erm…. I am from England(UK) and we have something called a
prime minister that is head of a party that the ppl vote in and we have had
this for a very very very very very long time i think the 1st one was around
the 1700s.

It is true that there is something called a House of Lords
that is under the House of Commons but untimely the commons as the power and
all the Lords can do is slow things down.

that being said the house of Lords in recent years seems to
be the good guys “strange days we are in” also it would be good to
remember that not all members of the house of Lords are from old well off family’s
and that some are appointed there by the house of commons because there supposed
to be experts in their field of work

The Queen also as some powers but this is just a formality these
days one example would be the Queen opening the Parliament “and no I don’t mean
her working up to the Parliament with a set of Keys lol”

Over all the way the UK do things may seem strange to people
in America but we have a bit more history to go off. For example we have a guy called Black Rod who is a senior
office of the House of Lords that goes every year to the House of
Commons to get the doors slammed! Shout in his face also the MP’s when in the
Commons can’t acknowledge the existence of the house of lords and refer to it
as “the other place”

Y’know, Gary Johnson has said that an Obama reelection would lead to a police-state gov, which I thought was a bit extreme. However, after reviewing the many decisions his admin has made to increasingly control and spy on citizens, perhaps it’s not so wild a claim.

Im from a tiny tiny country in Europe called Luxembourg We are a constitutional monarchy. Our grand duke has a veto power, but the last time they tried to pull that (iirc early 20th century) we nearly became a republic. Laws had to be signed by the grand duke until 2008, where he refused to sign a bill that legalized euthanasia, I believe because he did not want to support this personally. However he signed off on the change of constitution that removed his power, so his signature was no longer required, and thus allowed the democratic process to continue. So now hes mostly in a representative role, even on paper. I believe their family is one of the richest monarchs on earth, and our government doesn’t pay all that much ( the grand dukes house costs +- 8 million a year, a bargain compared to the 32 million that costs the cabinet ).

I can’t remember people complaining about the monarchy, they are fairly popular and don’t get in the way of our laws, so might as well stay around and make us look good, or whatever they do.

I would also seriously suggest you do some critical reading about Libertarian policies before throwing your vote behind such a vicious organization. I respect that you keep an open mind on this show so I would hope that you don’t jump on the libertarian bandwagon without doing some prior reading.

This might be a good place to start: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPUvQZ3rcQ

I call BS on the Death on the Monster Drinks I use to Drink 2 BFC cans a day with the XXL and normal size cans. while I was in the Marine Corps if two cans killed that girl I should have die the first time I Drink the BFC size cans.

“A Libertarian view is a very basic one — let me make my own mistakes
and enjoy my own successes. In short, don’t force your crap on us.”

In a classical sense (the way that Chomsky is using “libertarian” when he says “libertarian socialist”) that is true. However to understand modern American libertarianism you would have to add an exception.

“A Libertarian view is a very basic one — let me make my own mistakes
and enjoy my own successes. In short, don’t force your crap on us. Unless we sign a labour contract, then feel free to force your crap on us as much as you like.”

Modern American libertarianism means tyranny inside the workplace and freedom outside of it. Given that the workplace is where people spend a major portion of their adult life and where they make their living, it ends up meaning tyranny outside the workplace as well. People find the “freedom outside” part of libertarianism attractive. That is perfectly understandable. They often don’t understand the implications of libertarianism when it comes to the world of work.

As for calling libertarianism “vicious” I would say it is perfectly justified when it comes to libertarian policies towards the poor. Depriving people of the education, health care, housing, and food they need to succeed when there is no material reason to do so is vicious.

I’m sorry to hear that you’re misinformed on what libertarianism (pure libertarianism) actually means.

“In a classical sense (the way that Chomsky is using “libertarian” when he says “libertarian socialist”) that is true. However to understand modern American libertarianism you would have to add an exception.”

I cannot speak to Chomsky’s opinion of libertarianism as I have zero interest in his views. While I’m aware of them, they’re depressing and limited so I choose to smile and move on. That said, American libertarianism is a Chomsky-esk term. It has meaning to him and those who seek out his views. As for having to add an exception, I most certainly will not and nor would any libertarian worth his or her salt. That would be forcing a viewpoint and I’m not interested in such things.

“Modern American libertarianism means tyranny inside the workplace and freedom outside of it. Given that the workplace is where people spend a major portion of their adult life and where they make their living, it ends up meaning tyranny outside the workplace as well. People find the “freedom outside” part of libertarianism attractive. That is perfectly understandable. They often don’t understand the implications of libertarianism when it comes to the world of work.”

