Support NeoGAF

[StrikerObi]

Here is your laugh for the day, GAF. I can't believe anybody is THIS stupid. Just wow. Take note that I am a freedom loving libertarian that opposes a lot of government regulation and am generally for "the free market" and complete individual liberty (ie - you are free to do anything so long as it has no affect others), and I still think this guy is wacko.

http://theobjectivestandard.com/blog/2010/04/n-april-22-celebrate-exploit-earth-day.asp

Wednesday, April 14, 2010
On April 22, Celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day

Posted by Craig Biddle at 7:16 PM
Exploit the Earth or Die™

Because Earth Day is intended to further the cause of environmentalism—and because environmentalism is an anti-human ideology—on April 22, those who care about human life should not celebrate Earth Day; they should celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day.

Exploiting the Earth—using the raw materials of nature for one’s life-serving purposes—is a basic requirement of human life. Either man takes the Earth’s raw materials—such as trees, petroleum, aluminum, and atoms—and transforms them into the requirements of his life, or he dies. To live, man must produce the goods on which his life depends; he must produce homes, automobiles, computers, electricity, and the like; he must seize nature and use it to his advantage. There is no escaping this fact. Even the allegedly “noble” savage must pick or perish. Indeed, even if a person produces nothing, insofar as he remains alive he indirectly exploits the Earth by parasitically surviving off the exploitative efforts of others.

According to environmentalism, however, man should not use nature for his needs; he should keep his hands off “the goods”; he should leave nature alone, come what may. Environmentalism is not concerned with human health and wellbeing—neither ours nor that of generations to come. If it were, it would advocate the one social system that ensures that the Earth and its elements are used in the most productive, life-serving manner possible: capitalism.

Capitalism is the only social system that recognizes and protects each individual’s right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Under capitalism, people are fully free to choose their goals, to identify the means of attaining them, and to act on their best judgment. Accordingly, those who recognize that in order to live well they and their loved ones need abundant energy, clean air, clean water, and the like tend to use the available resources rationally, with an eye to the distant future. Further, under capitalism, if a person (or corporation) spews toxins onto someone’s land, or poisons his water supply, or in any other way violates his property rights, the offender is held accountable in a court of law. But, so long as a person does not violate anyone’s rights, he is free to act in accordance with his basic means of living: the judgment of his mind.

Environmentalism, of course, does not and cannot advocate capitalism, because if people are free to act on their judgment, they will strive to produce and prosper; they will transform the raw materials of nature into the requirements of human life; they will exploit the Earth and live.

Environmentalism rejects the basic moral premise of capitalism—the idea that people should be free to act on their judgment—because it rejects a more fundamental idea on which capitalism rests: the idea that the requirements of human life constitute the standard of moral value. While the standard of value underlying capitalism is human life (meaning, that which is necessary for human beings to live and prosper), the standard of value underlying environmentalism is nature untouched by man.

The basic principle of environmentalism is that nature (i.e., “the environment”) has intrinsic value—value in and of itself, value apart from and irrespective of the requirements of human life—and that this value must be protected from its only adversary: man. Rivers must be left free to flow unimpeded by human dams, which divert natural flows, alter natural landscapes, and disrupt wildlife habitats. Glaciers must be left free to grow or shrink according to natural causes, but any human activity that might affect their size must be prohibited. Naturally generated carbon dioxide (such as that emitted by oceans and volcanoes) and naturally generated methane (such as that emitted by swamps and termites) may contribute to the greenhouse effect, but such gasses must not be produced by man. The globe may warm or cool naturally (e.g., via increases or decreases in sunspot activity), but man must not do anything to affect its temperature.

In short, according to environmentalism, if nature affects nature, the effect is good; if man affects nature, the effect is evil.

Stating the essence of environmentalism in such stark terms raises some illuminating questions: If the good is nature untouched by man, how is man to live? What is he to eat? What is he to wear? Where is he to reside? How can man do anything his life requires without altering, harming, or destroying some aspect of nature? In order to nourish himself, man must consume meats, fruits, and vegetables. In order to make clothing, he must skin animals, pick cotton, manufacture polyester, and the like. In order to build a house—or even a hut—he must cut down trees, dig up clay, make fires, bake bricks, and so forth. Each and every action man takes to support or sustain his life entails the exploitation of nature. Thus, on the premise of environmentalism, man has no right to exist.

