Limbaugh Caller: Beck's Book "Broke" Woke Me Up

[AuH20]

A little hope during these dreary days. Baby steps I guess with our childlike populace.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/limbaugh-caller-tells-rush-glenn-becks-book-broke-woke-me-up/


That’s because a caller by the name of Rick from Calif. appeared on the show and admitted that only now, at the age of 45, he’s realizing that all those government programs, hand outs, and promises aren’t free.

“I’ve finally woken up to the fact that money isn’t free,” he admitted. After a slightly flabbergasted Limbaugh — flabbergasted that it took so long for Rick to realize this — engaged him in an explanation, Rick went on to say what led to the epiphany.

“This might be a little bad,” Rick said sheepishly (realizing he was about to plug another radio host’s book on Limbaugh’s show), “it actually has to do with a book I read by Glenn Beck. The book he wrote, ‘Broke,’ was such an eye-opening thing.”

He added that before the book, he had never understood where the money for grants, student loans and the like came from.

“I never really associated it with people’s taxes and coming out of the general fund or anything. You just think, ‘Oh yeah, oh, government money. Okay, the government has a surplus or something. Or there’s just extra money they’ve set aside.’”

“I just woke up. And I should have listened to my dad a long time ago,” he later admitted.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNI1_SWFTK8&feature=player_embedded

[ShaneEnochs]

I remember seeing a video of women standing in line for "Obama money". They thought he was seriously handing out cash/checks to people. Anyway, the person filming asked one of the women where the money came from, and she said something to the effect of, "I don't know, Obama's pockets I guess!" and then laughed her head off.

People like her vote.

[tod evans]

People like her vote.

And our government pays them to breed...

[AGRP]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIDDc8UodYQ


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmSPUOmThYg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXOCHn7Vfec

[AuH20]

And our government pays them to breed...

Breeding professional voters...........We really are effed.

[messana]

A little hope during these dreary days. Baby steps I guess with our childlike populace.

People who partake themselves with establishment propagandists like Limbaugh or Beck doesn't install hope.

[AuH20]

People who partake themselves with establishment propagandists like Limbaugh or Beck doesn't install hope.

Beck's book "Broke" is excellent and reinforces much of what Ron Paul has devoted his life too, in terms of explaining built-in government largesse and corruption. It's the message that is critical. I could care less if Lucifer himself wrote "Broke" as long as those key concepts are communicated.

[Occam's Banana]

People who partake themselves with establishment propagandists like Limbaugh or Beck doesn't install hope.

Especially when they are just now starting to cotton to where the "government's" money really comes from. SMH.

[satchelmcqueen]

THIS!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIDDc8UodYQ


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmSPUOmThYg

[AGRP]

Beck's book "Broke" is excellent and reinforces much of what Ron Paul has devoted his life too, in terms of explaining built-in government largesse and corruption. It's the message that is critical. I could care less if Lucifer himself wrote "Broke" as long as those key concepts are communicated.

Beck shares Ron Paul's key concepts? Liar.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgf0_o6ThV0

[AuH20]

BTW One of the best chapters in Beck's book "Broke" is Chapter 19 Step Seven: Declare War on Defense Dollars. Like I said before, Broke is brilliant and Dr. Ron Paul could have easily written it. With that said, you have to be a fool to believe that Glenn Beck exclusively wrote "Broke" because he maintains a large staff of professional historians and journalists who comb through the archives to put together a book of this size and historical scope.

[AuH20]

Beck shares Ron Paul's ideas? stfu.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgf0_o6ThV0

Did you read his book? Instead of scare mongering. Read the book. You can take off the jacket with his photo if it bothers you. And also cross out the credits where his name appears. But read it and you will be pleasantly surprised. It's very much a historical journey as opposed to a work of opinion. Rand read Beck's book and enjoyed immensely, so I guess he's not paranoid.

[AGRP]

Did you read his book? Instead of scare mongering. Read the book. You can take off the jacket with his photo if it bothers you. And also cross out the credits where his name appears. But read it and you will be pleasantly surprised. Rand read Beck's book and enjoyed immensely, so I guess he's not paranoid.

You are incredibly naive.

[heavenlyboy34]

And our government pays them to breed... Reason no. 354 I have no hope Boobus will change or faith in the political process.

[heavenlyboy34]

You are incredibly naive.
It seems to be common practice for people like Beck have a decent writer ghostwrite the book. The book may have some merit. I personally don't have enough interest in Beck's opinion to read it, though.

[AuH20]

You are incredibly naive.

You are incredibly paranoid. You didn't even read the man's book, and you start attacking him. Beck isn't perfect and he said and has done some bad things. But in this case, he wrote an excellent book which parallels what Ron Paul has spent his life fighting for. I gotta give his staff credit for hitting this one out of the ballpark. It traces our descent from the revolutionary period to the contemporary age of big government, savaging both Republicans and Democrats with historical facts.

[heavenlyboy34]

Beck shares Ron Paul's key concepts? Liar.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgf0_o6ThV0
lolz :D I think he can fit more fallacies into a minute than Limbaugh. :eek:

[AuH20]

At the end of each chapter they have an "educate yourself" section. This is the sample of the list of links for chapter 19:

http://www.amazon.com/New-American-Militarism-Americans-Seduced/dp/0195311981

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/10/AR2010081006290.html

[seyferjm]

The book does have merit, (I have read SOME of it) but Glenn does not have any. He is a liar and a hypocrite who does NOT like us. I can easily see him turning on Rand in 2016 in favor of somebody "more establishment."

[AuH20]

The book does have merit, (I have read SOME of it) but Glenn does not have any. He is a liar and a hypocrite who does NOT like us. I can easily see him turning on Rand in 2016 in favor of somebody "more establishment."

That's a completely acceptable opinion, given that he once worked for Fox. But the book he wrote is brilliant. I was surprised how professional and detailed it was.

[Origanalist]

The book does have merit, (I have read SOME of it) but Glenn does not have any. He is a liar and a hypocrite who does NOT like us. I can easily see him turning on Rand in 2016 in favor of somebody "more establishment."

I would bet on it.

[heavenlyboy34]

That's a completely acceptable opinion, given that he once worked for Fox. But the book he wrote is brilliant. I was surprised how professional and detailed it was.
Is it in his writing style or is it clearly ghostwritten? /curious

[AuH20]

Is it in his writing style or is it clearly ghostwritten? /curious

The chapter intros (predominantly a synopsis) probably were written by Beck. And they certainly pass muster. But the rest of the content is specifically targeted towards historical junkies, so I suspect that where his staff comes into play. It should also be noted that Beck co-wrote the book with Kevin Balfe.

[Anti Federalist]

I remember seeing a video of women standing in line for "Obama money". They thought he was seriously handing out cash/checks to people. Anyway, the person filming asked one of the women where the money came from, and she said something to the effect of, "I don't know, Obama's pockets I guess!" and then laughed her head off.

People like her vote.


And our government pays them to breed...


Breeding professional voters...........We really are effed.

And there are now more of them than us.

As the pool dries up, "rich" will be continually defined downward.

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

100% Oxycontinbaugh Free audio link:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32kkgQ23e0M

[vienna]

to me it's mind boggling how grown up people can listen to someone like glenn beck without laughing.
untill i saw this guy on youtube i never saw such a blatantly pathetic and uneducated crook on tv.

[S.Shorland]

I would call Beck 'controlled opposition'.The way he treated Edward G Griffin and Medina assures me he is a gatekeeper.Good riddance he is off your MSM and let's hope his solo projects fail also.

[COpatriot]

Anyone who is "woke up" by a piece of trash written by that charlatan may as well be in a coma. Beck is a lying, backstabbing snake who belongs to a cult started by a con man. And what a perfect place for Beck being a con man himself.

[WilliamShrugged]

Anyone who is "woke up" by a piece of trash written by that charlatan may as well be in a coma. Beck is a lying, backstabbing snake who belongs to a cult started by a con man. And what a perfect place for Beck being a con man himself.

Honestly people get a grip... If this book "woke" this guy up. Just think how many others it has and will. Do we know assume that they (awaken readers) become personality cultist with beck? Many will, but there will also be people that continue down the path of knowledge going works from Rand, Hayek, Paul, Schiff, Woods, and Rothbard.

I personally started with Glenn Beck back when he was on Headline prime (i was 17). He mentioned the book Atlas Shrugged as a must read. Same went for Hayek's Road to serfdom. As Beck got popular i noticed he got more preachy with faith values. That turned me away. I found out about Ron Paul on my own, but due to the readings of Beck, Rand, Hayek. My point is that Beck isn't a face for liberty. But to ignore that we can acknowledge the fact that beck can bring me people in is foolish.

[vienna]

and you think that reading a book from hayek will make you understand the world or the economy?
but i really have to say ... if you listen or read people like beck ... you (as a society) are in serious troubles. even if you were 17.
on a long term ... this antiintellectual culture will do harm to the us.

[AuH20]

Honestly people get a grip... If this book "woke" this guy up. Just think how many others it has and will. Do we know assume that they (awaken readers) become personality cultist with beck? Many will, but there will also be people that continue down the path of knowledge going works from Rand, Hayek, Paul, Schiff, Woods, and Rothbard.

I personally started with Glenn Beck back when he was on Headline prime (i was 17). He mentioned the book Atlas Shrugged as a must read. Same went for Hayek's Road to serfdom. As Beck got popular i noticed he got more preachy with faith values. That turned me away. I found out about Ron Paul on my own, but due to the readings of Beck, Rand, Hayek. My point is that Beck isn't a face for liberty. But to ignore that we can acknowledge the fact that beck can bring me people in is foolish.

We really do have a collection of small-minded people in our movement who are so reactionary to the most innocuous items. It really is ridiculous when you start to think about it.

[A Son of Liberty]

I'm glad the guy "woke up", but I don't send people to Beck's show, books or toobs because I want people to actually be "woken up" to liberty, and that's not what Beck is about. Odds are that this guy is probably a big Beck fan and, since it took him into his 40's to discover how government operations are funded, probably isn't much of an independent/critical thinker, is likely to be led around by the nose by Beck. What we more than likely have here is a born-again neocon of the faux-libertarian mold that Beck peddles in.

Beck is not our friend - not because he's gone after Ron Paul on the air (that of course doesn't help) - but because it is his JOB to lead people away from the true libertarian viewpoint.

If that is "small-minded", well, I guess ya got me then.

[vienna]

I'm glad the guy "woke up", but I don't send people to Beck's show, books or toobs because I want people to actually be "woken up" to liberty, and that's not what Beck is about. Odds are that this guy is probably a big Beck fan and, since it took him into his 40's to discover how government operations are funded, probably isn't much of an independent/critical thinker, is likely to be led around by the nose by Beck. What we more than likely have here is a born-again neocon of the faux-libertarian mold that Beck peddles in.

Beck is not our friend - not because he's gone after Ron Paul on the air (that of course doesn't help) - but because it is his JOB to lead people away from the true libertarian viewpoint.