What an unfortunate view of the world. Allow me to share a real life, specific set of experiences. Having lived in poverty in my 20s, and having been exposed unions (Teamsters) in my younger years, I can tell you that no one forced me or anyone else into anything. Allow me to explain how this actually works.

I worked for a factory for a few years. At the time, I chose to work there, of my own free will. They offered me a wage, be it nothing awesome. However, I opted to accept the position due to the decent benefit package. Again, my choice. And I was free to depart at any time.

Later, Teamster representation was voted in by the other employees. The employer, had little say in any of it, however they handled it well considering their non-union competition mopped the floor with them in their chosen market post-union inclusion. Today, they work with half the work force they used to.

I have worked amazingly crappy jobs in my youth (20s). It wasn’t until I grew up, stopped blaming “The Man” and took life by the short and curlies that I changed my lifestyle and income. At no time, was I forced to do anything except by government forces….never by anything or anyone in the free enterprise system. This is not opinion, this is based on my life experiences and the life experiences of others. See, once I realized that no one was forcing me to work for anyone, I realized that I was able to learn skills that allowed me to find my own path.

“As for calling libertarianism “vicious” I would say it is perfectly justified when it comes to libertarian policies towards the poor. Depriving people of the education, health care, housing, and food they need to succeed when there is no material reason to do so is vicious.”

Their, no, rather *our* policies towards “the poor” (remember, I was poor) are simple — we are all in this together. And by this meaning, we should, *by choice*, help one another out. And as a matter of fact, I do and am active in a wide range of areas concerning the poor and homeless pets.

That said, where folks become confused is that we do not wish to have the government produce a state sponsored version of the “Robinhood” Effect.” It sounds great on paper, until one considers those losing the money never opted into such a system.

Example: If I have two cars, only need one. Does this make it right for someone to take the second car for me so the poor guy down the street has access to a car? Of course not…unless I chose to lend/give it to them.

While I’m not as extreme on taxation as some libertarians, I do think that it’s completely overkill as it stands currently. On the flip side, I think sales taxes are awesome as they allow folks to contribute or not, as they see fit, while state/federal income taxes have been abused to a point to where many of us are quite tired of the entire experience. My view will differ from other libertarians as I am an individual, like many others out there. We only share some beliefs, not everything is all or nothing.

Lastly, no one is in this country is depriving anyone of education, health care, housing, and food. Life experiences, illness, etc, have certainly done this for some people. And while various parties differ on how to address the issues affecting those in need, at no time — ever — have libertarians ever expressed that people cannot or will not be able to obtain these things. If folks such as yourself feel strongly about it, form a non-profit and do something to help. Red Cross, among others, have led the way in this space for years. So do many local food banks, which I happen to be very active with BTW. Again, many of us care…however it’s because we chose to, not because it’s a legacy cost or an obligation.

Factually, libertarians force no one to do anything other than leave other people, alone. And yes, that may mean some stuff that was once being “funded”, wouldn’t be any longer. And factually, removing such services all at once, would be a huge problem as there is already a legacy commitment made to people. And libertarian candidates for president have been quite clear, in acknowledging that “pulling the plug”, isn’t an option. Obviously, finding a happy medium here is needed as there are legacy commitments, that must be met. They know this.
The facts, can be found here.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm

Now, I don’t agree with every aspect of his solutions, but overall, I feel he’s closer than most. At the very least, this will allow you to read past the usual dogma found elsewhere on all of the candidates. I’m not a member of the party, however I do agree with the bulk of the platform.

So what about the poor, then? Thankfully, *no one* is preventing anyone from filling in this gap and *volunteering to pay* for these services if they see fit. That, is a choice for those who wish to participate. See, tyranny be definition, means forcing something onto someone else. Libertarians by point of fact, have been expressly clear in that you are free to do whatever you wish…just don’t expect us to be *forced* to pick up the tab.

Is this selfish? Absolutely and by all means, I think that is fair and accurate. Is that tyranny? By definition, no, it is not. Is this vicious? Depends on your view of the world I suppose.

Factual definitions hold far greater value than political dogma.

I, as a libertarian, am selfish in choosing to help who I want, when I want, how I want. This doesn’t make me or a group of us, tyrants. You’re thinking of the other guys. But by all means, believe as you wish. I merely wanted to clear the air based on reality.

Recap: (We, as in myself and other libertarians)

We are selfish and do things in our own lives because we choose to for ourselves or our family/friends – check.

We have zero interest in supporting others unless we *choose* to – check. Most of us are very active in helping others because we choose to.

We choose to or not to, support those less fortunate than us via private means and object to be forced to by a government- check.

We have never, ever said or expressed that we as individuals or a group, will stand in the way of others who *choose* to support state run resources for those who need it – check.

Think that about covers it.