It comes down to this: Each of us has a choice to make. Will I recognize that man’s life is the standard of moral value—that the good is that which sustains and furthers human life—and thus that people have a moral right to use the Earth and its elements for their life-serving needs? Or will I accept that nature has “intrinsic” value—value in and of itself, value apart from and irrespective of human needs—and thus that people have no right to exist?

There is no middle ground here. Either human life is the standard of moral value, or it is not. Either nature has intrinsic value, or it does not.

On April 22, make clear where you stand. Don’t celebrate Earth Day; celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day—and let your friends, family, and associates know why.

I'm honestly surprised this guy is sane enough to even compose this article, because the words clearly imply that he is some sort of sociopath incapable of thinking in gray areas.

He argues that environmentalism is bad but the says that we should "use the available resources rationally, with an eye to the distant future." That's what environmentalism fucking is!

He jumps to some truly insane conclusions, the biggest of which stating that anybody that is for environmentalism must be 100% anti-human and stand still in an open field not doing a single thing (including breathing the Earth's precious air). Even the crazy super pro-green survivalists are in violation of the sacred tenants of environmentalism. How could anybody believe that? By this logic, if environmentalists were 100% anti-human then they would just kill themselves and there would be no environmentalists.

And since when is environmentalism anti-capitalist? What about companies that make a living off of selling "green" products. It's in their best interest to protect the earth, and as a result sell more of their products. In this case, being pro-earth is also being pro-profit. If people didn't want green products, then The Holy Market would deem it so and these companies would fail. But people do want green products, and if The Holy Market is always right, then a case for environmentalism exists under this psycho's own skewed belief structure.

Environmentalism and Capitalism are not opposing views. They are simply different views that overlap in some areas and not in others. This guy seems to think that anybody that's pro-earth must be some sort of "freedom-hating communist".

Oh, and of course you can't ignore that every time he describes what he think is "capitalism" is actually closer to political and social anarchy.

So GAF, have some fun on this Earth Day and make fun of this looney.

 

[Talon]

Psycho Objectivists

This is a bit redundant.

 

[Gaborn]

In fairness, there ARE some environmentalist whackjobs out there.

 

[PflargBlarg]

This guy sounds legit.

 

[CharlieDigital]

His argument seems to hinge on separating "Man" from "Nature".

However, even a kindergartner could tell you that Man is not exclusive of Nature; Man is a part of Nature because, you know, we're animals, too. We just happen to be animals that tend to have some destructive tendencies sometimes.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

I agree that many enviromentalists neither care nor worry about what is nessesary to maintain human life on this planet. That sort of radical thinking is equally destructive

 

[dinazimmerman]

I'm honestly surprised this guy is sane enough to even compose this article, because the words clearly imply that he is some sort of sociopath incapable of thinking in gray areas.

He argues that environmentalism is bad but the says that we should "use the available resources rationally, with an eye to the distant future." That's what environmentalism fucking is!

He jumps to some truly insane conclusions, the biggest of which stating that anybody that is for environmentalism must be 100% anti-human and stand still in an open field not doing a single thing (including breathing the Earth's precious air). Even the crazy super pro-green survivalists are in violation of the sacred tenants of environmentalism. How could anybody believe that? By this logic, if environmentalists were 100% anti-human then they would just kill themselves and there would be no environmentalists.

And since when is environmentalism anti-capitalist? What about companies that make a living off of selling "green" products. It's in their best interest to protect the earth, and as a result sell more of their products. In this case, being pro-earth is also being pro-profit. If people didn't want green products, then The Holy Market would deem it so and these companies would fail. But people do want green products, and if The Holy Market is always right, then a case for environmentalism exists under this psycho's own skewed belief structure.

Environmentalism and Capitalism are not opposing views. They are simply different views that overlap in some areas and not in others. This guy seems to think that anybody that's pro-earth must be some sort of "freedom-hating communist".

Oh, and of course you can't ignore that every time he describes what he think is "capitalism" is actually closer to political and social anarchy.

So GAF, have some fun on this Earth Day and make fun of this looney.

So he attacks some straw-man instead of engaging with bona fide environmentalism?

Wow, that sounds very similar to a lot of anti-capitalist / anti-free-market manifestos I've read.

Also, why do we always assume that someobody must be insane or crazy if he puts forth some unconvincing arguments that are opposed to what you believe? Very intelligent people have often shown a blatant disregard for truth when they start debating politics.