If that is "small-minded", well, I guess ya got me then.
why all this pseudo religious language? is this a sign of free and critical thinking? is it a sign of liberty?
what's liberty anyway? is there a precise definition? what's a critical thinker?

[A Son of Liberty]

why all this pseudo religious language? is this a sign of free and critical thinking? is it a sign of liberty?
what's liberty anyway? is there a precise definition? what's a critical thinker?

What's with all the questions?

[AuH20]

I'm glad the guy "woke up", but I don't send people to Beck's show, books or toobs because I want people to actually be "woken up" to liberty, and that's not what Beck is about. Odds are that this guy is probably a big Beck fan and, since it took him into his 40's to discover how government operations are funded, probably isn't much of an independent/critical thinker, is likely to be led around by the nose by Beck. What we more than likely have here is a born-again neocon of the faux-libertarian mold that Beck peddles in.

Beck is not our friend - not because he's gone after Ron Paul on the air (that of course doesn't help) - but because it is his JOB to lead people away from the true libertarian viewpoint.

If that is "small-minded", well, I guess ya got me then.

If you think you're going to create a nation of Murray Rothbard disciples, you are extremely mistaken. I'm a realist. I understand there are many different paths to a state of "awakening", as opposed to these draconian "guidelines" that some here espouse. Whether it's Beck, Church, Levin, Jones, Molyneux, or whomever, I'm an advocate for market saturation as opposed to this arrogant, pretentious and exclusive attitude from the "true guardians of liberty" we are subjected to on a daily basis. That's not how you build a movement. That's how you shrink a movement, which the LP is very adept at doing.

[Ronulus]

I don't like Beck at all. The guy is a snake.

However, if the guy has lead one person towards us or gotten someone to change their minds to where they might consider voting for one of our guys. Thanks. I can appreciate that.

However I will not say I have any respect for the man himself.

[vienna]

What's with all the questions?
curiosity?

[A Son of Liberty]

Beck "shrinks the movement" by robbing people from it.

War with Iran is in NO WAY libertarian non-interventionist. Quote-unquote Standing With Israel is in no way non-interventionist.

Hey, it's great that Beck pumps the small government rhetoric... but the way he went down on Mitt Romney for the past 6 months - Let me repeat that: MITT ROMNEY (Mr. Small Government, I guess?) - is in no way in line with Ron Paul's message.

[dinosaur]

Lots of people get woken up by controlled opposition personalities.

[A Son of Liberty]

Lots of people get woken up by controlled opposition personalities.

Yeah, and a lot of them also stomp around and demand that government keep their damned hands off their medicare.

/Tea Party

[Ronulus]

Beck "shrinks the movement" by robbing people from it.

War with Iran is in NO WAY libertarian non-interventionist. Quote-unquote Standing With Israel is in no way non-interventionist.

Hey, it's great that Beck pumps the small government rhetoric... but the way he went down on Mitt Romney for the past 6 months - Let me repeat that: MITT ROMNEY (Mr. Small Government, I guess?) - is in no way in line with Ron Paul's message.

But that's not the point. We aren't in here to say we endorse Beck as a person. The topic was simply to say that hey, this guy might turn to our movement after beck let him sample it. We all know beck is a dick. That's not the discussion. It's that we can't immediately throw everyone under the bus that might have gotten to this point or be on the track from reading one of his books or watching one of his programs. We can't be so "pure", how we all got here is different and we have all probably had beliefs and ideas in our past that we no longer support.

[AGRP]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXOCHn7Vfec

[A Son of Liberty]

But that's not the point. We aren't in here to say we endorse Beck as a person. The topic was simply to say that hey, this guy might turn to our movement after beck let him sample it. We all know beck is a dick. That's not the discussion. It's that we can't immediately throw everyone under the bus that might have gotten to this point or be on the track from reading one of his books or watching one of his programs. We can't be so "pure", how we all got here is different and we have all probably had beliefs and ideas in our past that we no longer support.

Yeah, he might. Or he might become one of these creepy Beck acolytes who call in to "thank him for all he's done for this country".

And if you read my original post in this thread, all I did was say that I don't send people to Beck's stuff because his personality is very closely associated with his material, and I don't think it's a very good way to sell them on RON PAULS IDEAS.

[AuH20]

If you don't subscribe to the following provisions from A to Z, you can't join our club. Complete utter nonsense. Burn it all down if it's going to be this regressive.

I can imagine the hypothetical interview in my head: Sorry, but you listened to Beck for 45 minutes last week and may be under his nefarious influence, so we can't associate with you. What? You don't faithfully believe in the non-agression principle 110%?? Sacrilege! Guards escort him to the dungeon!! WTH is going on in this realm? Adults don't act this way. Nuts do.

[A Son of Liberty]

If you don't subscribe to the following provisions from A to Z, you can't join our club. Complete utter nonsense. Burn it all down if it's going to be this regressive.

Go pout in the corner. Aggressive foreign policy is #1 on my list of liberty issues, bub, and that is Beck's bread and butter. If insisting that the message doesn't contain pro-war rhetoric is too narrow for you, maybe YOU have the wrong movement.

[A Son of Liberty]

If you don't subscribe to the following provisions from A to Z, you can't join our club. Complete utter nonsense. Burn it all down if it's going to be this regressive.

I can imagine the hypothetical interview in my head: Sorry, but you listened to Beck for 45 minutes last week and may be under his nefarious influence, so we can't associate with you. What? You don't faithfully believe in the non-agression principle 110%?? Sacrilege! Guards escort him to the dungeon!! WTH is going on in this realm? Adults don't act this way. Nuts do.

Strawman much?

I don't send people to Beck because he's a fraud. Feel free to do so all you want.

Beck HATES Ron Paul and does everything he can to undermine him and our movement. You're the nut; not me.

[AuH20]

But that's not the point. We aren't in here to say we endorse Beck as a person. The topic was simply to say that hey, this guy might turn to our movement after beck let him sample it. We all know beck is a dick. That's not the discussion. It's that we can't immediately throw everyone under the bus that might have gotten to this point or be on the track from reading one of his books or watching one of his programs. We can't be so "pure", how we all got here is different and we have all probably had beliefs and ideas in our past that we no longer support.

Bingo. The gatekeepers can't (won't) separate Beck's superlative content from Beck's own clouded personal views. Secondly, they are under this erroneous assumption that every Beck listener or individual who purchases and reads his material immediately succumbs to all of the author's most personal convictions upon leafing through the pages. To read a Beck book is to immediately condemn yourself to a fixed neuro-lingusitic programming that cannot be undone. Obviously, their paranoid and selfish conclusions are unfounded nonsense.

I've watched Beck in the past and I still retain the ability to think independently and get this, actually disagree with Glenn Beck!!!!!!!! Shocking isn't it???? I respectfully disagree with Glenn that secession isn't the answer to our problems. I disagree with Beck that the Holy Land must be defended. That is a personal faith issue that Mr. Beck has arrived at.

[AuH20]

Go pout in the corner. Aggressive foreign policy is #1 on my list of liberty issues, bub, and that is Beck's bread and butter. If insisting that the message doesn't contain pro-war rhetoric is too narrow for you, maybe YOU have the wrong movement.

Read Beck's books and come back to me. It doesn't push an aggressive foreign policy. It actually advocates the contrary.

[vienna]

the point is ... if you take someone like beck serious ... you are probably a pretty vulnerable person.
if you believe such a crook you'll believe every random nonsense which floats around in the internet, tv, radio or whatever medium of information you're using.
people who live in a world of irrationality are not likely to ever become reasonable personalities.

[AGRP]

I can imagine the hypothetical interview in my head: Sorry, but you listened to Beck for 45 minutes last week and may be under his nefarious influence, so we can't associate with you. What? You don't faithfully believe in the non-agression principle 110%?? Sacrilege! Guards escort him to the dungeon!! WTH is going on in this realm? Adults don't act this way. Nuts do.

You call yourself a Christian? What are you?

[AuH20]

Ok, since I have been drawn into this web of predictable nonsense, it's time to take off the gloves. I will be transferring page 323 from Glenn Beck's "Broke" which outlines Glenn Beck's basic principles for national defense:

(1) We mind our own business. We are not on the hunt for new enemies in the world. America will be your best friend and will treat you fairly if you do the same to us.

(2) The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. We are not going prop up corrupt or dangerous governments simply because they happen to hate countries that hate us.

(3) We sacrifice our values at own peril. We are going to conduct ourselves consistently with our values. That means not befriending countries that we don't agree with simply because they have something of value. Yes, Saudi Arabia, I'm talking to you.

(4) If you mess with us, we will fight to win. America's military arsenal is unparalleled in human history, but the last time the full might and muscle of our armed forces was released was World War II. Since then wars have been fought "humanely" with an eye towards minimizing damage. The results have not been pretty.

That ends now. If America is provoked into a war, then we fight with everything we have. War is hell and should never be taken lightly. But when it is declared (and it must be declared) America must crush it's enemy.

(5) We will not rebuild the rubble we reduce you to. If you provoke America and we unleash our full arsenal, you will be reduced to rubble. We will not waste our time or resources rebuilding your country afterward.



What treasonous anti-liberty propaganda? Right?? I agree 100% with all points. And based on Ron Paul's rhetoric during the primary, I suspect he does as well.

[AuH20]

You call yourself a Christian? What are you?

I thought your job was to blanket this thread with youtube videos? Secondly, I'm a deist. So you're going to have to scurry back to the manual for another question. Thirdly, I'm not a fan of extreme purity tests.

[Ronulus]

the point is ... if you take someone like beck serious ... you are probably a pretty vulnerable person.
if you believe such a crook you'll believe every random nonsense which floats around in the internet, tv, radio or whatever medium of information you're using.
people who live in a world of irrationality are not likely to ever become reasonable personalities.

Really? I know people that used to watch Beck and liked his show. My dad was one of them. However he was able to see when beck was being a dick about things and my dad really dislikes the guy now after the way he treated medina. Now foreign policy my dad doesn't totally agree with Ron Paul on, but he went and voted for him in the primaries and agrees with him on everything else.

[A Son of Liberty]

Read Beck's books and come back to me. It doesn't push an aggressive foreign policy. It actually advocates the contrary.

I listen to Beck almost everyday. His show is far more influential than whatever appears in his books.

Again, feel free to send people to Beck if you want. I will not, because I consider the views he promotes on foreign policy on his show to be unacceptable. And I will not recommend that people do so, either, for the reasons I've laid out - primarily because of how he has attacked Ron Paul... and I'm not sure how that makes me the outlier in the movement.

[AGRP]

I thought your job was to blanket this thread with youtube videos? Secondly, I'm a deist. So you're going to have to scurry back to the manual for another question. Thirdly, I'm not a fan of extreme purity tests.

I guess Im lost now. Werent 3/4 of the videos of Beck himself? Not a fan of extreme purity tests? How do you feel about rape? Its ok as long as its just the tip? She was asking for it huh?

