Obama Signs Westminster Abbey Guest Book…

[Banned]

Someday he might actually find out about libertarians before he makes uneducated and idiotic posts about them.

Libertarians are against an authoritarian, controlling central government. They understand and prefer local governments, where we all have much more of a voice.

Show me a libertarian website that does not want "police, fire, defense, environmental protections, or oversight of vastly-powerful corporations"

Ron Paul, a noted libertarian has been trying to exercise some oversight of the Federal Reserve Bank. He cannot even get the politicians in DC to authorize an audit of the Fed. How can you have oversight when they will not allow an audit just to find out what is really going on there?

When the state and local governments had too much power, it led us into a civil war. In restoring that local power, how do you ensure a sense of loyalty to the nation as a whole? I don't want to go on vacation, walk into a bar, and have Skeeter say, "Hey boy, we don't take kindly to your type around here."

Lincoln led us into the Civil War. The Confederate States should have been allowed to leave if they wanted. There is no clause in the Constitution that says you cannot leave. It is not a blood document. Texas has a strong secession movement, it is actually written into the Texas State Constitution, that they have the right to leave if they want. If they want to leave, should we start a war with Texas?

Lincoln suspended Constitutional rights during the Civil War. Is that the kind of central government you want? Would you be OK with O going to war with Texas, and suspending a few Constitutional rights at his whim?

I have been in red neck bars in PA and not felt comfortable. That stuff happens, just leave.

[Larry]

Someday he might actually find out about libertarians before he makes uneducated and idiotic posts about them.

Libertarians are against an authoritarian, controlling central government. They understand and prefer local governments, where we all have much more of a voice.

Show me a libertarian website that does not want "police, fire, defense, environmental protections, or oversight of vastly-powerful corporations"

Ron Paul, a noted libertarian has been trying to exercise some oversight of the Federal Reserve Bank. He cannot even get the politicians in DC to authorize an audit of the Fed. How can you have oversight when they will not allow an audit just to find out what is really going on there?

When the state and local governments had too much power, it led us into a civil war. In restoring that local power, how do you ensure a sense of loyalty to the nation as a whole? I don't want to go on vacation, walk into a bar, and have Skeeter say, "Hey boy, we don't take kindly to your type around here."

Lincoln led us into the Civil War. The Confederate States should have been allowed to leave if they wanted. There is no clause in the Constitution that says you cannot leave. It is not a blood document. Texas has a strong secession movement, it is actually written into the Texas State Constitution, that they have the right to leave if they want. If they want to leave, should we start a war with Texas?

Lincoln suspended Constitutional rights during the Civil War. Is that the kind of central government you want? Would you be OK with O going to war with Texas, and suspending a few Constitutional rights at his whim?

I have been in red neck bars in PA and not felt comfortable. That stuff happens, just leave.

Let's preempt them and kick them out now, along with NM, AZ, and CA. It would help to solve the immigration problem.

Maybe we'd all be better off as 50 different countries.

Or, each county could be its own country, and they could all build barbed wire electric fences around the county line.

I'm a bit unclear how far this principle goes.

[Banned]

Yes, lets go for it. If any of these states look like they would govern with libertarian principles, I will seriously consider moving there. Why would I want to stay in an authoritarian state, run by fascists and looking at $61 Trillion in Debt?

edit: why the barbed wire, are you a salesman?

[Gallowglass]

...

Lincoln led us into the Civil War. The Confederate States should have been allowed to leave if they wanted. There is no clause in the Constitution that says you cannot leave. It is not a blood document. Texas has a strong secession movement, it is actually written into the Texas State Constitution, that they have the right to leave if they want. If they want to leave, should we start a war with Texas?

Lincoln suspended Constitutional rights during the Civil War. Is that the kind of central government you want? Would you be OK with O going to war with Texas, and suspending a few Constitutional rights at his whim?

I have been in red neck bars in PA and not felt comfortable. That stuff happens, just leave.

+1

Lincoln was such a douche. I cannot believe we have been so conditioned by the authoritarians to actually celebrate what he did. I found it funny that Obama made such an effort to associate himself with Lincoln leading up to his election. I guess we deserve what we got...he so much as told us what he was all about.

[lonewolf]

When the state and local governments had too much power, it led us into a civil war. In restoring that local power, how do you ensure a sense of loyalty to the nation as a whole? I don't want to go on vacation, walk into a bar, and have Skeeter say, "Hey boy, we don't take kindly to your type around here."

