't pony up the dough to do it.
Tl;dr: science and libertarianism are immiscible, you might say.
[–]PopeFool 1 point2 points3 points 8 months ago
We just disagree on where reliable facts come from
So we should accept axiomatic assumptions about human behavior over quantitative analysis? Because from everything I understand about libertarians, that's how they roll.
So, where is your empirical evidence that:
The free market exists
That the free market "solutions" to problems (like environmental regulation) would give better results
[–]fatbunyip 1 point2 points3 points 8 months ago
It simply follows from the expected behaviour of all parties having all the information and acting rationally in all situations. What more proof do you need?
Oh... you mean evidence not based on naive assumptions and wishful thinking?
[–]shakin -2 points-1 points0 points 8 months ago
Everybody believes in fact-based change and they will all argue to the death over whose facts are correct.
[–]yesukai 1 point2 points3 points 8 months ago
Because some of the very people who go for reason-based thinking don't base their politics/political systems on other nebulous faith based systems that emphasize one person's idea of the moral and good world to force on all others? Christians push "Jesus saves!", non-libertarians push "the government saves!" There is a reason Christians should be socialists.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 8 months ago
Why is this in r/atheism?
[–]mdraper 9 points10 points11 points 8 months ago
Because one of the main things we tend to get upset about is policy that reflects fantasy instead of reality.
[–]Noneofus 0 points1 point2 points 8 months ago
I came here to say this, but I'm happier to see someone else already did.
[–]greybyte 38 points39 points40 points 8 months ago
Evidence based change? Pfft. Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.
[–]wphockey 8 points9 points10 points 8 months ago
I think you mean statistics.
[–]wphockey 4 points5 points6 points 8 months ago
Thought I'd add a favorite quote of mine: "Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable." - Mark Twain (sorry for not misattributing it, I know how you guys like that...)
[–]sourceoritsbullshit 2 points3 points4 points 8 months ago
Forfty percent of all people know that
[–]Ragnalypse 9 points10 points11 points 8 months ago
Fact - Bears Beats... Battlestar Galactica
[–]Mollrow 1 point2 points3 points 8 months ago
NO >:[
[–]Krastain 0 points1 point2 points 8 months ago
Bear Grylls might. Or perhaps Skyrim bears.
[–]Synor 0 points1 point2 points 8 months ago
You can't. Facts are neither true or false. Something is either a fact, or it is not.
[–]mramypond 7 points8 points9 points 8 months ago
If people did that, there would be no libertarians. Their vision of the "free market" is just as superstitious as religions as it is based more on faith than reality.
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 8 months ago
What do we want? Fry's Dog! When do we want it? Fry's Dog!
[–]nowhathappenedwas 24 points25 points26 points 8 months ago
Conservative: Tax cuts for job creators will save the economy and increase revenue!
Liberal: Tax cuts for the rich will plunge us further into debt and won't do shit to create jobs!
Libertarian: Who gives a shit what the consequences are? Taxes are slavery!
[–]weewolf 5 points6 points7 points 8 months ago
Libertarian: Who gives a shit what the consequences are? Taxes are force and or violence!
FIFY.
plenty of places you can go and avoid this force and violence
if its so bad
They just happen to not be as nice as this place.
[–]darwin2500 2 points3 points4 points 8 months ago
Yep, just one more brand of idealogue.
[–]nicksauce 30 points31 points32 points 8 months ago
Because the Austrian economics that they love over in /libertarian relies heavily on evidence based results and peer review. Oh wait, it inherently rejects empirical evidence.
[–]bantam83 2 points3 points4 points 8 months ago
QJAE is peer-reviewed, and also, not all libertarians are Austrians. There are many Chicago and Public Choice folks in the libertarian movement, in addition to neoclassicals who generally recognize things like price controls (rent control, minimum wage, etc) are incredibly counterproductive policies.
[–]theparadox1083 1 point2 points3 points 8 months ago
From the basic descriptions of "Austrian" and "Neo-Classical" economics I recall them being fairly similar. In fact, I recall "neo-classical" being in the description of Austrian economics.
