Getting rid of corporate model would require significant market regulation. The corporate model exists to reduce the risk for the personal investor. You would have to outlaw the principle of self-interest, and thus outlaw capitalism.

You seem to argue more for anarcho-syndicalism than Libertarianism. There simply is no guarantee in Libertarianism for this "local level" idealism.

the Ronbots dont know what they argue for pbradley

Look, all I know is people can only do or control so much at any given time. So my thinking is an individual should only be accountable for those aspects of his/her life w/out overstepping boundaries we all know to be wrong. & not have some higher authority, who has just as much limitations & accountability as that certain individual, regulating every aspect of people's lives.

If I'm crazy for thinking that, then whatever. There's good & bad to everything, nothing is perfect on this earth, especially political ideology. But that's what I follow, & that's just who I am.

thats what working together in communities and in unions is for

So be it. I'm simply aligning my political affiliation with my political philosophy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/us..._r=2&th&emc=th
policy, not rogue elements or the eternal bad apples (seems like for some 200 years the USA has been the subject of a conspiracy to sully its good name with a host of rogue elements and bad apples)

well for all you ghouls out there here are 60 of them: http://www.smh.com.au/ftimages/2006/...890771990.html
it appears to be more of that originally released set, that guy with the glasses and mustache is the same
"Lawrence Wilkerson, aide to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, alleges that the main impetus for torturing prisoners in 2002- early 2003 was not to foil terrorist plots but rather to scare up evidence of a Saddam-al-Qaeda tie. US interrogators never found such a link"
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS.../iraq.torture/

I'd also add that a pretty good judge of if the 'preventing further terrorism' argument had any merit they'd be citing examples, the Bush administration leaked information like a sieve both accidentally from outraged individuals and more importantly deliberately to score cheap political points* - so any Top Secret argument goes out the window.
*which incidentally this claim means that is also what the torture was about rather than crazed desperate men believing they're really doing good after watching too many episodes of 24

Meanwhile the CIA or State Department or whoever it is organises a secessionist movement where there was previously never even such a concept among the (rich and white) populations in the resource rich regions of Venezuela and Bolivia.

"and I don't wanna hear, I'm fucking lucky i live here.. cuz if you people don't give a shit, about whats right or wrong, so why should care, if you don't think we belong.. you say you believe in peace and freedom but you'll never be free with out a fight, you say you believe in this government when all they do is take away rights.."

by the way, its not the pictures, its what they are of, its what they represent.. if you ever find yourself gaffled up by some intellegence agents and dragged across the world to various secret prisons to be tortured like the fucking Khmer Rouge then perhaps you might see the significance of why Obama is a son of a bitch. until then, god bless america.

It's not clear what you mean by they. I assume those they you are talking about are the same people who help the spinning towards the desired direction of choice of any particular party stance when it comes to gaining some, or the majority of, public consensus.

The freedom of self-expression that you bemoan this invisible authoritarian foot on is financed by the people libertarians seem to criticise vociferously, but go back to for feeding.

You don't want to agree w/ me, fine I don't care. I believe what I believe, which makes me free & independent. & taking the time out of yr day to criticize my beliefs just proves that you're of the same mind as any politically correct advocate that's out there.

Just making that statement shows me that you can't stand someone having a different belief than you. Otherwise you would have left it alone.

I don't know what your beliefs are. How am I meant to criticize something I don't know? I have a vague idea of what you're getting at by reading some of your posts on this thread, and still what you say gives out an air of vagueness, rather than concise, calibrated thought.

Whatever, these are the only pictures I'm interested in!!

I'd just say that, I am an individualist, rather than a collectivist.

Fair enough. That's a personal stance as valid as any, yet it progressively loses any appeal when it transpires that an isolated mental (physical?) existence will find it inevitably harsh to survive without the lifeblood of a collective force, whether it is split in opposing sections, or as a unified entity.

translated into English: YOU'RE ALL ATTACKING ME AND IF YOU DISGREE WITH ME YOU'RE WRONG & STUPID

I presented a strong and nuanced critique of this so-called movement (in spite of your inabilty to articulate what you think it means beyond some crude statements about 'collectivist'), same for the others. You respond as if its a personal attack on you.

Hermit the frog

Isn't that what you're telling me when you generalize libertarians?

I drew The Hung Man. (no rly)

I'm still deciding on whether that's awesome or not.

:) / :(

Read 'em again, this time with the persecution complex turned off.