 

[soyboy]

His argument seems to hinge on separating "Man" from "Nature".

However, even a kindergartner could tell you that Man is not exclusive of Nature; Man is a part of Nature because, you know, we're animals, too. We just happen to be animals that tend to have some destructive tendencies sometimes.

Well you know what happens when you combine "Man" & "Nature" you get "Manure".

Just saying.

 

[Stumpokapow]

In fairness, there ARE some environmentalist whackjobs out there.

the net impact of hippies crying on trees is that doritos sales fall for the day. that might sound like marginalizing the actions of eco-terrorists like the sea sheps and ALF/ELF, but the reality is that the overall negative impact of this radical position is relatively little.

the net impact of lunatic objectivists seeing earth literally as something that we have a moral imperative to rape is...

also your article is on a climate change denial site.

 

[CajoleJuice]

It's your choice, GAF. Buy that Hummer, or DIE.

 

[StrikerObi]

His argument seems to hinge on separating "Man" from "Nature".

However, even a kindergartner could tell you that Man is not exclusive of Nature; Man is a part of Nature because, you know, we're animals, too. We just happen to be animals that tend to have some destructive tendencies sometimes.

His argument only works in the case that "Man" is actually a robot life-form from another planet that came down to Earth purely to exploit it. In the event that man is a robot-life form from Earth, it fails because if man is created on Earth then he is still intrinsically a part of it to at least a small degree.

 

[Shanadeus]

Silly nonsense.

 

[chaostrophy]

I'd love to walk up to the dumbass that wrote that and punch them in the face.

"I want to support finding a balance between supporting human life and preserving nature. But you told me there's no middle ground, so I have to be hostile to human life now. You're the best place to start."

 

[Gaborn]

the net impact of hippies crying on trees is that doritos sales fall for the day. that might sound like marginalizing the actions of eco-terrorists like the sea sheps and ALF/ELF, but the reality is that the overall negative impact of this radical position is relatively little.

the net impact of lunatic objectivists seeing earth literally as something that we have a moral imperative to rape is...

I'd say both hurt their respective movements prestige and fund raising capabilities honestly. If you perceive an entire movement as wackos you're probably less likely on average to give them money.

also your article is on a climate change denial site.

Which has nothing to do with the video itself. If it helps I believe climate change is happening and man has contributed to it's effect and that private efforts to reduce carbon emissions are a good thing.

 

[FoneBone]

I'd say both hurt their respective movements prestige and fund raising capabilities honestly. If you perceive an entire movement as wackos you're probably less likely on average to give them money.

whoosh, goes the point of that post, over gaborn's head

 

[Gaborn]

whoosh, goes the point of that post, over gaborn's head

I got the point of the post, I reject the premise. A lot of people have a negative opinion of PETA for example, and to some extent any animal rights group is going to get tarred with that same brush. At an individual level does a group of random hippies crying over some trees matter? NO, hell no. Does a random objectivist writing an article matter? Nope, not really. But their impact isn't JUST at an individual level, it's about how people in general PERCEIVE these actions.

 

[spiderman123]

swing and a miss

 

[Vox-Pop]

I used to believe in Environmentalism, before California made me get a smog-test, now I could couldn't care less what happens to our planet. I hated getting my car tested for something so worthless.

 

[dinazimmerman]

the net impact of hippies crying on trees is that doritos sales fall for the day. that might sound like marginalizing the actions of eco-terrorists like the sea sheps and ALF/ELF, but the reality is that the overall negative impact of this radical position is relatively little.

the net impact of lunatic objectivists seeing earth literally as something that we have a moral imperative to rape is...

also your article is on a climate change denial site.

lololol you actually think that objectivism is credible as a political philosophy in any part of the world today? the entire world has rejected laissez-faire style government ever since the great depression. sure, you can point to a few ronald reagans and margaret thatchers, but i can more easily point to 10x more leaders who have just taken for granted that it's every government's duty to intervene in the economy. objectivism's really only had a great impact on the minds of a few impressionable youths, most of whom reject ayn rand's bullshit once they grow up and face reality.

the reason why enviromentalism hasn't really convinced a lot of people yet is because we generally care less about our future well-being than our current state of happiness. due to some unfortunate cognitive biases, we also routinely underestimate our own existential risk (the chance that we might die out due to some catastrophy). and on top of our collective denial, we also have special interests funding a smear campaign against climate science. objectivism isn't even a miniscule factor in environmentalism's failure so far. it's just so insignificant in the grand scheme of things. it's only real purpose is to serve as a good target for liberal outrage. that's pretty much it.