[vienna]

Really? I know people that used to watch Beck and liked his show. My dad was one of them. However he was able to see when beck was being a dick about things and my dad really dislikes the guy now after the way he treated medina. Now foreign policy my dad doesn't totally agree with Ron Paul on, but he went and voted for him in the primaries and agrees with him on everything else.
well ... i wouldn't vote for ron paul and i wouldn't watch glenn beck.

[AuH20]

I listen to Beck almost everyday. His show is far more influential than whatever appears in his books.

Again, feel free to send people to Beck if you want. I will not, because I consider the views he promotes on foreign policy on his show to be unacceptable. And I will not recommend that people do so, either, for the reasons I've laid out - primarily because of how he has attacked Ron Paul... and I'm not sure how that makes me the outlier in the movement.

I'm not sending people anywhere. I am stressing dissemination of critical, long suppressed information. Too many people in here are obsessed with the actual personalities as opposed to the content. The content (or ideas) will always win out in the end as opposed to the personal views of a host. That's why I'm an advocate for political personalities of all stripes: Alex Jones, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, Adam Kokesh, Stefan Molyneaux, Mike Church, Andrew Wilkow. Different wavelengths for different folks.

[Ronulus]

well ... i wouldn't vote for ron paul

That explains the red bar under your name.

[AGRP]

Someone has a touch of pregnancy lol.

[vienna]

That explains the red bar under your name.
i'm a free thinker, you know? :D

[A Son of Liberty]

Ok, since I have been drawn into this web of predictable nonsense, it's time to take off the gloves. I will be transferring page 323 from Glenn Beck's "Broke" which outlines Glenn Beck's basic principles for national defense:

(1) We mind our own business. We are not on the hunt for new enemies in the world. America will be your best friend and will treat you fairly if you do the same to us.

BS. Beck is desparate for a reason to make Iran America's enemy.


(2) The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. We are not going prop up corrupt or dangerous governments simply because they happen to hate countries that hate us.

Foreign governments are not our friends, nor are they our enemies. Peace and trade with all, entangling alliances with NONE (that includes Israel).


(3) We sacrifice our values at own peril. We are going to conduct ourselves consistently with our values. That means not befriending countries that we don't agree with simply because they have something of value. Yes, Saudi Arabia, I'm talking to you.

Is he talking to Israel, too? Yeah, I don't think he is...


(4) If you mess with us, we will fight to win. America's military arsenal is unparalleled in human history, but the last time the full might and muscle of our armed forces was released was World War II. Since then wars have been fought "humanely" with an eye towards minimizing damage. The results have not been pretty.

SMH


That ends now. If America is provoked into a war, then we fight with everything we have. War is hell and should never be taken lightly. But when it is declared (and it must be declared) America must crush it's enemy.

I listen to Beck enough - frequently every week - to know how he cherishes a war with Iran. He's practically begging for it. He advocates sanctions. The Iranian people - the vast majority of whom are innocent people - suffer immensely under these sanctions, and will be killed and maimed in the war he's pumping. I have no doubts that he advocates total war.


(5) We will not rebuild the rubble we reduce you to. If you provoke America and we unleash our full arsenal, you will be reduced to rubble. We will not waste our time or resources rebuilding your country afterward.

Did Beck write this, or Ghengis Khan? We will make war on you, almost inevitably under false pretenses. Then we will will leave your country in ruins.


What treasonous anti-liberty propaganda? Right?? I agree 100% with all points. And based on Ron Paul's rhetoric during the primary, I suspect he does as well.

Ron Paul does not agree with Glenn Beck on almost any aspect of foreign policy.

[juleswin]

well ... i wouldn't vote for ron paul and i wouldn't watch glenn beck.

Lemme guess, is it the abortion issue? or he doesn't go far enough in his libertarian philosophy? I have some disagreements with Ron but none too big to withhold my vote. Any chance you can tell me why you wouldn't vote for a Ron Paul? Thanks for answering in advance.

[compromise]

There's no question Glenn Beck writes good books, but from time to time you start to question whether he really believes what he says.

The problem with Beck is that his viewpoints change every week, on Ron Paul, on foreign policy, on libertarianism, on the Patriot Act, on FEMA, even on the Republican Party. There is the Glenn Beck who thinks Ron Paul is the closest thing to a founding father, who rejects the big government policies of George W Bush and John McCain, is very libertarian, wants to bring the troops home, crusades against FEMA camps and protect our civil liberties, and then there's also the Glenn Beck who hates Ron Paul and think he's an earmarking fraud, supports anti-liberty legislation for 'security' and loves the big government policies of Mitt Romney and fake conservative Rick Santorum.

Glenn Beck is the Romney of political commentating - one of the biggest flip-floppers ever.

[vienna]

Lemme guess, is it the abortion issue? or he doesn't go far enough in his libertarian philosophy? I have some disagreements with Ron but none too big to withhold my vote. Any chance you can tell me why you wouldn't vote for a Ron Paul? Thanks for answering in advance.
well ... i'm european ... so in the eyes of an us american i'd be probably classified as a communist/socialist which is pretty much the same in the us american perception, as far as i understand it.

you know ... the city of mises and hayek, wich is also my city, is run by the socialist party since it's first free election after the 1st world war.
and ... today ... after nearly 100 years of socialism ... the city of vienna is ranked:

http://www.mercer.com/articles/quality-of-living-survey-report-2011

and if you wanna read something about how the socialists saved vienna from a complete collaps... feel free to read this .. you know ... free health care, social housing, ...:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Vienna

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Ok, since I have been drawn into this web of predictable nonsense, it's time to take off the gloves. I will be transferring page 323 from Glenn Beck's "Broke" which outlines Glenn Beck's basic principles for national defense:

(1) We mind our own business. We are not on the hunt for new enemies in the world. America will be your best friend and will treat you fairly if you do the same to us.

(2) The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. We are not going prop up corrupt or dangerous governments simply because they happen to hate countries that hate us.

(3) We sacrifice our values at own peril. We are going to conduct ourselves consistently with our values. That means not befriending countries that we don't agree with simply because they have something of value. Yes, Saudi Arabia, I'm talking to you.

(4) If you mess with us, we will fight to win. America's military arsenal is unparalleled in human history, but the last time the full might and muscle of our armed forces was released was World War II. Since then wars have been fought "humanely" with an eye towards minimizing damage. The results have not been pretty.

That ends now. If America is provoked into a war, then we fight with everything we have. War is hell and should never be taken lightly. But when it is declared (and it must be declared) America must crush it's enemy.

(5) We will not rebuild the rubble we reduce you to. If you provoke America and we unleash our full arsenal, you will be reduced to rubble. We will not waste our time or resources rebuilding your country afterward.



What treasonous anti-liberty propaganda? Right?? I agree 100% with all points. And based on Ron Paul's rhetoric during the primary, I suspect he does as well.

And yet Beck called Santorum the next George Washington.

[John F Kennedy III]

I remember seeing a video of women standing in line for "Obama money". They thought he was seriously handing out cash/checks to people. Anyway, the person filming asked one of the women where the money came from, and she said something to the effect of, "I don't know, Obama's pockets I guess!" and then laughed her head off.

People like her vote.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_7zZ7hOSxWPs/SYezAudcXEI/AAAAAAAAABQ/-bTVx-oAiX8/s400/bang+head+here.bmp

[AGRP]

And yet Beck called Santorum the next George Washington.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dec9SceFmJc

[NIU Students for Liberty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dec9SceFmJc

But deep down he really is a non-interventionist who sees human beings as individuals and not as collective threats. The man wrote a book after all. I mean, come on.

[AGRP]

But deep down he really is a non-interventionist who sees human beings as individuals and not as collective threats. The man wrote a book after all. I mean, come on.

Purist!

[juleswin]

well ... i'm european ... so in the eyes of an us american i'd be probably classified as a communist/socialist which is pretty much the same in the us american perception, as far as i understand it.

you know ... the city of mises and hayek, wich is also my city, is run by the socialist party since it's first free election after the 1st world war.
and ... today ... after nearly 100 years of socialism ... the city of vienna is ranked:

http://www.mercer.com/articles/quality-of-living-survey-report-2011

and if you wanna read something about how the socialists saved vienna from a complete collaps... feel free to read this .. you know ... free health care, social housing, ...:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Vienna

I disagree with you but I understand why you commented the way you did. But I am of the belief that if an immoral policy achieves something admirable, I will still be against it e.g the US greatly benefited from slave labour.

Hence the reason I am a libertarian (actually, I am an anarchist)

[sparebulb]

We really do have a collection of small-minded people in our movement who are so reactionary to the most innocuous items. It really is ridiculous when you start to think about it.

Once again, AuH2O, let me be the first to apologize for the low quality of people in the liberty movement. Glenn Beck is a much better alternative to liberty.

[AuH20]

Once again, AuH2O, let me be the first to apologize for the low quality of people in the liberty movement. Glenn Beck is a much better alternative to liberty.

Once again, it is useless to communicate any type of nuance on this forum. The same pettiness & narrow-minded view that pervades Free Republic and other political bastions is alive and strong in here as well. Zealots are going to be zealots whether it's a neoconservative stronghold or a libertarian stronghold. There is little difference in the mandated group thought.

[AGRP]

Once again, it is useless to communicate any type of nuance on this forum. The same pettiness & narrow-minded view that pervades Free Republic and other political bastions is alive and strong in here as well. Zealots are going to be zealots whether it's a neoconservative stronghold or a libertarian stronghold. There is little difference in the mandated group thought.

Touch of pregnancy.

[AuH20]

Touch of pregnancy.

Maybe one day you will have as many reps. Maybe............

[AGRP]

Maybe one day you will have as many reps. Maybe............

Youre now resulting to using rep points to debate?

[AuH20]

Youre now resulting to using rep points to debate?

No. You are the one trying to be smart mentioning "red" demerit points instead of bringing something substantive to the table? So what do want to debate?

[AGRP]

No. You are the one trying to be smart mentioning "red" demerit points instead of bringing something substantive to the table? So what do want to debate?

What are you talking about?

[TheTexan]

I could care less if Lucifer himself wrote "Broke" as long as those key concepts are communicated.

It matters because assholes like Beck only use the truth (that we're broke) to sell the lies (that people like Romney are the answer).

[NoOneButPaul]

If you don't subscribe to the following provisions from A to Z, you can't join our club. Complete utter nonsense. Burn it all down if it's going to be this regressive.

I can imagine the hypothetical interview in my head: Sorry, but you listened to Beck for 45 minutes last week and may be under his nefarious influence, so we can't associate with you. What? You don't faithfully believe in the non-agression principle 110%?? Sacrilege! Guards escort him to the dungeon!! WTH is going on in this realm? Adults don't act this way. Nuts do.

This.