They're a bit different. The "neoclassical" label just refers to economic thinking after the marginal revolution, as a building-upon of the ideas of classical economists (such as Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, Say, Mill, etc.) It can apply to the Austrian, Chicago, and London schools, as well as other conventional and heterodox schools of thought. Neoclassical economics merged with Keynesian economics to create mainstream economics, the form you most often see today.
[–]lollerkeet 10 points11 points12 points 8 months ago
They have a lot of very well thought out theory, and are simply looking for some evidence to support it.
[–]dezmodium 5 points6 points7 points 8 months ago
Obviously you've never read the theory. I've been in a few debates here on reddit with these people and they love to link me videos and articles ad nauseum. I'll be damned if each isn't more ludicrous than the next.
[–]BasicEcon101 3 points4 points5 points 8 months ago
I can sum up every whackjob libertarian argument I have been in:
This aspect of our current government is evil, therefore my unproven ideology is right.
The extreme libertarians are the creationists of the economics world.
[–]Hamuel 0 points1 point2 points 8 months ago
Free Market of the Gaps.
[–]kylesaisgone -2 points-1 points0 points 8 months ago
Can't peer review mathematic models that try and generalize human behavior. The axiomatic nature of praxeology make far more sense than econometrics. Hell, even behavioral economics make more sense than the mathematics based economics.
I don't think most people would disagree with the axioms of Austrian economics and praxeology if they actually took the time to learn and understand them.
[–]BolshevikMuppet 3 points4 points5 points 8 months ago
Anything that cannot be falsified is inherently unscientific. That's stuff we learn in middle school.
[–]Runningflame570 3 points4 points5 points 8 months ago
No, if you aren't using math to measure the performance of a hugely complicated system which extensively uses mathematics in order to expedite a huge variety of functions, then you just aren't trying or you're making crap up.
[–]wrapped-in-silver 0 points1 point2 points 8 months ago
What makes it non-mathematics-based? I don't even understand what that means except fairy tales and their ilk.
This needs to be here.
[–]idioma[] 32 points33 points34 points 8 months ago
Because Libertarians...
You know, I was actually going to say something insulting, but so long as clowns like Ron Paul represent the ideology, there is nothing more damning I could say than what that man does. Party on, you free market douchebags!
[–]Nackles 25 points26 points27 points 8 months ago
pops corn and waits for RP fans to show up and get all angry-like
[–]idioma[] 18 points19 points20 points 8 months ago
For me it is like fishing. I love these guys.
[–]moralnihilist 17 points18 points19 points 8 months ago
Libertarians believe in the individual right to have sex with anyone they wish. Ron Paul thinks the states should be allowed to tell you who you can and can't have sex with.
Libertarians believe in the individual right to put whatever the hell you want inside your body, provided it doesn't harm anyone else. Ron Paul supports anti-drug laws at the state level.
Libertarians believe in the individual right to express yourself however you wish, including burning an American flag. Ron Paul wants flag-burning banned at the state level.
Libertarians believe in the individual right of women to choose if they want to carry an embryo to term or not. Ron Paul has repeatedly introduced legislation that bans abortion at the federal level.
So tell me, HOW exactly is Ron Paul a Libertarian again?
[–]idioma[] 16 points17 points18 points 8 months ago
He is not. He is a Republican.
Did you know that one of the most lucrative roles at a rodeo is the clown? See, the typical libertarian is extremely passionate about reforming society in order to prove that their "looks good on paper" ideology could work in real life. So Clowns like Ron Paul come along, and gets a whole bunch of libertarians excited about moving, inch by inch, closer to their dream:
'Sure, he's a Republican, but he wants to end the wars and return the country to the gold standard! He wants to get rid of wasteful government spending! He'll veto any bill that raises taxes!'
So, in typical raging idealistic bull fashion, libertarians rush towards Ron Paul, who will duck out before gaining any national traction, and the blue-balls frustration leaves libertarians with two remaining political parties to choose from... and they'll mostly vote Republican.