Lincoln led us into the Civil War. The Confederate States should have been allowed to leave if they wanted. There is no clause in the Constitution that says you cannot leave. It is not a blood document. Texas has a strong secession movement, it is actually written into the Texas State Constitution, that they have the right to leave if they want. If they want to leave, should we start a war with Texas?

Lincoln suspended Constitutional rights during the Civil War. Is that the kind of central government you want? Would you be OK with O going to war with Texas, and suspending a few Constitutional rights at his whim?

I have been in red neck bars in PA and not felt comfortable. That stuff happens, just leave.

Let's preempt them and kick them out now, along with NM, AZ, and CA. It would help to solve the immigration problem.

Maybe we'd all be better off as 50 different countries.

Or, each county could be its own country, and they could all build barbed wire electric fences around the county line.

I'm a bit unclear how far this principle goes.

Then read the Constitution. It sets up the relationship with the states.

If you really want to know the thoughts of the people who wrote the Constitution, read The Federalist Papers. This subject is discussed thoroughly.

http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/p ... papers.pdf

[Larry]

Yes, lets go for it. If any of these states look like they would govern with libertarian principles, I will seriously consider moving there. Why would I want to stay in an authoritarian state, run by fascists and looking at $61 Trillion in Debt?

edit: why the barbed wire, are you a salesman?

For now, just pharmaceuticals, but if fencing is where the money is, I'd make the transition. Besides, I'd probably get a pass to travel between counties, unlike the other suckers.

[Gallowglass]

...Let's preempt them and kick them out now, along with NM, AZ, and CA. It would help to solve the immigration problem.

On that point...I'm not really too gung-ho on the immigration issue. I kind of see it as a private property issue. If you choose to employ foreigners on/in your personal property, I could really care less. If you care to not allow them on your property/business, well then I'm all for that too. What does bother me is doling out publicly financed benefits (like welfare) and incentives to immigrants. I think if we cut all that crap, we really would have a lot less to worry about as far as who was coming here and for what purposes.

[songsmith]

...But they totally support whites-only businesses and corporate control of all facets of American life, except when religion can control us.

Johnny...I understand that half the shit you post is directly aimed at getting Joe's goat, but honestly...do you really believe that? I'd really like to know. It seems like you really equate the libertarian movement with the fundamentalist right. I've been involved in the Libertarian Party for almost 20 years now (that's right, motherfuckers, I got REAL LP creds.) and have a vested interest in knowing how it is perceived. If that's really the case, the party is doing a piss poor job of communicating it's ideals.

I was going by the discussion we had earlier in the thread, wherein libertarians expressed several times that the property rights of the shopowner supercede the civil rights of a black customer. I disagreed, and still heartly recommend that someone try putting a "whites-only" sign in a shop window, and test that "freedom". Good luck with that.
As for the perception of libertarianism, my own general assessment is that libertarianism is conservatism run amok, loners who each rule their own version of the world. It seems based on Ayn Rand objectivism, class warfare, autocracy, nationalism & exceptionalism, and a strong belief that everyone else besides themselves is an idiot. It also appears to foster strong fantasies of a "free market," where business' main focus is humanitarian, and there is no exploitation or corruption. There are also fantasies, and I've heard this at some point from nearly every Libertarian I've met, of an impending doom of one sort or another. Sometimes, it's a great socialist uprising, often it's a fiscal or financial catastrophe. The end result is usually utter devastation that only the Libertarian was prepared for. In every case, the government is the culprit, and is usually aided by a group the Libertarian does not like: liberals, immigrants, gays, Muslims, blacks, etc.
Another perception problem for Libertarians: I do not know, and have never met a Libertarian who is not white, male, Christian, and 30-plus. This is hard to get past when talk turns to eliminating programs for everyone other than 30-plus white males.
It's my opinion that Libertarianism is simply a sense of entitlement to authority without responsibility, and I think Joe is a shining example.
I respect your opinions, because you are one of the few who doesn't take personal shots, and because you've obviously given it far more thought than our esteemed peer. These are my views, not disguised as "fact." If one wanted to change perceptions of Libertarianism, they would do well to stay away from the bluster of people who need to be the loudest person in the room.

[lonewolf]

...But they totally support whites-only businesses and corporate control of all facets of American life, except when religion can control us.

Johnny...I understand that half the shit you post is directly aimed at getting Joe's goat, but honestly...do you really believe that? I'd really like to know. It seems like you really equate the libertarian movement with the fundamentalist right. I've been involved in the Libertarian Party for almost 20 years now (that's right, motherfuckers, I got REAL LP creds.) and have a vested interest in knowing how it is perceived. If that's really the case, the party is doing a piss poor job of communicating it's ideals.