[Eric21ND]

If you think you're going to create a nation of Murray Rothbard disciples, you are extremely mistaken. I'm a realist. I understand there are many different paths to a state of "awakening", as opposed to these draconian "guidelines" that some here espouse. Whether it's Beck, Church, Levin, Jones, Molyneux, or whomever, I'm an advocate for market saturation as opposed to this arrogant, pretentious and exclusive attitude from the "true guardians of liberty" we are subjected to on a daily basis. That's not how you build a movement. That's how you shrink a movement, which the LP is very adept at doing.
Wait till you get a load of the Daily Paul.

[AuH20]

Wait till you get a load of the Daily Paul.

I've seen some samples from Daily Paul. It's like watching an alley of bowery bums arguing over a mythical empire they are destined to rule, while being completely obtuse to the primary reasons for their lowly political residence.

[juleswin]

The problem with Glenn Beck is that he is just too wishy washy. One day he is all in love with their rhetoric and the next day he is firing on all cylinders bashing you in front of his audience(somethings for being consistent). And this second time, has a bit more credibility in the eyes of his audience because he has before given said politician favorable and even glowing coverage.

Its the stroke stroke stab tactic that I dont like

[dinosaur]

But deep down he really is a non-interventionist who sees human beings as individuals and not as collective threats. The man wrote a book after all. I mean, come on.

This is befuddling. AuH2O never defended Beck as a person or said that Beck really believes the stuff in his book. He just said that it was a good book.

Beck is dangerous because he pretends to be something that he isn't, but I'm not going to get worked up over someone giving his book a good review.

[dinosaur]

I've seen some samples from Daily Paul. It's like watching an alley of bowery bums arguing over a mythical empire they are destined to rule, while being completely obtuse to the primary reasons for their lowly political residence.

Too true, very funny, thanks

[AuH20]

BTW I just waltzed over to the Daily Paul to take a glance at the 'current topics' and I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that it must nuked from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

[sparebulb]

I've seen some samples from Daily Paul. It's like watching an alley of bowery bums arguing over a mythical empire they are destined to rule, while being completely obtuse to the primary reasons for their lowly political residence.

Pot/Kettle with a touch of arrogance. Well done.

[AuH20]

Pot/Kettle with a touch of arrogance. Well done.

The truth unfortunately hurts. What was the LP % in the national election again? Remind me. People nationwide are bursting at the seams to grab what the Daily Paul is offering. The irony of the Daily Paul is that you have individuals who wish to create this incredible political movement, yet these folks have no appreciable political instincts. It's like a penguin that wants to fly.

[sparebulb]

The truth unfortunately hurts. What was the LP % in the national election again? Remind me. People nationwide are bursting at the seams to grab what the Daily Paul is offering.

I've never been to the Daily Paul, but I can only assume that it is the same as here with many of the same participants. Remember, it is you that are electing to hang out with fringe third party losers. We can only assume that the LP types here are grateful for the characterizations of them that you provide. Keep dropping "truth" on them. You will make Glenn Beck followers of them someday.

[AuH20]

I've never been to the Daily Paul, but I can only assume that it is the same as here with many of the same participants. Remember, it is you that are electing to hang out with fringe third party losers. We can only assume that the LP types here are grateful for the characterizations of them that you provide. Keep dropping "truth" on them. You will make Glenn Beck followers of them someday.

I'm certain the feeling is mutual, but I didn't draw first blood. The Daily Paul did. Go read the comments on that site. Some of the stuff is mind-boggling and I'm talking 3/4 of all posts. I advise Carol Paul not to read those posts either. Yikes!!

[A Son of Liberty]

Once again, it is useless to communicate any type of nuance on this forum. The same pettiness & narrow-minded view that pervades Free Republic and other political bastions is alive and strong in here as well. Zealots are going to be zealots whether it's a neoconservative stronghold or a libertarian stronghold. There is little difference in the mandated group thought.

Once again, Beck's views on foreign policy are not a question of nuance, or narrow-mindedness. They are what people of principle and good conscience like to refer to as "abominable".

Hey, it's great that he wrote a book. It's great that some guy who managed to make it into his forties now understands that government money doesn't just poof into existence because of said book. But if that guy, or anyone else, starts getting the rest of his political direction from the likes of Glenn Beck, I personally consider that to be a net-negative to the liberty movement. And that's why I personally don't send people to Glenn Beck to get more information on liberty.

And once again, if that makes me narrow-minded... well, ya got me I guess.

Be careful sloshing in the slop with the pigs. You're probably not going to convince them that their not pigs, and you're definitely going to end up with crap on your face.

[sparebulb]

I'm certain the feeling is mutual, but I didn't draw first blood. The Daily Paul did. Go read the comments on that site. Some of the stuff is mind-boggling and I'm talking 3/4 of all posts.

I find much of what Glenn Beck says to be mind-boggling.

So you got butt-wounded over at the DP? So what. Why don't you go over to Glenn Beck's site and cry over there. I'm sure that you will find some sympathy and maybe even start a libertarian-hate self-help group there.

[AuH20]

I find much of what Glenn Beck says to be mind-boggling.

So you got butt-wounded over at the DP? So what. Why don't you go over to Glenn Beck's site and cry over there. I'm sure that you will find some sympathy and maybe even start a libertarian-hate self-help group there.

I'm a very open minded person but I despise close-mindedness and those who do not see the big picture. All these various political sub-factions are fighting over sheer pettiness while the elites sit back and laugh at their naivete. What many of these groups do not understand is that politics is an extension of war. One does not telegraph their moves to their enemy beforehand. Strength in numbers is imperative.

[WilliamShrugged]

and you think that reading a book from hayek will make you understand the world or the economy?
but i really have to say ... if you listen or read people like beck ... you (as a society) are in serious troubles. even if you were 17.
on a long term ... this antiintellectual culture will do harm to the us.

My point was that people like Beck and Hayek CAN be stepping stones. Not sure how you missed that. Never said Hayek was the gatekeeper to enlightenment.

If you were in my shoes then (remember this was me at 17 and this was pre-fox Beck) you could understand more. I didn't have internet at home and tried to learn from watching the news. I watched CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC, Headline prime after school daily. Many here understand that i was being spoon fed propaganda (Beck included), but Beck's show went into detail about issues instead of generalizing. That's why i watched it. Over time i could see these BS arguments/debates the left-right did in a 5 minute session on all the channels where lacking info and consistency. Who do i contribute this to? My dad? Hardly, he was working his ass off to provide a roof over my head. Was it school? I don't think i even have to explain how this wasn't it. Sure wasn't Hannity or Bill o'Reilly (which i couldn't even watch for an entire ep). It was due to Beck. Of course i must of had a libertarian mindset to begin with. Hence why the only books i ever bought that were because of Beck (mentioned on his show) were Atlas Shrugged, Road to Serfdom, Liberal Fascism, New Deal or Raw Deal, and two of Beck's books (which i got rid of). I also never fell into the personality cult with anyone. Paul or Beck (something i feel many Paul supporters are doing).

So am i unique? Perhaps, but i believe that there are many that follow paths like this. Many former Paul supporters were once neocons. Maybe all this is is the classic example of hating something that is bad, but more because you used to follow it. Like former smokers are the biggest critics of current smokers.

[Anti Federalist]

BTW I just waltzed over to the Daily Paul to take a glance at the 'current topics' and I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that it must nuked from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Negative.

That is for spiders only.

http://i.imgur.com/aBsVl.gif

[Philhelm]

Negative.

That is for spiders only.

http://i.imgur.com/aBsVl.gif

WTF? Is that a brown recluse?

[vienna]

I disagree with you but I understand why you commented the way you did. But I am of the belief that if an immoral policy achieves something admirable, I will still be against it e.g the US greatly benefited from slave labour.

Hence the reason I am a libertarian (actually, I am an anarchist)
so we are immoral people because we elected those governments and created a great social and economical enviroment? enhanced the live expactancy, lowered child mortality, gave cheap and quality living space to people who couldn't affort it before, created a safe and stable society ...?
wow, that is hardcoreidology ... if happy people aren't as important as a (dubious) believe system.

but i can assure you. in the 19th century we had unregulated markets. and that actually caused the rise of the socialists and their succesfull policies.

i think we didn't and we still don't act immoral. i'd rather say that blind faith in a dubious believe system is wrong.
and basing your believe system on unregulated markets .... well ... i cannot imagine that morals play a game in this system.
not if you look at the crimes comited by private corporations all over the world (including american corporations).

but i wish you good luck ... bringing back morality to your political system ... by handing all the power over into the hands of apple, monsanto, wallmart & co. but at least don't pollute the planet as you do now. we also live on it.
we in the meantime follow a rather more pragmatic path. sometimes you have to ad a little liberalism here another time a little conservativism there.
and in the end you'll get a good enviroment and relativly happy people[compared to others].

[UWDude]

Beck made another person a neo-con. Not awake. Awake people know Beck is garbage and a poseur.
If someone berates entitlements all day, but never says a word about the military industrial complex, they are just another republican.
Nothing special here.

[UWDude]

Honestly people get a grip... If this book "woke" this guy up.

Wait, just because he used the term "woke up" does not in any way mean he is awake.

[TheTexan]

in the 19th century we had unregulated markets. and that actually caused the rise of the socialists and their succesfull policies.

Socialism arises not through need or 'successful policy', but rather through unchecked violence and coercion. This is achieved through incremental assaults on our liberties, by the rich, greedy, and powerful. Due to its incremental nature, it mostly goes unnoticed, and the few who do notice, are left with basically two options: violence, or submission. Because of its incremental nature, the vast, vast majority choose to submit. It's simply not worth it to risk your life over such small transgressions.

It's been going on for so long that nearly all are permanently indoctrinated to it. They've known no other way, seen no other way, and can imagine no other way. The rich and powerful continue to rape and pillage the lower and middle class... because they can. But it's never enough. Always more, more, more. And what's worse, is that they say it's for your benefit, while they're sticking it in your rear.

Do you really believe that government regulations on corporations are for your benefit? Do you even know who writes the regulations? The corporations do. They write the regulations. To drive out competition, to get handouts from the government, to manipulate their markets, all in the name of protecting you.

Oh, but I bet you have a solution for that, don't you?

Well, I'm here to tell you, that the corporations and the government have their power over you on lockdown. They control this country, your liberties, your money, with an iron fist. Mostly because people like you have allowed this corruption to go on for so long, and still encourage it, that they have been able to fortify their power, to where there are no solutions left.

Well, there is one solution left... but it's not pretty.

[compromise]

BTW I just waltzed over to the Daily Paul to take a glance at the 'current topics' and I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that it must nuked from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

There are a lot more extreme people on the Daily Paul (it is much more anti-Israel, pro-Holocaust denial, pro-GMO labeling, pro-Alex Jones, pro-Truther and pro-Russia Today/Al Jazeera), who pretty much drove me off that site, but there's no question that they are Ron Paul supporters. We shouldn't antagonize a fellow liberty community.