 

[LosDaddie]

I bet that guy is a huge Fox News fan

 

[spiderman123]

I used to believe in Environmentalism, before California made me get a smog-test, now I could couldn't care less what happens to our planet. I hated getting my car tested for something so worthless.

don't you mean smug

 

[madara]

Article=facepalm Would hate to hear his arguments about other kinds of abuse.

 

[StrikerObi]

I bet that guy is a huge Fox News fan

Probably not, considering objectivists hate the fuck out of all government, regardless of which side of the aisle they're on.

 

[CharlieDigital]

the reason why enviromentalism hasn't really convinced a lot of people yet is because we generally care less about our future well-being than our current state of happiness.

Actually, I think that a big part of the reason is that people aren't really able to see their individual decisions affecting the environment on a macro scale. I throw away a sheet of paper...what's the big deal? I dump oil down the storm drain...what's the big deal? They're not able to extrapolate the results of these actions performed millions of times and what effect it would have; they see only their microcosm and don't realize their impact until it's too late and the impact is obvious (like undrinkable water, dead fish stock, cancer, high rates of asthma, etc.).

 

[EmCeeGramr]

Probably not, considering objectivists hate the fuck out of all government, regardless of which side of the aisle they're on.

Yeah, but most "objectivists" and "libertarians" are just Republicans who want to feel like they're independent.


ps: gaborn i know that that funny video of hippies crying over trees is extremely relevant and not yet another attempt at a derail (like every single post you've ever made in a political thread), but maybe you should pick another avenue

 

[Mgoblue201]

Which has nothing to do with the video itself. If it helps I believe climate change is happening and man has contributed to it's effect and that private efforts to reduce carbon emissions are a good thing.

And I think that incentivized behavior to make environmentalism profitable works great. Also, if I may respond to the original blog post, the notion that capitalism and environmentalism always align is unbelievable. Some companies won't even conserve energy if it costs them profits in the immediate quarter. It's not always rational. And even when it is rational, it only meets that criterion in the sense that it is rational to maximize profits, which can be great for the economy but says nothing about the viability of our planet. I get it. All lifeforms exploit the environment. Doing so has helped humanity greatly. But the idea that environmentalism somehow folds completely inside capitalism just strains everything.

 

[rpmurphy]

If this guy were to see the purpose of environmentalism to be for the support and enhancement of human life and existence, I doubt he would object to the term. However, how many environmentalists he meets would explain environmentalism like that? Probably few, if any, not to mention there would likely to be some vocal misanthropes and Luddites in the mix. Environmentalism getting a bad rap never surprises me. Quite sad for something once universally considered a noble cause.

 

[ToxicAdam]

But there is a middle ground. It's the one we must negotiate going forward. We can not preserve the earth like a museum piece frozen in time, but we can not just carelessly use it like a sponge and squeeze it dry.

 

[dinazimmerman]

Actually, I think that a big part of the reason is that people aren't really able to see their individual decisions affecting the environment on a macro scale. I throw away a sheet of paper...what's the big deal? I dump oil down the storm drain...what's the big deal? They're not able to extrapolate the results of these actions performed millions of times and what effect it would have; they see only their microcosm and don't realize their impact until it's too late and the impact is obvious (like undrinkable water, dead fish stock, cancer, high rates of asthma, etc.).

Yes, this is true, as well.

 

[Bricfa]

Is he really saying anything at all in this article? He's not denying that we have an effect on the environment, he even suggests suing corporations that pollute it. He's essentially saying, "Earth day is dumb, lol."

 

[Neo C.]

Actually, I think that a big part of the reason is that people aren't really able to see their individual decisions affecting the environment on a macro scale. I throw away a sheet of paper...what's the big deal? I dump oil down the storm drain...what's the big deal? They're not able to extrapolate the results of these actions performed millions of times and what effect it would have; they see only their microcosm and don't realize their impact until it's too late and the impact is obvious (like undrinkable water, dead fish stock, cancer, high rates of asthma, etc.).

Even when the impact is obvious, most of the people don't want to change their habits. They all hope the others cut their standard of living first.

 

[Davidion]

I like some of the basic tenets of objectivism. I'm having a hard time trying to see how it gets mutated into this nonsense, however...