I was going by the discussion we had earlier in the thread, wherein libertarians expressed several times that the property rights of the shopowner supercede the civil rights of a black customer.

Just FYI: That's not why the law was upheld in the Supreme Court--the Supreme Court doesn't recognize any right of minorities' or anybody else to go into private business, per se.

It was upheld because of the Interstate Commerce clause which states that Congress can regulate anything that deals with interstate commerce.

The argument was that blacks were travelling across state lines and it was a problem for them to get food and shelter and the Supreme Court bought it.

[Banned]

Johnny wrote:
"It's my opinion that Libertarianism is simply a sense of entitlement to authority without responsibility"

Johnny wants liberalism, which is a sense of entitlement to everyone else's money and property, just because they are liberals, and they know better than anyone else. They care, so they should get your money, even when they do not pay income taxes.

There is no greater authority wielded as when liberals come and take your money at gunpoint. I guess the authority he talks about with libertarians is the nerve of libertarians to not want to have their money and property stolen by government liberals.

[lonewolf]

Just some more FYI. Libertarianism is a fairly simple doctrine and it is nothing like I have seen described here. It can be summed up with two words: Freewill & Responsibility

In a nutshell, we believe that everybody has natural inalienable rights which include, but are not limited to life, liberty & property.

(freewill)

and....

Each person has the freedom to exercise these rights in any way they see fit, so long as it does not infringe on another's natural rights.

(responsibility)

and....

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

[Gallowglass]

...
I was going by the discussion we had earlier in the thread, wherein libertarians expressed several times that the property rights of the shopowner supercede the civil rights of a black customer. I disagreed, and still heartly recommend that someone try putting a "whites-only" sign in a shop window, and test that "freedom". Good luck with that.

You know, just because I feel that a person may have a right to do something does not mean that I support what he does with that right. A lot of libertarianism comes down to accepting that other people are going to live their lives in a way that is unacceptable for you to live your own. In that case I (and a lot of libertarians I know) would boycott that "whites only" shop. I just wouldn't deny them the ability to do what they want with their own property.

As for the perception of libertarianism, my own general assessment is that libertarianism is conservatism run amok, loners who each rule their own version of the world. It seems based on Ayn Rand objectivism, class warfare, autocracy, nationalism & exceptionalism, and a strong belief that everyone else besides themselves is an idiot.

Sounds more like the modern Tea Party to me. As for Ayn Rand, I've actually read a lot of her stuff and I like most of it, except I'm really not an Objectivist. A lot of libertarians are though. I'd figure you'd actually be OK with Objectivism...a lot of your posts actually come off as pretty objectivist, except for the support of laissez-faire capitalism. As for class warfare, that's really not the forte of libertarians. I hear way more Democrats playing that card. Autocracy? In a libertarian model everyone's rights stop directly at the tip of someone else's nose. Nationalism, dude...whoever you're listening to, please stop. Libertarians are historically way less nationalistic than either of the two major parties in this country. Exceptionalism...yes, but of the individual, NOT the nation. As for the idiot thing...maybe a little.

It also appears to foster strong fantasies of a "free market," where business' main focus is humanitarian, and there is no exploitation or corruption. There are also fantasies, and I've heard this at some point from nearly every Libertarian I've met, of an impending doom of one sort or another. Sometimes, it's a great socialist uprising, often it's a fiscal or financial catastrophe. The end result is usually utter devastation that only the Libertarian was prepared for. In every case, the government is the culprit, and is usually aided by a group the Libertarian does not like: liberals, immigrants, gays, Muslims, blacks, etc.

Libertarians are, as a rule, pro free market. That doesn't mean that they naively assume everyone's motives are humanitarian or non-corrupt. That does mean that they rely upon the factor of competition to level the playing field. A lot of libertarians just view the government as the biggest, most corrupt corporation in operation. They'd like to see the power divided more evenly among the people, this would minimize the damage that any one player could inflict.

As far as the great apocalypse, that card gets played way more by the major parties, usually against each other. I don't think the libertarians are any more at fault there than anyone else. Think of grandma eating cat food or the illegal immigrants "takin' our jobs".

Another perception problem for Libertarians: I do not know, and have never met a Libertarian who is not white, male, Christian, and 30-plus. This is hard to get past when talk turns to eliminating programs for everyone other than 30-plus white males.
It's my opinion that Libertarianism is simply a sense of entitlement to authority without responsibility, ...