[juleswin]

double post

[juleswin]

so we are immoral people because we elected those governments and created a great social and economical enviroment? enhanced the live expactancy, lowered child mortality, gave cheap and quality living space to people who couldn't affort it before, created a safe and stable society ...?
wow, that is hardcoreidology ... if happy people aren't as important as a (dubious) believe system.

Again, forcing your goodness on someone who doesnt want it is immoral. I wouldn't force a starving person to eat my food offering and at the same token, I wouldn't force my prosperity policies on other. You cal it hardcoreidology but I call it guiding principle. But I know life can be very complicated and I could see myself forcing people to do certain thing in certain situations, my life is in danger and theres so saying what I will do, infact I will probably eat you if we happened to be trapped on a deserted island with my food together. :)


but i can assure you. in the 19th century we had unregulated markets. and that actually caused the rise of the socialists and their succesfull policies.

If your account of what socialism did for 19th century Austria is anything like the story told about our great depression then I dont believe it. TPTD like to make up stuff about the successes of socialism and down play that of free markets. But who knows, maybe Austrians out of nationalism or group pride willed socialism into a success story. Communism, socialism can all work if the participants believe and work in the best of their abilities and not try to free load.


i think we didn't and we still don't act immoral. i'd rather say that blind faith in a dubious believe system is wrong.
and basing your believe system on unregulated markets .... well ... i cannot imagine that morals play a game in this system.
not if you look at the crimes comited by private corporations all over the world (including american corporations).

Oh yea, corporations like Walmart and Monsanto that benefit greatly from govt regulation and in the case of wall mart eminent domain. What I fear more than coporations or govts is the hybrid between govt and corporations and that is what we have now.


but i wish you good luck ... bringing back morality to your political system ... by handing all the power over into the hands of apple, monsanto, wallmart & co. but at least don't pollute the planet as you do now. we also live on it.
we in the meantime follow a rather more pragmatic path. sometimes you have to ad a little liberalism here another time a little conservativism there.
and in the end you'll get a good enviroment and relativly happy people[compared to others].

I agree you have the most pragmatic economic system but my belief is that with a gradual move to smaller govt, people will see the benefit in their lives and push for even smaller govt. Will it happen the way I am envisioning it? probably not but I am not going to surrender and give up without a try.

[vienna]

Socialism arises not through need or 'successful policy', but rather through unchecked violence and coercion. This is achieved through incremental assaults on our liberties, by the rich, greedy, and powerful. Due to its incremental nature, it mostly goes unnoticed, and the few who do notice, are left with basically two options: violence, or submission. Because of its incremental nature, the vast, vast majority choose to submit. It's simply not worth it to risk your life over such small transgressions.

It's been going on for so long that nearly all are permanently indoctrinated to it. They've known no other way, seen no other way, and can imagine no other way. The rich and powerful continue to rape and pillage the lower and middle class... because they can. But it's never enough. Always more, more, more. And what's worse, is that they say it's for your benefit, while they're sticking it in your rear.

Do you really believe that government regulations on corporations are for your benefit? Do you even know who writes the regulations? The corporations do. They write the regulations. To drive out competition, to get handouts from the government, to manipulate their markets, all in the name of protecting you.

Oh, but I bet you have a solution for that, don't you?

Well, I'm here to tell you, that the corporations and the government have their power over you on lockdown. They control this country, your liberties, your money, with an iron fist. Mostly because people like you have allowed this corruption to go on for so long, and still encourage it, that they have been able to fortify their power, to where there are no solutions left.

Well, there is one solution left... but it's not pretty.
of course it did arise from the need to change things. that's how some people lived in vienna around 1900 ... in the sewage tunnel system under the city:

http://images.derstandard.at/2011/06/09/1304665858503.jpg

http://images.derstandard.at/2011/06/09/1304665859865.jpg

that's how most of the workers lived back then ... and the bed very often was shared with others. you had to rent the bed for 8 hours or something like that. most of the apartments were overcrowded, too expensive, dark, wet, ... people got sick ... child mortality rate was incredibly high ... the situation in their work places was even worse ... and on top of that ... at least 25% of those overcrowded flats hat to rent their beds to other people who worked during the night and slept at day:

http://auguststrasse-berlin-mitte.de/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/wohnungsnot01.jpg

and the change didn't come unnoticed. their were riots in the streets and in the factories.

and when those socialist reforms were introduced ... things changed and got better. and as you can see. nowadays the living quality in a city like vienna is first class. people are free to live their lives. that's freedom. real freedom.
that's how the buildings looked the socialist government built for the workers. they were extremly cheap, big enough, clean, technically first class with fresh water from the alps in every apartment, those buildings had doctors, leisure rooms, libraries, ....

http://www.rotes-wien.at/images/KarlMarxHof.jpg

http://www.wien.gv.at/stadtentwicklung/projekte/landschaft-freiraum/landschaft/gruenraum/entwicklung/images/karl-marx-hof-g.jpg

but you are right with one of your arguments. if you let corporations make the rules ... and corporations only. you'll end up in a dictatorship. like we have seen in the past and in this photos i posted. therefore we need to counterbalance their power with the government as good as we can.

and if you find a good balance you'll get freedom ... and a social, political and economical stable and liveable enviroment.

PS: that housing program of vienna was so succesfull that the city of vienna is now the biggest owner of real estate in europe.
and it still goes on.

[CaptLouAlbano]

We really do have a collection of small-minded people in our movement who are so reactionary to the most innocuous items. It really is ridiculous when you start to think about it.

The liberty movement has been infiltrated by a small, but vocal group of hardliners who do not share the goal of having libertarian and conservative candidates win elected office and to keep the ball moving forward. The good news is their influence is limited primarily to internet forums, Facebook and the comment sections of blogs and articles. The large majority of them are not out among the voters doing the hard work.

I have seen this occur periodically throughout the past 15 or so years as the internet has become a means for them to express themselves. They are an annoyance for sure, but will have no effect on the goals that libertarian/conservative activists are working towards.

[Eric21ND]

BTW I just waltzed over to the Daily Paul to take a glance at the 'current topics' and I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that it must nuked from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
:D

[TheTexan]

of course it did arise from the need to change things. that's how some people lived in vienna around 1900 ... in the sewage tunnel system under the city:

http://images.derstandard.at/2011/06/09/1304665858503.jpg

http://images.derstandard.at/2011/06/09/1304665859865.jpg

that's how most of the workers lived back then ... and the bed very often was shared with others. you had to rent the bed for 8 hours or something like that. most of the apartments were overcrowded, too expensive, dark, wet, ... people got sick ... child mortality rate was incredibly high ... the situation in their work places was even worse ... and on top of that ... at least 25% of those overcrowded flats hat to rent their beds to other people who worked during the night and slept at day:

http://auguststrasse-berlin-mitte.de/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/wohnungsnot01.jpg

and the change didn't come unnoticed. their were riots in the streets and in the factories.

and when those socialist reforms were introduced ... things changed and got better. and as you can see. nowadays the living quality in a city like vienna is first class. people are free to live their lives. that's freedom. real freedom.
that's how the buildings looked the socialist government built for the workers. they were extremly cheap, big enough, clean, technically first class with fresh water from the alps in every apartment, those buildings had doctors, leisure rooms, libraries, ....

http://www.rotes-wien.at/images/KarlMarxHof.jpg

http://www.wien.gv.at/stadtentwicklung/projekte/landschaft-freiraum/landschaft/gruenraum/entwicklung/images/karl-marx-hof-g.jpg

but you are right with one of your arguments. if you let corporations make the rules ... and corporations only. you'll end up in a dictatorship. like we have seen in the past and in this photos i posted. therefore we need to counterbalance their power with the government as good as we can.

and if you find a good balance you'll get freedom ... and a social, political and economical stable and liveable enviroment.

PS: that housing program of vienna was so succesfull that the city of vienna is now the biggest owner of real estate in europe.
and it still goes on.

According to Wikipedia, this sounds like a government solution to a problem the government created in the first place:


The Imperial-Royal Government had passed a Tenant Protection Act (Mieterschutzgesetz) in 1917 which had been declared applicable in Vienna immediately[4]. Despite the high inflation, the act ordered the rents for flats to be frozen at the level of 1914. This made new private housing projects unprofitable. After the war, demand for affordable flats therefore grew extremely high. Creating public housing projects became the main concern of the Social Democrats in Vienna.

In 1919, the federal parliament passed the Housing Requirement Act (Wohnanforderungsgesetz) to enhance the efficiency of existing housing structures. Low private demand for building land and low building costs proved favourable for the city administration's extensive public housing planning.

Additionally, the Karl Mark-Hof was paid for with federal funds. Meaning a lucky few who were chosen by the government got to live in this prestigious practically-free housing, and everyone else had to pay for it. That's great for the lucky few, but hurts everybody else.

If government owned housing was so great for Austria, why have most of it become privatized?

[vienna]

According to Wikipedia, this sounds like a government solution to a problem the government created in the first place:



Additionally, the Karl Mark-Hof was paid for with federal funds. Meaning a lucky few who were chosen by the government got to live in this prestigious practically-free housing, and everyone else had to pay for it. That's great for the lucky few, but hurts everybody else.

If government owned housing was so great for Austria, why have most of it become privatized?
it wasn't a government created situation. the free market in the 19th century and the 1st world war created this situation.
people couldn't afford those aparments and flats. their cost took up too much of their income and those flats were crap. too dark, too small, wet, overcrowded, ...
and after the 1st world war the whole system collapsed ... people stood on the streets, the city was flooded with refuges. the free market didn't offer a solution. the free market created the whole mess in the first place. so the government took the system over, built houses and flats for everybody, not just a few lucky ones, and funded it by introducing the Residential Construction Tax. so the viennese paid for those houses not austria. what you are quoting was a federal law. not a federal tax. the law just set new standards.
there was and is of course a fiscal equalisation scheme among the austrian states. but anyway. vienna paid most into those funds. not the other way round.

the government housing programe is still going on. but a few years ago the technicallities of the process changed, because like i said, vienna is now the biggest owner of real estate in europe. so it became too big and takes up too much time and energy. so it was too succesfull. in surveys the people who live in those buildings are the most satisfied.
so now those houses still are co financed by the city of vienna. but they are not owned a 100% by the city. they are either directly owned by the residents or by more complex legal constructions, most of them non profit real estate organizations.

[WilliamShrugged]

Wait, just because he used the term "woke up" does not in any way mean he is awake.

If the guy is finally starting to realize how money isn't free. He MIGHT (not saying its 100%) care about how much goes in overseas spending. We honestly don't know, but many here need to stop thinking that all are lost. Attacking Beck will not bring this guy any closer to us. Same goes to calling anyone that used to follow Keynesian, neocon, progressivism, etc dumb. We need to quit the "us vs them" mentality. Notice this is why people become so hard to sway?

[Occam's Banana]

it wasn't a government created situation. the free market in the 19th century and the 1st world war created this situation.