Some of these Hard Objectivists are scary; it seems like the writer just see reality through one big ass pair of false-dichotomy lens.

 

[StrikerObi]

Yeah, but most bjectivists" and "libertarians" are just Republicans who want to feel like they're independent.

The definition of a libertarian as a "republican that wants to feel like they're independent" is highly inaccurate. Libertarians want small government period. Republicans want a government that is fiscally conservative (which libertarians agree with) but socially conservative (which libertarians are against).

On the flip side, there are a lot of so-called "Republicans" that are actually Libertarians (aka RINOs - Republicans In Name Only). The only reason these RINOs exist is because they are smart enough to realize that running as a Lib will get them exactly 0 votes, while running as a Rep and emphasizing their fiscally conservative views while campaigning (and dodging any questions regarding Democrat views such as being for gay marriage) will give them a much better chance of getting elected and then voting against everything that imposes restrictions on liberty from both the Dems and Reps. (Example: Ron Paul)

Personally I'm a libertarian and I voted for Obama. I'm smart enough to realize that at least right now there is no way out of the 2 party system so I may as well vote for the guy I hate a little less. I agree with about half of his views, but at least he isn't a crazy old cook with a running mate that lacked a Graduate degree.

 

[CharlieDigital]

I agree with about half of his views, but at least he isn't a crazy old cook with a running mate that lacked a Graduate degree brain.

.

 

[Gaborn]

The definition of a libertarian as a "republican that wants to feel like they're independent" is highly inaccurate. Libertarians want small government period. Republicans want a government that is fiscally conservative (which libertarians agree with) but socially conservative (which libertarians are against).

On the flip side, there are a lot of so-called "Republicans" that are actually Libertarians (aka RINOs - Republicans In Name Only). The only reason these RINOs exist is because they are smart enough to realize that running as a Lib will get them exactly 0 votes, while running as a Rep and emphasizing their fiscally conservative views while campaigning (and dodging any questions regarding Democrat views such as being for gay marriage) will give them a much better chance of getting elected and then voting against everything that imposes restrictions on liberty from both the Dems and Reps. (Example: Ron Paul)

Personally I'm a libertarian and I voted for Obama. I'm smart enough to realize that at least right now there is no way out of the 2 party system so I may as well vote for the guy I hate a little less. I agree with about half of his views, but at least he isn't a crazy old cook with a running mate that lacked a Graduate degree.

EmCee is basically a combination of AstroLad and Instigator without the charm or sense of humor, don't worry about him, he just can't handle people who don't agree with him.

I agree with you though, obviously. I'm a libertarian. I'm definitely more on the conservative end than the liberal end, but the Republicans are so absolutely atrocious on both personal freedom issues AND economic issues I can't conceive of voting for them.

 

[tokkun]

His argument seems to hinge on separating "Man" from "Nature".

However, even a kindergartner could tell you that Man is not exclusive of Nature; Man is a part of Nature because, you know, we're animals, too. We just happen to be animals that tend to have some destructive tendencies sometimes.

Isn't Environmentalism based on making the same separation?

 

[JumpJeff84]

I will say this...

I get really irritated by people who get all smug and say shit like 'hey, I just wanna leave a world that my grandkids can thrive in!'

Fuck you and your hypothetical future generations. Let's worry about feeding the people on earth that are here NOW.

 

[spiderman123]

if we don't protect our oceans, it will cause sharks to mutate and fly

 

[EmCeeGramr]

The definition of a libertarian as a "republican that wants to feel like they're independent" is highly inaccurate. Libertarians want small government period. Republicans want a government that is fiscally conservative (which libertarians agree with) but socially conservative (which libertarians are against).

Not in my experience. Almost every libertarian I've ever spoken to oddly seems to only attack big government when it's a liberal in office. When it's a Republican, they seem a bit muted and suddenly a lot quieter.

On the flip side, there are a lot of so-called "Republicans" that are actually Libertarians (aka RINOs - Republicans In Name Only).

Eh? RINO is the name that conservatives use to describe Republicans who aren't social conservatives in an attempt to purge their party of the "impure."

 

[CharlieDigital]

Isn't Environmentalism based on making the same separation?

Is it? Not by my definition. Environmentalism is about how to live in balance with Nature and ensuring the sustainability of our environmental needs as most other animals do. Man is just another animal; one that - by all accounts - should know better.

