More like almost always so for individuals. You need a car and a house, despite recent years, is almost always a good investment.

Most people who own a house are in debt many times over their annual salary.

Now large amnount of non-asset debt is rarely good for individuals with some obvious exceptions like school loans which should provide a non-fungible asset of good value.

Government debt is incurred via government spending. Government spending creates government programs. Government programs are bad. Ergo, government debt is bad.

Borrowing money for daily living expenses is not.

Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin said today that Israel should be "concerned, but not afraid of Hagel's isolationist ideas." But he and other politicians, including candidates in Israel's Jan. 22 elections, have emphasized that US-Israel ties go deeper than any one personality and have expressed confidence that the two countries would remain strong allies.

“It’s none of our business, it’s America’s prerogative,” said Naftali Bennett of the right-wing HaBayit HaYehudi (The Jewish Home) party, whose popularity has surged in recent weeks. “Israel and America’s bond goes way beyond certain relationships between individuals.”

Right. Saying that an American values Israel's goals over those of the U.S. isn't an accusation of dual loyalty.

And a remarkable proportion of these deficit/debt hawks within the ranks of the Republican Party suddenly discovered these moralistic principles on 20 January 2009.

republicanism these days seems to be much more closely aligned with anarchy than conservatism. you people aren't saying that government is bad, so we need to make it better, what you're saying is that government is bad, so let's get rid of it.

Government debt is incurred via government spending. Government spending creates government programs. Government programs are bad. Ergo, government debt is bad.

Saying that an American values Israel's goals over those of the U.S. isn't an accusation of dual loyalty.

Libertarian, not Republican. It's more like government is bad, and can't be made better.

This is not altogether true, as most of us borrow money for daily living expenses almost, well, daily. The fact that I plan on paying my credit card off at the end of the month does not mean that I'm not purchasing items on credit today.

And if I could get a zero percent interest rate from my credit card company, which is basically what it costs the government to borrow money right now, it would probably be in my best interests NOT to pay it off.

but just talking about debt as immoral and being bad for itself is puritan silliness at its height.

Government debt is incurred via government spending. Government spending creates government programs. Government programs are bad. Ergo, government debt is bad.

As evidenced by all the thriving Libertarian utopias that exist outside the pages of teenager fantasy novels.

Borrowing money when you have the money to pay for it is literally borrowing, but it doesn't leave you in debt.

The vast majority of Federal T-Bills are held by Americans, so most of it we owe to ourselves. By the above logic, then one ought to conclude that we aren't in very much debt at all.

The vast majority of Federal T-Bills are held by Americans, so most of it we owe to ourselves. By the above logic, then one ought to conclude that we aren't in very much debt at all.

If only all Americans were fungible!

If only all Americans were fungible!

Piers Morgan confronts man who wants to deport him

I bet there are some at CNN who want to deport Piers as well because of his low ratings.

As evidenced by all the thriving Libertarian utopias that exist outside the pages of teenager fantasy novels.

I never read Atlas Shrugged, but I always wondered how Galt's gulch was a functioning society.

I was about to tuck into beer number three when my wife called to say we needed to go to the hospital. 30 minutes later and we would have probably had to cab it.

Guh - mine came during the Brave's Farnsworth Debacle.

It takes you half an hour to finish a beer?!

but I always wondered how Galt's gulch was a functioning society

Galt's Gulch did not have many ordinances as such. The Gulch was in essence a feudal society. Midas Mulligan was the landlord (hence John Galt's custom of calling the place Mulligan's Valley), and all rents flowed to him. The community had no "village plan commission" or "zoning board." As the landowner, Midas made his own decisions about land-use planning and seems to have tried to be as unobtrusive as possible. Aside from such questions, under Judge Narragansett's guidance, the residents of the Gulch probably conducted their affairs according to the principles of English Common Law.
John Galt described the Gulch to Dagny Taggart as a place of rest. The Gulch had no police force or sheriff, because it had no crime. The closest thing it had to an executive authority was a three-man Committee of Safety, consisting of John Galt, Francisco d'Anconia, and Ragnar Danneskjöld. Indeed it was not a state of any kind, but a strictly voluntary association of homesteaders. Judge Narragansett's judicial activities were probably limited to the occasional Request for Judicial Intervention to ratify arbitration agreements. The judge might also have reopened his law practice to assist his neighbors with the drawing-up of contracts.
However, the Gulch had several unwritten customs which arose, as Galt also explained, as a reaction to the things that the residents sought to rest from. No one ever remained in the Gulch at another person's expense, nor asked nor granted any unremunerated favors. Every resident was expected to pay his rent to Midas Mulligan, or else pay room and board to the leaseholder of any house in which he stayed. Similarly, no one ever "borrowed" something belonging to another; instead one rented it and was expected to negotiate a rent with the owner. (And if one discovered that he was renting the same article often enough to make it a significant expense, then he might ask Midas Mulligan for a loan, if necessary, and buy the article.)
For example, when John Galt wished to take Dagny Taggart on a driving tour of the valley, he needed to secure a car, because he did not own one. (He didn't need to own a car in a place where he stayed only one month of the year.) So he asked Midas Mulligan for the use of his car. But he did not "borrow" that car in the usual sense; he rented it and actually paid a daily rental on it. Dagny thought that behavior strange, given that Mulligan, with his tremendous net worth, could scarcely realize a (to him) significant income by renting out his car for twenty-five cents a day. But Galt explained it as an example of "resting" from the constant stress of living in a society in which one's fellow citizens constantly demanded certain things of one and expressed no willingness to pay for those things.