Mission accomplished. Many libertarians justify this last minute relief act as a temporary setback. They can justify their vote for Republicans because they feel that it ultimately will lead to lower taxes and a smaller government. They can tell all their friends who they really wanted to vote for was someone like Ron Paul, so it is okay that they voted instead for John McCain.
How many hot-blooded libertarians are going to vote for Obama after Ron Paul is dropped from the Republican primaries? Not many. The rest will vote for whoever the Republicans nominate and you fucking know it.
If you went to a shopping mall and asked 100 registered voters to name one influential and outspoken libertarian, how many do you think would say "Ron Paul"?
[–]moralnihilist 6 points7 points8 points 8 months ago
Good point. I think most people's response would be "What's a libertarian?"
[–]idioma[] 0 points1 point2 points 8 months ago
At least one would probably say Ron Swanson.
[–]atheist_trollno1 0 points1 point2 points 8 months ago
He's been described more as an Anti-Federalist than a Libertarian.
[–]robreim 4 points5 points6 points 8 months ago
I've often thought it should be a constitutional requirement that the government must adhere to whatever the scientific consensus is in a field they're working with. So for example, evolution would be mandated over creationism. Government officials would be required to distance themselves from things such as anti-vaccination or pro-homeotherapy. Government officials would not be permitted to make claims about the war on drugs which contradicts scientific evidence and so forth.
Popular opinion should not always be the highest priority. Scientific opinion, at the very least, should always be capable of trumping it. Polititians would then also be able to protect themselves from public opinion turning on them. It's constitutionally out of their hands, so they wouldn't be blamable for going against the majority. The public would have to instead fund research disproving the scientific consensus.
[–]ENRICOs 5 points6 points7 points 8 months ago
Imagine that. Situational skeptics who've fallen for counting the hit and ignoring the misses, demanding peer review.
What a sick joke.
In other news, /r/libertarian is hands down the very best unintentional comedy site on all of reddit. The jokes just never end.
[–]beermyvalentine 2 points3 points4 points 8 months ago
This was my FB picture for months.
[–]a-ninja-near 14 points15 points16 points 8 months ago
Mine too, but a different shot, where you could see my face and not just my hand.
[–]cynognathus 7 points8 points9 points 8 months ago
Rally to Restore Sanity?
[–]brainguy 2 points3 points4 points 8 months ago
I'm surprised the only reference to the source (which is correct) is you and nobody's even curious in the thread. I saw the photo and came here to upvote whoever gave the correct source in the comments and it was only you. So good job!
[–]cynognathus 2 points3 points4 points 8 months ago
I was there and saw the sign then, along with most of the Arrested Development signs that are constantly reposted. So, thanks!
I'm curious as to whether a-ninja-near is actually the person who made that sign.
[–]a-ninja-near 13 points14 points15 points 8 months ago
I am.
http://imgur.com/a/AlAEC is a picture of me with the sign and one tonight.
[–]cynognathus 3 points4 points5 points 8 months ago
That is fantastic.
[–]plasticTron 3 points4 points5 points 8 months ago
1/something/12
nice.
[–]freezerburn666 2 points3 points4 points 8 months ago
must be r/bureaucratarian ... hmm
[–]atanok 1 point2 points3 points 8 months ago
The "after peer review" is very, very important.
Or else you'll end up a lot of death by Monsanto.
[–]Purple_Shade 0 points1 point2 points 8 months ago
Well, by starvation, if nothing else. The way they want to claim, that they have ownership of all foods mixed with their stupid ceeds, at the same time as be careless with them... Makes me sick.
[–]atanok 0 points1 point2 points 8 months ago
Well, I was talking about the way they corrupted the political and regulative process into allowing them to commercialize products that they themselves found harmful in internal studies. Studies which were tweaked in favor of their interest before release and were not subject to the scrutiny of peer review.
Their recent moves to own ALL THE NATURE may cause serious economical problems, but it's not as severe as being a damned public health hazard.