Were there state-collected taxes? Were there state-imposed regulations? Did the government forcibly impose rules on the market restricting the ability of people to engage in voluntary economic exchanges?

Answer: YES. In other words: It WAS a "government created" situation. A "government created" situation is EXACTLY what it was.

The free market did NOT "create this situation" - because there WAS NO free market.

[TheTexan]

so the government took the system over, built houses and flats for everybody, not just a few lucky ones

No, they didn't. Now you're just making stuff up. I was looking forward to a good honest debate but it looks like I'll have to end this here.

[whippoorwill]

BoobussAmericonus-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio

[Occam's Banana]

BoobussAmericonus-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio

I could swear it sounds like she says "Fool Stamps" ...

[vienna]

No, they didn't. Now you're just making stuff up. I was looking forward to a good honest debate but it looks like I'll have to end this here.
you are telling me? i'm a viennese architect.
a third of the viennese population live now in what is called "gemeindebauten". a third.
and vienna is the biggest owner of real estate in europe.
in the thirties the emergancy on the housing market in vienna was practically solved.

so don't tell me that i'm making stuff up.

[TheTexan]

in the thirties the emergancy on the housing market in vienna was practically solved.

The emergency that they themselves created? "Despite the high inflation, the act ordered the rents for flats to be frozen at the level of 1914. This made new private housing projects unprofitable. After the war, demand for affordable flats therefore grew extremely high. Creating public housing projects became the main concern of the Social Democrats in Vienna."


so don't tell me that i'm making stuff up.

You said they built housing for everybody. Which they didn't. So yes, you're making stuff up. Unless you can provide a source for that... I'm done with this debate

[vienna]

Were there state-collected taxes? Were there state-imposed regulations? Did the government forcibly impose rules on the market restricting the ability of people to engage in voluntary economic exchanges?

Answer: YES. In other words: It WAS a "government created" situation. A "government created" situation is EXACTLY what it was.

The free market did NOT "create this situation" - because there WAS NO free market.
of course there are regulations in the construction business. do you konw how often cities burned down in europe before regulaitons.
or do you know how many buildings collapsed onto each other because of earthquakes?
do you know how many diseases spread because of non existing regulations over sewage, smoke, dirt in general ...

those regualtions from the 19th century derived from the experiences in the middle ages. and our regulations of today derive from our experiences from the 19th century up until now.

if i live in a house and my neighbours house falls on top of me because he doesn't care for earthquake he is inflicting with my property and my rights. and if my house is burning down because my neighbour doesn't care for fire proof building there we go again. and if my family gets a desease because my neighbour is a pig ...

there is no absolute freedom in this world. as soon as 2 people live together you have to come up with practical solutions to provide harm.

and yes. the free market created this mess of the 19th century. and yes. the government solved it.

[vienna]

The emergency that they themselves created? "Despite the high inflation, the act ordered the rents for flats to be frozen at the level of 1914. This made new private housing projects unprofitable. After the war, demand for affordable flats therefore grew extremely high. Creating public housing projects became the main concern of the Social Democrats in Vienna."
You said they built housing for everybody. Which they didn't. So yes, you're making stuff up. Unless you can provide a source for that... I'm done with this debate
arrogance and half knoledge are not a good combination for a discussion.

1. the situation was already miserable before the first world war. and it collapsed during the first world war. you remember? 1914 - 1918. the ecomomy broke down. people lost their money. they couldn't afford the bloody housing which existed until then. they couldn't afford it. you understand? they couldn't afford it. people stood on the streets and couldn'T afford it because the profits of the housing owners were too high.

so the city of vienna said. you (housing speculators) are not allowed to generate any further profits out of your houses. because our society breaks apart. and we will show you how to create higher quality for lower prices. if you are able to understand german you can check the german site of "read vienna". before the first world war the medium cost for renting a flat took up 30% of the average household income. not even to talk about the poor people.
after the introduction of the housing programme of the city it took up 4%. and they got fresh water from the alps in their apartments, libraries, doctors, leisure rooms, ... and all sorts of things in their buildings.

and up until the early 30's 60.000 new flats were built. so the situation was practically solved by then. you understand. 60.000. which got the steam out of the situation and the problem was solved.

and here we haven't even talked about the dramatically improved health, education, and working situation of the population. you'll find it all on the wikipedia sites. or if you don't trust it ... there is extensive literature on that subject. and if you want you can come to vienna and look at it with your own eyes.

2. and if you wanna have one of those flats go there. everybody can get one:

https://www.wohnservice-wien.at/

[TheTexan]

Vienna, 60,000 homes isn't even remotely close to "everybody."

Here's a good article on the subject for anyone interested.

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-great-austrian-inflation

[AuH20]

If the guy is finally starting to realize how money isn't free. He MIGHT (not saying its 100%) care about how much goes in overseas spending. We honestly don't know, but many here need to stop thinking that all are lost. Attacking Beck will not bring this guy any closer to us. Same goes to calling anyone that used to follow Keynesian, neocon, progressivism, etc dumb. We need to quit the "us vs them" mentality. Notice this is why people become so hard to sway?

Well, given that he did read Beck's book, Chapter 19 goes into great detail how defense dollars are being abused by the military-industrial complex, even at one point stating that there is little difference between government run health care and national defense. These are the type of critical concepts that must be communicated to the outsiders. There is a significant difference between rational, constitutionally mandated national defense and the excesses associated with maintaining a so-called "global force for good." The book even covers the $2.3 trillion dollars that was somehow 'misplaced' by the DoD.

[Occam's Banana]

of course there are regulations in the construction business. do you konw how often cities burned down in europe before regulaitons.
or do you know how many buildings collapsed onto each other because of earthquakes?
do you know how many diseases spread because of non existing regulations over sewage, smoke, dirt in general ...

those regualtions from the 19th century derived from the experiences in the middle ages. and our regulations of today derive from our experiences from the 19th century up until now.

if i live in a house and my neighbours house falls on top of me because he doesn't care for earthquake he is inflicting with my property and my rights. and if my house is burning down because my neighbour doesn't care for fire proof building there we go again. and if my family gets a desease because my neighbour is a pig ...

there is no absolute freedom in this world. as soon as 2 people live together you have to come up with practical solutions to provide harm.

How utterly typical. I said nothing whatsoever about "absolute freedom" (whatever that is supposed to mean) - and I certainly did not suggest in any way that there exists a lack of any need for "practical solutions" to problems.

But I do thank you for helping to prove my entire point. Your emphasis on the fact that such state-originated regulations existed only serves to hightlight the fact that there WAS NO FREE MARKET.


and yes. the free market created this mess of the 19th century. and yes. the government solved it.

Sure it did. And black is white, up is down, and A is not-A ...

I am not going to waste my time arguing with a fool who thinks that "goverment regulations & control = free market"

[vienna]

How utterly typical. I said nothing whatsoever about "absolute freedom" (whatever that is supposed to mean) - and I certainly did not suggest in any way that there exists a lack of any need for "practical solutions" to problems.

But I do thank you for helping to prove my entire point. Your emphasis on the fact that such state-originated regulations existed only serves to hightlight the fact that there WAS NO FREE MARKET.



Sure it did. And black is white, up is down, and A is not-A ...

I am not going to waste my time arguing with a fool who thinks that "goverment regulations & control = free market"
there is no freedom if my neighbours house falls onto mine or burns down and takes mine with his or polluts my water.
your definition of freedom is simplistic and was disproven ny reality i'd say around 9.000 bc when the first cities/settlements were built, or at least during the middle ages when people found out that they have to come up with rules in order to live a free live together.

[TheTexan]

I am not going to waste my time arguing with a fool who thinks that "goverment regulations & control = free market"

I do like how he says this:

it wasn't a government created situation. the free market in the 19th century and the 1st world war created this situation.

The 1st world war... that Austria-Hungary started... created this situation... but it's not a government created situation.

Mind. Blown.

[Occam's Banana]

there is no freedom if my neighbours house falls onto mine or burns down and takes mine with his or polluts my water.
your definition of freedom is simplistic and was disproven ny reality i'd say around 9.000 bc when the first cities/settlements were built, or at least during the middle ages when people found out that they have to come up with rules in order to live a free live together.

I have not at any point offered any definition of freedom whatsoever. Nor have I said or suggested such a profoundly stupid thing as "people don't need rules."

I have done nothing more than point out that your repeated assertions that "governement regulations & control = free market" is a bunch of ludicrous nonsense.

Given your indulgence in such ridiculous & self-serving contradictions, it does not surprise me in the least that you dodge the issue by engaging in a bizarre and irrelevant song-and-dance about houses falling down and pre-historic villages.

[vienna]

Vienna, 60,000 homes isn't even remotely close to "everybody."

Here's a good article on the subject for anyone interested.

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-great-austrian-inflation
of course it is. it solved the dramatic situation on the housing market and regulated the prives on a normal level.
everything else what followed afterwards was easy.

and to your article.
funny that you choose an american libertarian to explain my city to me.
where to start ... let me see. so what he is basically saying is that the empire crumbled ... vienna was isolated by the austrian states which imposed high tax barriers onto supplying vienna with food ... which at the time was flooded with about 150.000 refugees.
and that during the war and in it's aftermath an inflation was destroying not only austria but europe... yeah, alright. noone said otherwise. that's what is said in the wikipedia article too. and then a few years later the situation was cleaned by splitting vienna from lower austria and the currency reform of 25.

and here somehting for you to think about which came after those reforms of 25:


...As a result of the municipality's investment activity, the rate of unemployment in Vienna dropped in relation to the rest of Austria and to Germany. All investments were financed directly by taxes, not by credits. Thus the city administration stayed independent of creditors and did not have to pay interest on bonds...

[vienna]

I have not at any point offered any definition of freedom whatsoever. Nor have I said or suggested such a profoundly stupid thing as "people don't need rules."

I have done nothing more than point out that your repeated assertions that "governement regulations & control = free market" is a bunch of ludicrous nonsense.

Given your indulgence in such ridiculous & self-serving contradictions, it does not surprise me in the least that you dodge the issue by engaging in a bizarre and irrelevant song-and-dance about houses falling down and pre-historic villages.
why are you people so arrogant and aggressive?
if you don't believe in the necessity of those regulations, which are of course as everybody knows absolutely necessary to live a free live in a stable society...

then give me your exact definition of freedom and how to regulate or non regulate something as the housing market in a city like vienna, paris or new york.

[vienna]

I do like how he says this:


The 1st world war... that Austria-Hungary started... created this situation... but it's not a government created situation.

Mind. Blown.
the first world war was started by the austrio hungarian empire and germany. not the viennese city government *lol*
have you read about the relationship between vienna and its surrounding "black states". you even posted an article about it. *lol*
but besides this ... non of this is on topic with the discussed issue of the housing market. which problematic situation dates back to the 19th century and specualtion in the housing market.