Others could work their original professions part-time, but still needed a "day job." Richard Halley grew his fruit trees throughout the year, but kept his concert season every June until the strike was "settled." Kay Ludlow Danneskjöld opened a restaurant in the Gulch when the economy took off, but kept a season of her own, acting in plays that other strikers, who "retired" from writing for the stage, wrote for her.
Still others learned to do work that was far beneath their original training. Richard McNamara hired three of them:
A professor of economics who taught that no economic actor (or society) could consume more than he or it produced;
A professor of psychology who taught that human beings could think; and
A professor of history who refused to teach the Communist theory of history, and instead taught real history.
John Galt recruited each man after he got one rejection slip too many. Life in the Gulch was attractive enough for them that they would take "blue collar" jobs. The economics professor, for example, became an electrical lineman. (The economist's wife, who took the Strikers' Oath separately, opened a bakery.) The other two learned to lay water mains and even to install plumbing and heating systems in the log cabins that the strikers built.
Most strikers became farmers and gardeners. (One, Calvin Atwood, formerly of the Atwood Power and Light Company, became a shoe cobbler.)

In exactly the same way that Galt's engine created unlimited power. It was fantasy.

1: You have a magical source of power (Galt's electrostatic generator- though I suppose a hydro-electric plant would do - once built that can be a pretty dammned cheap source of power)
2: No zoning rules/planning committees, etc., instead you have one (1) landowner, who ca make any rule he wants, but magically happens to be benevolent and non-arbitrary

So, free, unending power (abject socialism) from a magic honeypot, and a king.

What about sex? Did the residents pay each other for that as well? Did Galt "rent" Dagny's lady parts?

trouble was that she extrapolated that experience to every time and place in the world, she could see that collectivization threat everywhere

But did she see sex purely as a quid pro quo, or did it transcend her transactional view of the world?

If you continually give the other side half of what it wants, it eventually gets all of what it wanted in the first place.

I do hope you realize that democracy isn't gonna work without at least some compromise

Indeed, some of us have been saying this for the past few years.

that is why I have been saying that to me a lot of the GOP side rhetoric sounds like anarchist arguments. promoting small government is one thing, but the GOP's rhetoric often stray to the point of arguing for no government.

You've got to be kidding. At best (or worst, depending on your perspective), the GOP has been arguing for about 5 percent less government than the liberals.

You've got to be kidding. At best (or worst, depending on your perspective), the GOP has been arguing for about 5 percent less government than the liberals.

Libertarians are the anarchist pseuds

You've got to be kidding. At best (or worst, depending on your perspective), the GOP has been arguing for about 5 percent less government than the liberals.

Libertarians lack any coherent theory

To say the very least.

You've got to be kidding. At best (or worst, depending on your perspective), the GOP has been arguing for about 5 percent less government than the liberals.

The (increasingly unpopular) establishment? yes. The Alex Jones of the world?

But in practice libertarians are supporters of oligarchy -- whoever happens to own property today is entitled to exercise power.

Of course, the truth is exactly the opposite -- nobody is entitled to exercise power -- but keep the BBTF left-wing cheering section going.

Libertarians lack any coherent theory

WTF does Alex Jones have to do with "the GOP"?

In theory, perhaps.* But in practice libertarians are supporters of oligarchy -- whoever happens to own property today is entitled to exercise power.

Of course, the truth is exactly the opposite -- nobody is entitled to exercise power

Of course no government has ever been run by pure anything ever.

In many ways pure Libertarian thought, much like pure Marxist though, has a much higher opinion of humanity than pure Liberalism.

What libertarianism does is forfeit moral outcomes for dogmatic assumptions. It slaughters practice on the alter of theory.

This is one of those rare moments when David says something true and thinks he's made a point in his favor, but has really undermined his position fundamentally. This is, in fact, the complete truth of libertarian theory, phrased as friendly as possible for libertarians, by libertarians. "Nobody is entitled to exercise power." The poor fools honestly believe that if they clap loud enough Tinkerbell will sprinkle some fairy dust around and the reality of power in the world, and the universal exercise and execution of power, which has existed as a brute fact of reality since before we climbed down from the canopies, will fade into the mists of Libertopia.

This is, of course, hypocritical twaddle. Libertarians are concerned about rights. And while you and your fellow travellers here like to pretend that Libertarians are foolish to believe in such fairy tales, when the "wrong" people exercise power, you guys are awfully quick to scream about your "rights" being violated.