 

[CharlieDigital]

Obi, I think your own post highlights the issue: Libertarians are content to subjugate themselves to the Republicans instead of trying to stand on their own. Don't want to get lumped in with Republicans? Stop adopting the label when it conveniences you and take a stand (not directed at you, think: Ron Paul).

Preemptive response: Yes, the 2 party system is definitely broken, but somehow seems inevitable.

 

[Gaborn]

Not in my experience. Almost every libertarian I've ever spoken to oddly seems to only attack big government when it's a liberal in office. When it's a Republican, they seem a bit muted and suddenly a lot quieter.

Here's a shocker for you then. Although I didn't particularly care for either President for a laundry list of reasons, I'd say Clinton was significantly better than W.

 

[LosDaddie]

Not in my experience. Almost every libertarian I've ever spoken to oddly seems to only attack big government when it's a liberal in office. When it's a Republican, they seem a bit muted and suddenly a lot quieter.

This is true in PoliGAF. We've seen many posters come in that thread and claim to be "Libertarians", when it's clear all they want to do is shit on everything Dems are doing without having to defend to Repubs. It's more attack, attack, attack...never defend. Permanent offense.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

Here's a shocker for you then. Although I didn't particularly care for either President for a laundry list of reasons, I'd say Clinton was significantly better than W.

That's why I said "most," which I based on those who I've met. 4/5 seem to be young conservatives who read Atlas Shrugged and haven't figured out that it's bullshit yet, with 1/5 being actual libertarians.

 

[speculawyer]

What a stupid rant.

Anti-human? Oh shut up. Humans are doing great. In fact they are doing too well. We will eventually hit resource limitations and start dying off like yeast in a wine bottle if we don't pay attention.

Hardcore libertarianism is just stupid . . . it is basically saying that the economics should be run the same as evolution . . . dog eat dog, every person for themselves, mindlessly exploit, etc. If we do that, we'll have the exact same problems of evolution. Population overshoots . . . which can be viewed as harsh boom/bust cycles in economic terms. But it will also lead to literal population overshoots as well. And we will have occasional ecosystem collapses and mass extinctions. In economic terms, think worse than the great depression. And again, this can lead to literal human population collapses too.

Now that would be anti-human. The market is truly awesome. But you gotta watch it because if it is allowed to run completely unchecked, it will inevitably lead to serious disasters. That is what it does. Just like evolution.

 

[Enosh]

Not in my experience. Almost every libertarian I've ever spoken to oddly seems to only attack big government when it's a liberal in office. When it's a Republican, they seem a bit muted and suddenly a lot quieter.

well, good thing political defenitions aren't based on your experiances with people

 

[Yaweee]

Not in my experience. Almost every libertarian I've ever spoken to oddly seems to only attack big government when it's a liberal in office. When it's a Republican, they seem a bit muted and suddenly a lot quieter.

You really haven't talked to many Libertarians then, or are using the term to describe only those on the far more conservative side of the label.

 

[Gaborn]

This is true in PoliGAF. We've seen many posters come in that thread and claim to be "Libertarians", when it's clear all they want to do is shit on everything Dems are doing without having to defend to Repubs. It's more attack, attack, attack...never defend. Permanent offense.

I think this has a lot to do with the issue being discussed. For example, I strongly oppose the PATRIOT Act, if I was around Poligaf after 9/11 I would have been right there condemning Bush's anti-constitutional anti-freedom intrusion in our day to day lives. I opposed the Iraq war from day one as not justifiable, and I feel confident most true libertarians would agree with me on BOTH issues. However, GAF will often discuss OTHER issues where no libertarian is going to agree with mainstream liberal thought on the issue, see the FDA/Salt thread as an example.

 

[ZephyrFate]

I like how he assumes that capitalism is the de facto standard for the best standard of living available to humans... when capitalism is incredibly new compared to the course of human history. How, exactly, did humans thrive BEFORE capitalism? Guess he doesn't know.

 

[ksan]

Obi, I think your own post highlights the issue: Libertarians are content to subjugate themselves to the Republicans instead of trying to stand on their own. Don't want to get lumped in with Republicans? Stop adopting the label when it conveniences you and take a stand (not directed at you, think: Ron Paul).

Preemptive response: Yes, the 2 party system is definitely broken, but somehow seems inevitable.

Except the part where they aren't actually libertarians at all. I call fucking bullshit on anyone who claims to be a libertarian and settles for the social policies of republicans.