OK, this clarifies a lot. You do not actually know a lot of libertarians. You know a bunch of disaffected neo-conservatives who have jumped on the libertarian bandwagon because they think it makes their antiquated logic sound new and hip. These people are a big problem for me. I have never seen a more diverse group of people than at the Libertarian Party meetings I have attended. Quite a few libertarians are young and come from very diverse ethnic backgrounds. The VAST majority are actually agnostic. Also, you'll never find a political philosophy that places a greater stress on personal responsibility...that seems to be most people's major criticism of it.

I respect your opinions, because you are one of the few who doesn't take personal shots, and because you've obviously given it far more thought than our esteemed peer. These are my views, not disguised as "fact." If one wanted to change perceptions of Libertarianism, they would do well to stay away from the bluster of people who need to be the loudest person in the room.

Thank you very much. I respect your opinion as well and thank you for taking the time to answer my question. I really think there is a problem with what people think a "libertarian" is. Granted, there is no one archetype, but what I hear from people is mostly way off the mark. The "Tea Party" has really done a lot to further that misperception. The Tea Party actually started off as a great thing, but was co-opted in the wake of the 2008 elections by a lot of neo-cons who wanted to bring the conservative independents into their fold. They were impressed by the grass roots success of the Ron Paul movement and thought that they could exploit it to their own ends. It worked, but at the expense of driving off most of the truly libertarian minded people in the movement. It kinda sucks. [/code]

[lonewolf]

...Let's preempt them and kick them out now, along with NM, AZ, and CA. It would help to solve the immigration problem.

On that point...I'm not really too gung-ho on the immigration issue. I kind of see it as a private property issue. If you choose to employ foreigners on/in your personal property, I could really care less. If you care to not allow them on your property/business, well then I'm all for that too. What does bother me is doling out publicly financed benefits (like welfare) and incentives to immigrants. I think if we cut all that crap, we really would have a lot less to worry about as far as who was coming here and for what purposes.

{This is assuming that you meant illegal foreigners--nobody cares about hiring the legal ones}

So does that extend to: if you choose to harbor a criminal fugitive on your private property, its OK?

[Gallowglass]

...This is assuming that you meant illegal foreigners--nobody cares about hiring the legal ones}

So does that extend to: if you choose to harbor a criminal fugitive on your private property, its OK?

For me that mostly depends on what the offense is. I don't necessarily care if the law broken is one that I feel is unjust. This is a can of worms that I can't really get into right now as I just stopped home in between doing some work. I'll check back in when I get home later.

[Banned]

{This is assuming that you meant illegal foreigners--nobody cares about hiring the legal ones}

So does that extend to: if you choose to harbor a criminal fugitive on your private property, its OK?

Both a cannabis smoker and murderer are criminals in our police state today.

If they killed someone or harmed someone I would not harbor them.

If they sample cannabis on weekends, many have stayed at my house.

[bassist_25]

Okay, I normally don't get too involved in these political discussions, but I always respect - even if I don't necessarily always agree with - Jason's articulation and depth of knowledge, particuarly due to, as Johnny pointed out, him not resorting to namecalling and ad hominem jabs.

For the record, I consider myself a social libertarian, but I'm not an economic libertarian.

As for Ayn Rand, I've actually read a lot of her stuff and I like most of it, except I'm really not an Objectivist. A lot of libertarians are though. I'd figure you'd actually be OK with Objectivism...a lot of your posts actually come off as pretty objectivist, except for the support of laissez-faire capitalism.

I pretty much disagree with Rand on the onset due to a difference in ontology. I reject the idea that reality exists outside of consciousness. I'm a social constructionist, and see society as constantly renegotiating and defining meaning and reality, and that reality may not necessarily be the same from group to group or person to person. For epistemological purposes, I am a postpositivist, which is mainly just my tool for gaining some sort of scientific understanding of the world rather than a hard and fast rule concerning a universal truth about knowledge.

As for class warfare, that's really not the forte of libertarians.

Class warfare is generally the domain of conflict theorists and some post-modernists. Jason, are you saying that libertarians reject the concept of class warfare or that libertarians just generally aren't interested in the concept of class warfare?

Autocracy? In a libertarian model everyone's rights stop directly at the tip of someone else's nose...

Libertarians are, as a rule, pro free market. That doesn't mean that they naively assume everyone's motives are humanitarian or non-corrupt. That does mean that they rely upon the factor of competition to level the playing field. A lot of libertarians just view the government as the biggest, most corrupt corporation in operation. They'd like to see the power divided more evenly among the people, this would minimize the damage that any one player could inflict.