[TheTexan]

the first world war was started by the austrian government. not the viennese city government *lol*
have you read about the relationship between vienna and its surrounding "black states". you even posted an article about it. *lol'

Vienna was only the capital of the Austrian government... *lol*

[vienna]

Vienna was only the capital of the Austrian government... *lol*
yes. but the city of vienna was not run by emperor franz-joseph and emperor wilhelm. jesus christ ...
the city of vienna was governed by different politicians then the austro hungarian empire. you know?
but what has this to do with a housing programe which actually worked?

[thequietkid10]

If you think you're going to create a nation of Murray Rothbard disciples, you are extremely mistaken. I'm a realist. I understand there are many different paths to a state of "awakening", as opposed to these draconian "guidelines" that some here espouse. Whether it's Beck, Church, Levin, Jones, Molyneux, or whomever, I'm an advocate for market saturation as opposed to this arrogant, pretentious and exclusive attitude from the "true guardians of liberty" we are subjected to on a daily basis. That's not how you build a movement. That's how you shrink a movement, which the LP is very adept at doing.

+1

the attitude of some people will leave the movements pure, smug, and small.

My father voted for Obama, he is the primary bread winner who regularly works overtime for a private manufacturing company. When he is home he does regular maintenance on the car, helps cook, and do other chores around the house He doesn't talk much about politics but one of his argument was "how can you blame the entire economy on one person" Anyone who thinks he's a "user" can go **** themselves.

The reality of the situation is that human beings value security and basic needs over "freedom." It is counter intuitive for many people, how more freedom can lead to more security and prosperity
The reality of the situation is that there is a cognitive disconnect between taxes they pay and the goodies other people receive.

People may get their rocks off by looking down their noises at the "Sheeple" but such behavior alienates way more people from the liberty movement then attracts them.

The moral of this story is that there are a lot of people out there who can be educated and that anyone who educates them (even if only partially right) should be commended.

[Occam's Banana]

why are you people so arrogant and aggressive?
if you don't believe in the necessity of those regulations, which are of course as everybody knows absolutely necessary to live a free live in a stable society...

then give me your exact definition of freedom and how to regulate or non regulate something as the housing market in a city like vienna, paris or new york.

You made the ridiculous claim that the free market was to blame for a situation in which a free market did not even exist.

I have pointed out (several times now) that this is a contradiction, (How is that "arrogant and aggressive"?) You have avoided acknowledging this fact by going on about medieval plagues & pre-historic villages and various other things that are irrelevant to the fact that the problems of fin de siècle Vienna had absolutely *nothing* to do with any "free market" - because no free market existed.

My own "definition of freedom" - or what I think would be a good or proper way to go about developing and enforcing rules & laws & such - has nothing to do with any of this.

[vienna]

You made the ridiculous claim that the free market was to blame for a situation in which a free market did not even exist.

I have pointed out (several times now) that this is a contradiction, (How is that "arrogant and aggressive"?) You have avoided acknowledging this fact by going on about medieval plagues & pre-historic villages and various other things that are irrelevant to the fact that the problems of fin de siècle Vienna had absolutely *nothing* to do with any "free market" - because no free market existed.

My own "definition of freedom" - or what I think would be a good or proper way to go about developing and enforcing rules & laws & such - has nothing to do with any of this.
if the only definition of a free market would be a market with 0 laws and 0 rules and 0 regulation then you'd be right.
but because such a market situation doesn't and cannot exist in our reality (and not even in theory) it's an absurd claim by you.
the free market as we know it can only be free because of laws and rules and regulation. i work as an architect in vienna. without regulations, rules and laws i'd be lost. i wouldn't have any legal safety to rely my designs and plans on. and neither would my clients and the people who use their buildings or who are in some way affected by them.
and the situation of the 19th century was derived from learning from the centuries before. it's really simple.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9FN99ZphFRY/TqApXHJMl9I/AAAAAAAAA_c/H_kQrLXrld4/s1600/penn.jpg

[vienna]

so logically every form of government is coercive then, right? every form of election, lawmaking, whatsoever ... it's of course always to some degree coercive. and therefore we shouldn't have it, right?
can i sue then someone who pollutes the air/atmosphere with the exhaust gasses of his car and interferes then with my health and freedom?

[NIU Students for Liberty]

so logically every form of government is coercive then, right? every form of election, lawmaking, whatsoever ... it's of course always to some degree coercive. and therefore we shouldn't have it, right?
can i sue then someone who pollutes the air/atmosphere with the exhaust gasses of his car and interferes then with my health and freedom?

If there wasn't voluntary consent, then yes, it is coercive. In regards to air pollution, the car owner would not be sued but rather the road owner (assuming roads are privatized in this scenario) for their inability to prevent pollution from leaving their property and entering yours.

[Occam's Banana]

if the only definition of a free market would be a market with 0 laws and 0 rules and 0 regulation then you'd be right.
but because such a market situation doesn't and cannot exist in our reality (and not even in theory) it's an absurd claim by you.
the free market as we know it can only be free because of laws and rules and regulation. i work as an architect in vienna. without regulations, rules and laws i'd be lost. i wouldn't have any legal safety to rely my designs and plans on. and neither would my clients and the people who use their buildings or who are in some way affected by them.
and the situation of the 19th century was derived from learning from the centuries before. it's really simple.

No one (except you) has said *anything* about the free market meaning "zero laws and zero rules and zero regulations."

The Soviet Union had PLENTY of laws and rules and regulations. Was it a "free market"? Would you blame its problems on the "free market"? Would you take seriously anyone who did?

Now replace "Soviet Union" with "Austro-Hungary" or "Vienna" ...

The mere existence of "laws and rules and regulations" do not make a market "free" - 19th-century Vienna was NOT a free market. It's problems CANNOT be blamed on the free market.

[vienna]

If there wasn't voluntary consent, then yes, it is coercive. In regards to air pollution, the car owner would not be sued but rather the road owner (assuming roads are privatized in this scenario) for their inability to prevent pollution from leaving their property and entering yours.
point 1. so there would be no government at all. fine. there goes this theory.
point 2. why can't i sue the car driver? why?
point 3. how can the road owner prevent the pollution from leaving his property? the road owner doesn't own the atmosphere. he owns the street, right? and how does the road owner know anyway which sort of technology and gasses those cars use?
what's the point of having roads if people can't drive with their cars on them?

[vienna]

No one (except you) has said *anything* about the free market meaning "zero laws and zero rules and zero regulations."

The Soviet Union had PLENTY of laws and rules and regulations. Was it a "free market"? Would you blame its problems on the "free market"? Would you take seriously anyone who did?

Now replace "Soviet Union" with "Austro-Hungary" or "Vienna" ...

The mere existence of "laws and rules and regulations" do not make a market "free" - 19th-century Vienna was NOT a free market. It's problems CANNOT be blamed on the free market.
so why wasn't it a free market then? would you be so kind giving me your philosophical expertise please on the main charakter of the housing market of 19th century vienna?

and what would a free housing market looked like?

[Ender]

if the only definition of a free market would be a market with 0 laws and 0 rules and 0 regulation then you'd be right.
but because such a market situation doesn't and cannot exist in our reality (and not even in theory) it's an absurd claim by you.
the free market as we know it can only be free because of laws and rules and regulation. i work as an architect in vienna. without regulations, rules and laws i'd be lost. i wouldn't have any legal safety to rely my designs and plans on. and neither would my clients and the people who use their buildings or who are in some way affected by them.
and the situation of the 19th century was derived from learning from the centuries before. it's really simple.

Good grief.

If you need the government to insure that your projects are safe, then you are definitely in the wrong business. A good architect should know what is safe and feasible w/o a government babysitter.

Common Law should take care of any problem that relates to injury, broken contracts etc. You do NOT need government regulation for that.

[vienna]

Good grief.

If you need the government to insure that your projects are safe, then you are definitely in the wrong business. A good architect should know what is safe and feasible w/o a government babysitter.

Common Law should take care of any problem that relates to injury, broken contracts etc. You do NOT need government regulation for that.
wow ... you have never in your life worked professionally in that business haven't you?
this is so far away from practice and reality that i wont even respond to that.
sometimes i wonder how old you people are and what you do professionally?

[NIU Students for Liberty]

point 1. so there would be no government at all. fine. there goes this theory.
point 2. why can't i sue the car driver? why?
point 3. how can the road owner prevent the pollution from leaving his property? the road owner doesn't own the atmosphere. he owns the street, right? and how does the road owner know anyway which sort of technology and gasses those cars use?
what's the point of having roads if people can't drive with their cars on them?

1. No one said that in an anarchist society, laws and/or government cannot exist. However, the citizens cannot be forced into the system. If a group of a socialists want to establish their own society founded on socialism, they have that CHOICE in a voluntaryist environment.

2. If you can prove and identify the driver at fault, fine. But if thousands of drivers are passing through this particular road on a given day, singling out the polluting driver would be like finding a needle in a haystack. At that point, the owner of the road can still be held liable.

3. I can apply the same logic to the current system. Does the government own the atmosphere ? No. Therefore good luck trying to sue them. But what this all comes down to is what system would be best for limiting pollution: the current one in which there is no incentive for the government to protect the environment or the free market where property rights are valued?

[vienna]

1. No one said that in an anarchist society, laws and/or government cannot exist. However, the citizens cannot be forced into the system. If a group of a socialists want to establish their own society founded on socialism, they have that CHOICE in a voluntaryist environment.

2. If you can prove and identify the driver at fault, fine. But if thousands of drivers are passing through this particular road on a given day, singling out the polluting driver would be like finding a needle in a haystack. At that point, the owner of the road can still be held liable.

3. I can apply the same logic to the current system. Does the government own the atmosphere ? No. Therefore good luck trying to sue them. But what this all comes down to is what system would be best for limiting pollution: the current one in which there is no incentive for the government to protect the environment or the free market where property rights are valued?
1. if it's voluntary it wont work. it never worked. nowhere. + there is no example where it works right now, except in theories of 3rd class philosophers who don't even know what reality looks like.

2. liable for what? that cars drive on his road and do what they are supposed to do? how can he be held reliable for something someone else is doing? he owns a harmless piece of asphalt and nothing else. how can he check the technology of every car which drives on his road? who puts up the standard for the allowed pollution?

3. sure the governmente can say that the water and the air is a common good and has to be protected with regulation a, b and c.

[Ender]

wow ... you have never in your life worked professionally in that business haven't you?
this is so far away from practice and reality that i wont even respond to that.
sometimes i wonder how old you people are and what you do professionally?

You can't respond because your experience in Real Life is so far from working w/o a master that you do not understand the concept of personal responsibility. YOU, as an architect, are responsible for the design and safety of a building- next in line would be the construction company, not the government.

A Free Market is based on PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. You hurt someone, you pay for it.

Yo'Mama, Big Gov won't be there to manage you.

[vienna]

You can't respond because your experience in Real Life is so far from working w/o a master that you do not understand the concept of personal responsibility. YOU, as an architect, are responsible for the design and safety of a building- next in line would be the construction company, not the government.