[–]tothemooninaballoon -2 points-1 points0 points 8 months ago
WHAT THE FUCK IS LIBERTARIAN SHIT DOING HERE? HAS THE PAULTARDS GOT IN YOUR MINDS?
When you look at facts look at them from a big picture, there is something wrong, lets uncover what we get all the facts that we can, forget the ones that are out there concentrate on the achievable ones.
Down deep there is something wrong with this country and politics, everyone see's it and no one is doing anything about it, because there are only two ways of thinking republican and democrat.
Wake up and unite on the things that you know that can be proven as facts. NOT EVERYTHING IS FICTION.
[–]tattertech 0 points1 point2 points 8 months ago
Ha, I remember seeing that sign at the rally.
It was also here
[–]Boarder22345 0 points1 point2 points 8 months ago
But that takes honest debate and rational thinking. Sounds booooring.
[–]llehsadam 0 points1 point2 points 8 months ago
I'm kind of late on this post, but...
Everyone wants evidence-based change that has a transparent process. We'll never get it because it's inefficient. What exactly do they want? Peer review of actions by the executive branch or by Congress? The mechanisms for this are in place (Checks and Balances), but we voted for pigs as our leaders.
Congress neutered itself the ability to peer review the president becaus we, my dearies, voted for dysenteric representatives. We were scared, nobody blames us, but now don't complain that you have to deal with this shit.
The president has turned into the nanny, we gave him all this power because we voted for a fear-driven Congress. Seriously, the president is status quo, very well suited for this shitty world. We need to change Congress, before they sign their shitty powers away to our constipated president.
[–]Nackles 0 points1 point2 points 8 months ago
Perhaps I'm a pessimist, but I think this country is unsaveable. We would have to break down and form a new country (or a bunch of new countries) from scratch. And until a certain group of people stop catching the vapors every time someone hints at the USA maybe not being perfect, that's impossible.
[–]Merendino 0 points1 point2 points 8 months ago
Better spatial awareness!
When we make signs where our letters trail off slowly!
[–]MattSchm 1 point2 points3 points 8 months ago
Why would libertarians be interested in evidence?
[–]voodoomindslave 0 points1 point2 points 8 months ago
Fry's Dog!
[–]malimbar04 0 points1 point2 points 8 months ago
Now this is worthy of an upvote or two thousand.
Agreed, it's damn near fappable (or 'Shickable'? as the case may be)
all it takes is a username and password
create account
is it really that easy? only one way to find out...
already have an account and just want to login?
login
[–]seagramsextradrygin 37 points38 points39 points ago
[–][deleted] 20 points21 points22 points ago
[–]seagramsextradrygin 9 points10 points11 points ago
[–]DeathIn6 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]guy_lovejoy 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]DrSmoke 8 points9 points10 points ago
[–]lollerkeet 6 points7 points8 points ago*
[–]nonsensepoem 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]darwin2500 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]scragar 2 points3 points4 points ago*
[–]HPDerpcraft 156 points157 points158 points ago
[–]the8thbit 10 points11 points12 points ago
[–]wellactuallyhmm 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]YodaTuna 134 points135 points136 points ago
[–]baronvoncarson 26 points27 points28 points ago
[–]HobbledNinja 17 points18 points19 points ago
[–]Runningflame570 7 points8 points9 points ago*
[–]a_can_of_solo 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Forlarren 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]armand11 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Eat_Poop_And_Die 11 points12 points13 points ago
[–]Glucksberg 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]_l_ 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Seicair 51 points52 points53 points ago
[–]crankybadger 96 points97 points98 points ago
[–][deleted] 28 points29 points30 points ago
[–]ThirdFloorGreg 64 points65 points66 points ago
[–]crankybadger 19 points20 points21 points ago
[–]ThirdFloorGreg 16 points17 points18 points ago
[–]crankybadger 23 points24 points25 points ago
[–]EternalArchon 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]Bob3333 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]bantam83 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]whatevesbro 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]ManicParroT 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]mimeismoney 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]ManicParroT 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]mimeismoney 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]justicia311 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Bob3333 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–]blackberrydoughnuts 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]wellactuallyhmm 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]HPDerpcraft 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]wellactuallyhmm 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]DublinBen 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]wellactuallyhmm 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]DublinBen 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]DublinBen 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Scaryclouds 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]crankybadger 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]neurosnap 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Scaryclouds 17 points18 points19 points ago
[–]jawston 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Scaryclouds 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]crankybadger 13 points14 points15 points ago
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]crankybadger 8 points9 points10 points ago
[–]zedoriah 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]neurosnap 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]crankybadger 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]turnerz 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]zedoriah 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–]fireballbren 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]Glucksberg 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]LockeWatts 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]turnerz 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]darwin2500 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]WouldCommentAgain 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]BolshevikMuppet 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–]h0ncho 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]BolshevikMuppet 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]HPDerpcraft 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]WouldCommentAgain 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]NeilNeilOrangePeel 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]fireballbren 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]NeilNeilOrangePeel 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]fireballbren 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]auto0880 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]KarmaPointsPlease 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–]Scaryclouds 23 points24 points25 points ago