Okay, this was actually the main thing I wanted to respond to. I wrote this little essay on my Facebook. *lol* It explains my view on the above argument and why I'm not an economic libertarian.

The Contradiction Inherent in the Moral System of Economic Libertarian Philosophy

By Paul "bassist_25" Rainey:

This small essay is not intended to be a holistic critique on the moral justifications of economic libertarian theory (which I hold in a different light than John Rawls social libertarianism), but is rather just a collection of my thoughts as I deal with what I see as the contradiction in the moral argument posited by many libertarians. Also, please note that with this critique I am remaining silent on the question of whether or not a highly regulated, state-controlled system is normatively good or morally justifiable. I am also not necessarily advocating utilitarianism. Just because one argues against X, which is an argument against Y, doesn't mean that the person necessarily supports Y.

Economic libertarianism has been justified on the grounds that people cannot be coerced into entering into contractual relationships with which they do not wish to enter. Particuarly, scholars such as Robert Nozick argue that forcing taxation on people is a morally rehensible practice due to robbing people of their agency - they in essence become slaves to the state. While I wholly reject deontological libertarianism on the the basis that I believe rights exist as legitimized social constructs rather than inalienable natural laws that exist outside of our social selves, I would like to posit an argument that states the libertarian concept of morality is inherently contradictory when considering economic externality.

The argument that people cannot be coerced into a governmental institution, such as taxation, due to moral reasons is troubling when considering economic externality. Specifically, government is ultimately coercive and inescapable. You can rebel against certain institutions, but social facts may curb your agency through sanctions, such as fines or incarceration. The libertarian position is that this an immoral situation, so the best individual good is to limit government power to military and police defense, as well as being the arbiter in enforcing contracts between parties. Nozick argued that the most good can be obtained through a free-exchange of goods between consenting parties.

However, externality ultimately affects individuals who do not consent to the exchange and its consequences, which using libertarian rationale, is immoral. In that regard, while the state is no longer coercive, citizen actors at the micro (i.e., individuals) and meso (i.e., organizations) can be. This is very salient considering the 2008 financial meltdown. Many people not involved in the housing industry or real estate securities were affected by bad decisions by those who were in those industries. Okay, one could argue that the government is ultimately reponsible because it created a rationalized environment that allowed for profit on toxic assets, but any bursting bubble or recession brought about by poor economic decision making at the private micro or meso level suffices as an example.

In essence, the libertarian rationale that government regulation is ultimately unethical is short-sighted. While the philosophy does well to supports its argument that individuals should be free from a coercive political system, it ignores the simple fact that people aren't islands unto themselves. That is, the actions of individuals can ultimately affect people who have not consented to the consequences of said actions, even if these people can take care of themselves well. The libertarian dream would be quite great if everybody ruled his or her own little kingdom and didn't have to deal with the consequences of the actions of people whom they've never met.

I'd also add that free-market competition may not be necessarily true without anti-trust laws created and enforced by the government.

Also, as I touched upon above, I agree with Jason's earlier argument that rights do not exist a priori. I reject Locke's premise of natural rights for pretty much the reasons Jason pointed out.

I'd also like to add that it's impossible to escape any hegemonic coersion, whether malicious or benevolent, but that's a tangent for another time.

[lonewolf]

{This is assuming that you meant illegal foreigners--nobody cares about hiring the legal ones}

So does that extend to: if you choose to harbor a criminal fugitive on your private property, its OK?

Both a cannabis smoker and murderer are criminals in our police state today.

If they killed someone or harmed someone I would not harbor them.

If they sample cannabis on weekends, many have stayed at my house.

fugitives? damn Joe!

[Banned]

{This is assuming that you meant illegal foreigners--nobody cares about hiring the legal ones}

So does that extend to: if you choose to harbor a criminal fugitive on your private property, its OK?

Both a cannabis smoker and murderer are criminals in our police state today.

If they killed someone or harmed someone I would not harbor them.

If they sample cannabis on weekends, many have stayed at my house.

fugitives? damn Joe!

....hangs head, yes, cannabis fugitives. I have even had Pennsylvanians who bought fire works in Maryland! I know, I am a bad seed.

[lonewolf]

....hangs head, yes, cannabis fugitives. I have even had Pennsylvanians who bought fire works in Maryland! I know, I am a bad seed.