A Free Market is based on PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. You hurt someone, you pay for it.

Yo'Mama, Big Gov won't be there to manage you.
because of people like you i cannot have any respect for the liberatrian movement.
that's laughable.

right now i'm realizing 4 projects which all costs several million euros as a designer, planer and site supervisior.
we actually have legal problems with one of the contruction companies right now, and we've pretty much solved them together with our lawyer.

so i know what i'm talking about. and i really can't stand people who live in fantasy land and act as 3rd class philosophers.
you need a few lectures of pure and hard reality my friend.

[Occam's Banana]

so why wasn't it a free market then? would you be so kind giving me your philosophical expertise please on the main charakter of the housing market of 19th century vienna?

and what would a free housing market looked like?

And so we come full circle ...


Were there state-collected taxes? Were there state-imposed regulations? Did the government forcibly impose rules on the market restricting the ability of people to engage in voluntary economic exchanges?

Answer: YES. In other words: It WAS a "government created" situation. A "government created" situation is EXACTLY what it was.

The free market did NOT "create this situation" - because there WAS NO free market.

[Occam's Banana]

wow ... you have never in your life worked professionally in that business haven't you?
this is so far away from practice and reality that i wont even respond to that.
sometimes i wonder how old you people are and what you do professionally?

Good Lord! Now who's being arrogant? We're all just little, helpless babies who need "professionals" like you to look after us!

And if we have the nerve to suggest something Daddy Professional doesn't like, he'll just tell us "You're wrong, little baby - because I said so!"

Of course, he may not say it like that. He might say "this is so far away from practice and reality that i wont even respond to that" instead ...

ETA:

because of people like you i cannot have any respect for the liberatrian movement.
that's laughable.

right now i'm realizing 4 projects which all costs several million euros as a designer, planer and site supervisior.
we actually have legal problems with one of the contruction companies right now, and we've pretty much solved them together with our lawyer.

so i know what i'm talking about. and i really can't stand people who live in fantasy land and act as 3rd class philosophers.
you need a few lectures of pure and hard reality my friend.

O, forgive us, please! We didn't realize we were dealing with a Master of the Universe! Truly we didn't! We didn't mean it! Please, please don't hurt us!

Seriously, though. I can't stand people who think whipping out their dicks to show us all how magnificently thick & long they are somehow proves them right - or even serves as evidence of anything other than the size of their own egos.

Welcome to my ignore list. Goodbye.

[vienna]

No one (except you) has said *anything* about the free market meaning "zero laws and zero rules and zero regulations."


Were there state-imposed regulations? Did the government forcibly impose rules on the market restricting the ability of people to engage in voluntary economic exchanges?

Answer: YES. In other words: It WAS a "government created" situation. A "government created" situation is EXACTLY what it was.
nice piece of logic here.
the market wasn't free because there were fire safety regulations? but then again a market can also be free with regulations but in that case it wasn't free because there were regulations but then again a market can be free with regulation but in that case ...

and therefore the living conditions and the prices of and in those flats have got to be blamed on the government.

and all this in the context of a discussion where the government proofed under the exact same circumstances that they can build houses cheaper and healthier.
wow. fine piece of self referential circular logic.

[vienna]

Good Lord! Now who's being arrogant? We're all just little, helpless babies who need "professionals" like you to look after us!

And if we have the nerve to suggest something Daddy Professional doesn't like, he'll just tell us "You're wrong, little baby - because I said so!"

Of course, he may not say it like that. He might say "this is so far away from practice and reality that i wont even respond to that" instead ...

ETA:


O, forgive us, please! We didn't realize we were dealing with a Master of the Universe! Truly we didn't! We didn't mean it! Please, please don't hurt us!

Seriously, though. I can't stand people who think whipping out their dicks to show us all how magnificently thick & long they are somehow proves them right.

Welcome to my ignore list. Goodbye.
of course i do. these arguments are so amateurish. the workers on a building site know more about the legal implications of their actions.

[Ender]

because of people like you i cannot have any respect for the liberatrian movement.
that's laughable.

right now i'm realizing 4 projects which all costs several million euros as a designer, planer and site supervisior.
we actually have legal problems with one of the contruction companies right now, and we've pretty much solved them together with our lawyer.

so i know what i'm talking about. and i really can't stand people who live in fantasy land and act as 3rd class philosophers.
you need a few lectures of pure and hard reality my friend.

YOU being responsible for your own product is laughable? You just stated that you have worked some things out with your lawyer- THAT is free market.

Being able to make your own choices is Free Market.
Being responsible for those choices is Free Market.
Losing customers because of bad product is Free Market.
Gaining customers because of good product is Free Market.

The government telling you every move to make is NOT free market.
The government driving business from your country is NOT free market.
The government giving special privileges to business cronies is NOT free market
The government making it impossible for small businesses to exist is NOT free market.

[juleswin]

nice piece of logic here.
the market wasn't free because there were fire safety regulations?

and therefore the living conditions and the prices of and in those flats have to blamed on the government.

and all this in the context of a discussion where the government proofed under the exact same circumstances that they can build houses cheaper and healthier.
wow. fine piece of self referential circular logic.

Free in free market is not restricted to freedom to make improvements or doing positive things. It also includes freedom to take risks and fail. Again, this is an argument you are not going to win, people here truly believe in personal responsibility without daddy govt looking over their backs. Free market regulation mainly comes from customers demanding it and the desire to attract those customers $.

[vienna]

YOU being responsible for your own product is laughable? You just stated that you have worked some things out with your lawyer- THAT is free market.

Being able to make your own choices is Free Market.
Being responsible for those choices is Free Market.
Losing customers because of bad product is Free Market.
Gaining customers because of good product is Free Market.

The government telling you every move to make is NOT free market.
The government driving business from your country is NOT free market.
The government giving special privileges to business cronies is NOT free market
The government making it impossible for small businesses to exist is NOT free market.
this is so overly simplistic ... you're living in fantasy land.

without regulations you wouldn't even know which products you could combine in which ways and how much guarantee you could give on certain construction methods, what safety standards you'd have to achieve in order to not be liable now or in 10 years from now, or in vienna or in munich. if i'd have to rely only on decissions of the supreme court i would have dozens of different decisions in front of me which all were made under different circumstances and i'd constantly had to pay lawyers to plan a staircase and everything would last months until i can make a descission and everything would be immensly expensive.
that's complete and utter nonsense. there is a reason why we have those regulations. it's for me and my clients, so that we have a common ground on which we can base our decissions on. in advance, during and after the planning time.and it's for me and dozens or hundrets of building firms from all over austria and europe so that we can work together even if we come from different places and all our materials and products and machines fit together. now and in 10 years from now. here and in graz and in budapest.
everything else would be complete unceretainty. you wouldn't even know which legal problems might await you in 1 or in 10 years. i could go on and on, but that's too complicated for me to explain in english. anyway ... there is no point in this discussion anyway. because building houses works that way all over the world. FOR A REASON.

i think you never made real contracts in your life, have you?

[juleswin]

this is so overly simplistic ... you're living in fantasy land.

without regulations you wouldn't even know which products you could combine in which ways and how much guarantee you could give on certain construction methods,

Nobody here is advocating for no regulations, I can assure you, nobody on this website would rent an apartment with roaches on it. The argument ppl are making is no govt regulation. Which is very different from no regulations at all. And the fact that people dont have the knowledge to judge say building safety is the reason why we have rating agencies like consumer report around. Just imagine, we have consumer report with all the abc govt groups already in place to test the safety of products, now think of how many free market rating agencies we would have with no govt agencies occupying those roles.

[vienna]

Nobody here is advocating for no regulations, I can assure you, nobody on this website would rent an apartment with roaches on it. The argument ppl are making is no govt regulation. Which is very different from no regulations at all. And the fact that people dont have the knowledge to judge say building safety is the reason why we have rating agencies like consumer report around. Just imagine, we have consumer report with all the abc govt groups already in place to test the safety of products, now think of how many free market rating agencies we would have with no govt agencies occupying those roles.
oh yeah ... that is a great idea. random private companies who regulate the construction business. i can already see the grin on the face of the big construction companies.
we'd have hundrets or maybe thousands of different companies and opinions. some of them founded on the channel islands, some of them give you an expertise and then send their firm into bankruptcy. most of them probably "slightly influenced" by big construction companies who will in some way buy those "consumer protection agencies" ... and in the end you'll ask yourselve ... mhhh ... whom should i trust now? i have here 20 opinions ... and everytime i make a new building i get different opinions.
and in the end it turns out that the opinion they gave me gets overturned by the supreme court and i get busted.

those regualtions we have here in austria are made by a team of people with different interests. architects, construction companies, producer of products, lawyers and consumers. and everything under the eyes of the puplic. at least as much as it's possible.
what's wrong with keeping it simple?

[Occam's Banana]

Free in free market is not restricted to freedom to make improvements or doing positive things. It also includes freedom to take risks and fail. Again, this is an argument you are not going to win, people here truly believe in personal responsibility without daddy govt looking over their backs. Free market regulation mainly comes from customers demanding it and the desire to attract those customers $.

But don't you see, Little Baby juleswin? We Little Babies need government to make a bunch of rules & regulations for us. (Other kinds of rules & regulations do not count - only government ones. Daddy Professional says so.)

Then we need the government to force those rules & regulations on everybody. Daddy Professional says that when it does that, we will have a "free market."

But this "free market" will fail. It won't fail because of all those government rules & regulations that created it, though! Oh, no, not at all!

Daddy Professional says It will fail because because of the "free market"! This does not make any sense. That does not matter, though. Daddy Professional has told us it is so.

Daddy Professional is *very* wise. Daddy Professional does not argue in "self-referential circular logic". Oh, no, Daddy Professional would *never* do that!

He will accuse other people of arguing that way, though. This is because Daddy Professional cannot imagine *anything* except rules & regulations that come from the government.

(But don't tell Daddy Professional I said so - he might spank me and send me to bed without supper!)

[dinosaur]

Nobody here is advocating for no regulations, I can assure you, nobody on this website would rent an apartment with roaches on it. The argument ppl are making is no govt regulation. Which is very different from no regulations at all. And the fact that people dont have the knowledge to judge say building safety is the reason why we have rating agencies like consumer report around. Just imagine, we have consumer report with all the abc govt groups already in place to test the safety of products, now think of how many free market rating agencies we would have with no govt agencies occupying those roles.

Free market building safety organizations would be great. An organization would have to be competetive and reliable in order to survive. Buiders could make the free choice to seek or not seek approval from a free market buidling safety organization. Consumers could make the free choice to buy, or to not buy, from builders who chose not to be accredited or inspected by a reputable organization. Insurance companies could choose to require inspection from the agency of their choice, but that would also leave an opening in the market for insurance companies who chose not to require such inspections. Builders and architects who wished for criminal liability protection could submit themselves to voluntary inspection in order to obtain the appropriate insurance.