[–]TaylorHamAndJersey 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]TheChosenOne570 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]HolyGatoradeBatman 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]crankybadger 43 points44 points45 points ago
[–]weewolf 17 points18 points19 points ago
[–]Forlarren 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]weewolf 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Forlarren 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]weewolf 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Houshalter 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]sourceoritsbullshit 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–]Uberhatkat 20 points21 points22 points ago
[–]Glucksberg 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]dr_gonzo 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]crankybadger 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]Jack_Vermicelli 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–]dr_gonzo 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]BasicEcon101 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]dr_gonzo 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]BasicEcon101 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]dr_gonzo 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Ameisen -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]crankybadger 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]wellactuallyhmm 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]DistractedScholar 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]wellactuallyhmm 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]BetYouCanNotTellMe 17 points18 points19 points ago
[–]Phant0mX 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]cattimiptwax 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]BetYouCanNotTellMe 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]Runningflame570 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]erchamion 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]BetYouCanNotTellMe 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]PopeFool 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–]blackberrydoughnuts 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]auto0880 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]robreim 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]FordPrefectsDong 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]PopeFool 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]fatbunyip 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]shakin -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–]yesukai 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]mdraper 9 points10 points11 points ago
[–]Noneofus 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]greybyte 38 points39 points40 points ago
[–]wphockey 8 points9 points10 points ago
[–]wphockey 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]sourceoritsbullshit 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Ragnalypse 9 points10 points11 points ago
[–]Mollrow 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Krastain 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Synor 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]mramypond 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points ago
[–]nowhathappenedwas 24 points25 points26 points ago
[–]weewolf 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]DublinBen 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]darwin2500 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]nicksauce 30 points31 points32 points ago
[–]bantam83 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]theparadox1083 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Glucksberg 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]lollerkeet 10 points11 points12 points ago
[–]dezmodium 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]BasicEcon101 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]Hamuel 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]kylesaisgone -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–]BolshevikMuppet 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]Runningflame570 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]wrapped-in-silver 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Glucksberg 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]idioma[
] 32 points33 points34 points ago
[–]Nackles 25 points26 points27 points ago
[–]idioma[
] 18 points19 points20 points ago
[–]moralnihilist 17 points18 points19 points ago
[–]idioma[
] 16 points17 points18 points ago
[–]moralnihilist 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]idioma[
] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]atheist_trollno1 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]robreim 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]ENRICOs 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]beermyvalentine 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]a-ninja-near 14 points15 points16 points ago
[–]cynognathus 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–]brainguy 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]cynognathus 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]a-ninja-near 13 points14 points15 points ago
[–]cynognathus 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]plasticTron 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]freezerburn666 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]atanok 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Purple_Shade 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]atanok 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]tothemooninaballoon -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–]auto0880 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]tattertech 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Krastain 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Boarder22345 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]llehsadam 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Nackles 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Merendino 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]MattSchm 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]voodoomindslave 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]malimbar04 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Purple_Shade 0 points1 point2 points ago