I wouldn't exactly call a fireworks smuggler a fugitive...unless of course, they were being chased by cops and got away!

[Banned]

....hangs head, yes, cannabis fugitives. I have even had Pennsylvanians who bought fire works in Maryland! I know, I am a bad seed.

I wouldn't exactly call a fireworks smuggler a fugitive...unless of course, they were being chased by cops and got away!

They were the worst kind of domestic, fireworks buying fugitives, they had Ron Paul bumper stickers.

[lonewolf]

....hangs head, yes, cannabis fugitives. I have even had Pennsylvanians who bought fire works in Maryland! I know, I am a bad seed.

I wouldn't exactly call a fireworks smuggler a fugitive...unless of course, they were being chased by cops and got away!

They were the worst kind of domestic, fireworks buying fugitives, they had Ron Paul bumper stickers.

Let me get this straight! You are saying that they are (or were) actively wanted by the police after having been in custody for fireworks smuggling?

[Hawk]

You know, just because I feel that a person may have a right to do something does not mean that I support what he does with that right. A lot of libertarianism comes down to accepting that other people are going to live their lives in a way that is unacceptable for you to live your own. In that case I (and a lot of libertarians I know) would boycott that "whites only" shop. I just wouldn't deny them the ability to do what they want with their own property.


Libertarians are, as a rule, pro free market. That doesn't mean that they naively assume everyone's motives are humanitarian or non-corrupt. That does mean that they rely upon the factor of competition to level the playing field. A lot of libertarians just view the government as the biggest, most corrupt corporation in operation. They'd like to see the power divided more evenly among the people, this would minimize the damage that any one player could inflict. ]

I think that minority discrimination is wrong and the fact that Libertarianism will allow it is a strong reason for me to be anti-Libertarian.

On your second point, I doubt that competition would be free with no anti trust laws. Business just talk to each other and agree to sell at a given price. "Price fixing" would be the norm without any laws.

On your second point, Enron.

[Banned]

I wouldn't exactly call a fireworks smuggler a fugitive...unless of course, they were being chased by cops and got away!

They were the worst kind of domestic, fireworks buying fugitives, they had Ron Paul bumper stickers.

Let me get this straight! You are saying that they are (or were) actively wanted by the police after having been in custody for fireworks smuggling?

Worse, they were actively wanted by Homeland Security for the public displaying of Ron Paul bumper stickers. Some of them actually had copies of the Constitution on their personages. Revolutionaries.

[Larry]

Why didn't anyone make fun of Paul for pointing out "The Contradiction Inherent in the Moral System of Economic Libertarian Philosophy"? No one even called it a rant, when it was more than two sentences.

[lonewolf]

Particuarly, scholars such as Robert Nozick argue that forcing taxation on people is a morally rehensible practice due to robbing people of their agency - they in essence become slaves to the state.

did you mean "reprehensible"

EDIT:

In response. The government has failed miserably with every bubble that has come about. Time and time again, it has shown itself to be incapable of effecting useful preventive regulation and more adept at piling on irrelevant and costly regulation after the fact. This is because the government cannot regulate the two biggest ingredients of a bubble:

greed and fear.

All the while, people blindly believe in the fallacy that the government is capable of preventing such financial catastrophes, lulling them into a false sense of security. Most pay little attention to things financial until suddenly one day, they have fallen off the cliff with the other government created lemmings. We mustn't become too pampered by the government nanny.

One can make a good argument that the government was the harbinger of the latest bubble. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were pushing the mortgage industry to hand out mortgages to low-income customers with few restrictions and even less down payment. And why not? Both "companies" were prepared to buy any mortgage that had real estate as collateral. This led to a cottage industry of unscrupulous sub-prime mortgage lenders who were simply doing what the quasi-government companies told them to do. Add a little greed & fear to this government induced frenzy and you have the biggest bubble in the history of mankind.

Another example. Why isn't the government protecting us from "green" company stocks? Most of these companies are as worthless as the internet companies that never saw the new milennium in the dot com bubble. How about gold? Junk bonds? These are all prospective bubbles, but the government is clueless to that fact and will take no action to prevent them. So, once again, why rely on government?

With its hands into everything, everything becomes a conflict of government interest.

By its nature, government nearly always adopts political solutions rather than logical solutions.

Libertarians do not deny the need for government, its the degree to which we need government that is our concern.

What we need is minimal but effective regulation and anti-trust laws. Present law is outdated and should be revised to regulate not only the industrial era, but the information era as well. It would be a pleasant change.