On the bright side, it's nice to see [violation of TOS] posting about something other than his anti-semitic views.

On the bright side, it's nice to see [violation of TOS] posting about something other than his anti-semitic views.

Indeed, it's what all Utopians do. The theory -- whatever theory it is -- can never fail.

ut in practice libertarians are supporters of oligarchy -- whoever happens to own property today is entitled to exercise power.
Of course, the truth is exactly the opposite

WTF does Alex Jones have to do with "the GOP"

DMN is pretty upfront about his distaste for democracy.

This is, of course, hypocritical twaddle. Libertarians are concerned about rights.

I know, it's kind of a nice brush with honesty on his part. The reason I prefer, oh Good Face, to someone like DMN, is that GF is honest, he doesn't deny the logical impact/meaning of his policy preferences, he owns them, even when they prompted and to wish divine retribution on his head.

DMN doesn't, he won't acknowledge what his preferences mean in the real world, and then he'll twist reality, for instance his discourse on, oh the civil rights era and civil rights legislation is really beneath contempt.

Libertarians are concerned about SOME rights, other "rights" they simply deny are "rights" at all, which makes for very simple debates when in the echo chamber, and exasperation all around when not.

Crosbybird is the only libertarian I've encountered on the web who's views are consistent and thoughtful.

BBTF asks you to not use vulgarity, profanity or insults in your comments. You are free to disagree (even vehemently) with what other members of the BBTF community have to say, but we ask that you do so in a respectful manner.

Comments will not be deleted for disagreeing with other members. They may be removed for the above reasons or if the comment is hurtful, spiteful, libelous, slanderous and really does nothing to move the conversation forward. Comments whose primary purpose is to advertise, self-promote may also be removed. Trolling (purposely posting inflammatory messages in order to disrupt an ongoing discussion) messages may also be removed.

The site administrator is the ultimate arbiter of what speech constitutes a violation of the TOS. While the site administrator is a strong free speech supporter, this site is not an exercise in the limits of the expression of that speech. Instead it is a private forum which, although free wheeling for the most part, does place limits on the manner and subject of that speech. Ultimately, BBTF reserves the right to remove, edit, or move any messages for any reason.

That's exactly what the communists used to do. Indeed, it's what all Utopians do. The theory -- whatever theory it is -- can never fail.

though I suppose a hydro-electric plant would do - once built that can be a pretty dammned cheap source of power

If you continually give the other side half of what it wants, it eventually gets all of what it wanted in the first place.


So the stance is that "I rather get nothing I want, as long as they get as little as they want possible" ?

This is, of course, hypocritical twaddle. Libertarians are concerned about rights. And while you and your fellow travellers here like to pretend that Libertarians are foolish to believe in such fairy tales, when the "wrong" people exercise power, you guys are awfully quick to scream about your "rights" being violated.

I wouldn't say that government is pure concentrated evil. There are a few things that government can do very well: maintain order, adjudicate internal and international disputes, address tragedies of the commons, etc. Our current government does some of those things well, but many of them poorly, which we should fix. Something like "maintaining order" could be interpreted as simply "police, courts, and prisons" or as broadly as "dictate acceptable forms of food, drink, and leisure activity." The former is the stuff everyone this side of anarchism agrees on; the latter is the sort of thing that I'd describe as nearly universally bad government.

559. McCoy Posted: January 09, 2013 at 09:12 AM (#4342675)

what's mine is mine. what's yours is mine too.

I had no idea my former girlfriend was a libertarian but it does make sense now.

Something like "maintaining order" could be interpreted as simply "police, courts, and prisons" or as broadly as "dictate acceptable forms of food, drink, and leisure activity." The former is the stuff everyone this side of anarchism agrees on; the latter is the sort of thing that I'd describe as nearly universally bad government.

By libertarians, you mean pretty much everybody. Everybody who isn't the Supreme Leader of a country is opposed to government that's "too big"; nobody wants a Harrison Bergeron society; everybody who isn't a pure anarchist is opposed to government that is too small.

nobody is entitled to exercise power

Even if we had no choice but a terrible government, we'd still need to have something in place or there really wouldn't be what we think of as society.

DMB doesn't even believe in society.

Not really. Not at its heart. What libertarianism does is forfeit moral outcomes for dogmatic assumptions. It slaughters practice on the alter of theory. We see this with the occasional outbreak of "the Voting Rights Act was tyranny." The theory - everybody must have pure unadulterated choice in all things* - must reign supreme, even if the practical effect in the world - continuation of Jim Crow and slavery-in-all-but-name across the nation - "bad things happen, man." You can also see this when, on the occasion where he admits it publicly, our resident libertarians admit that democracy is just a means to an end, not the end itself.

[Alex Jones] has a lot more to do with the 2012 version of the GOP than, oh, Bill Ayers has ever had to do with the Democratic Party