The existing gameable system was not constructed by libertarians. It was constructed, in America, by Republicans and Democrats.

Libertarians, in America, have to operate within the existing system.

"This leaves everyone else on the losing end of every deal that was supposed to be "fair and honest" under rule of law."

The existing system, to whatever extent you believe it was "supposed to be fair and honest", is NOT that, and never was. Not libertarians' fault.

"Perhaps this explains why the Libertarian Party was co-opted by well funded right wing extremists around the turn of the century and has been working under their direction ever since.

Be much more specific. Which "right-wing extremists"? And "extremist", how?

"What may have been a disruptive influence on national politics is now only a propaganda platform, pushing political discourse to the Right"

I have to laugh! Gary Johnson got 4 percent of the vote this year, far more than the 1% which libertarians have had to settle for in previous years. For a "propaganda platform", they did pretty well!!

"as far as it is able. If you are too smart for the RNC, the Libertarians have a better idea - and the same domestic economic agenda, both functional and fictional."

Provide a little evidence for your fictional allegations.

Jim Bell

On 11/21/2016 01:11 PM, jim bell wrote:

>> In the United States, 500
> billionaires presently own about 1/2 of the capital assets;

> Did they obtain them legally or illegally?  If illegally, enforce
> the law.  If legally, change the laws if necessary.

Under the jurisdiction of State institutions created for the benefit
of the very rich, anything they agree among themselves to permit is
"perfectly legal."  That includes running a rigged house game
supported by massive deception and economic coercion, and assuring
that theirs are the only games in town.

>> to retain
> control of those assets they need a legal system that defines
> their rights of ownership and enforces them,

> I thought that personal property is to be considered a "right",
> rather than a "privilege".  I guess you have a different opinion.

Libertarian ideology relies heavily on false context.  When people
hear "personal property" the think "physical objects under my control,
and the fruits of my personal labors."  This context is not comparable
to possession and trading of legal instruments defining ownership over
geographically dispersed industries, vast tracts of land, anticipated
profits from as yet unexploited resources, etc., in locations occupied
and facilities operated by what the commies call "wage slaves."

In the U.S., most people's personal property is actually a collection
of legal instruments specifying the rent they pay on a finance
company's car, a mortage company's house, etc.  Low wages plus
expensive Real Estate creates forced dependency on land lords for the
majority of Americans.

>> civil Courts to arbitrate their
> internal disputes and legitimize abuses of power against
> outsiders,

> Again, if there are genuine problems, fix them.

How?  By litigating against offenders whose ability to pay attorneys,
expert witnesses, etc. exceeds one's own by five or more orders of
magnitude?  By lobbying for changes in the law, in competition with
these same offenders, their massive financial resources, and their
long standing alliances with dominant political and Deep State factions?

>> civil infrastructure built and maintained at public expense to
>> support
> the productivity of their capital assets

> Numbskull Obama said, "You didn't build that!".  A factory-owner
> may have a road in front of his factory for transportation.  But
> the government didn't pay for that road:  The people who paid
> gasoline taxes (including the factory-owner) paid for that road.
> Ascribing all this infrastructure to "the government" misleads.

Ah so:  Taxation is payment for services rendered when that supports a
Libertarian argument, otherwise not.  :D

>> , and a propaganda regimen to
> persuade the rest of us that this is all for the best.

> Blame the MSM.  I do.

I blame full saturation propaganda operations paid for by the ruling
class who also happen to own the "mainstream media," working hand in
hand with State propaganda assets and of course, the organized efforts
of our DemoPublican Party which itself represents the interests of our
ruling class.  Political controversies in the mainstream occasionally
reflecting differences of opinion among dominant factions with regard
to whose commercial interests should be favored at the expense of
other commercial interests; but maintaining the integrity of ruling
class control and expanding same is a goal shared by the DemoPublican
Party as a whole, as is locking out participation by competing Parties.

> From:
> http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-dat
a
> × // //

> "The Top 50 Percent of All Taxpayers Paid 97 Percent of All Income
> Taxes; the Top 5 Percent Paid 57 Percent of All Income Taxes; and
> the Top 1 Percent Paid 35 Percent of All Income Taxes in 2011"

> I consider this to be evidence of a very serious problem.
> Actually, a big set of problems.  You won't see it, however.

Libertarian ideology relies heavily on cognitive bias and false
assumptions.  The argument presented above is persuasive - as long as
a "normative" distribution of assets and incomes is assumed.  But in
reality, a fraction of 1% of the population dominates in both income
and assets.  The models presented above does not have sufficient
resolution to accurately describe the subject matter addressed.

Check this high resolution model out:
http://www.lcurve.org/

Note also that "income tax" applies to personal income, not capital
gains.  Personal income as understood by John and Jane Q. Public is
only a small fraction of what members of our ruling class "make" in
the course of a successful year.

>> instead they pay accountants and attorneys to advise them
> on how to avoid taxation.

> I see absolutely nothing wrong with this.  If a person lost,
> regularly, 30% of his income to burglary and theft, he'd see
> nothing wrong with hiring some form of protection to see it reduced
> or stopped. Naturally, people who don't think it's theft would
> disagree, and would resent the fact he was trying to reduce that
> theft.  Even more naturally, a person who actually benefits from
> that theft would really, really hate the fact that the person
> paying the taxes would even THINK about seeing them reduced, in any
> way.

Libertarians see absolutely nothing wrong with the very rich "gaming
the system" for personal advantage in every way that having a lot of
money to spend makes possible.  This leaves everyone else on the
losing end of every deal that was supposed to be "fair and honest"
under rule of law.  Perhaps this explains why the Libertarian Party
was co-opted by well funded right wing extremists around the turn of
the century and has been working under their direction ever since.
What may have been a disruptive influence on national politics is now
only a propaganda platform, pushing political discourse to the Right
as far as it is able.  If you are too smart for the RNC, the
Libertarians have a better idea - and the same domestic economic
agenda, both functional and fictional.

>> Political activists are presently running a "Fight For Fifteen"
> campaign in the U.S., asking for a de facto 40% pay cut relative
> to 1968's more or less "living" minimum wage.  How fucked up is
> that?

> I guess you're confused.  After WWII, America became the de-facto
> manufacturer to the world.  Little competition.  Wages were
> (relatively) high.  The rest of the world was, relatively, poor.
> Most families got by with only one breadwinner, usually the man.
> This continued through most of the 1960s, and even the 1970's.
> Then Europe and Japan turned on as manufacturers.  Then Taiwan,
> South Korea, Mexico, now China and India.  America has a great deal
> of competition.  America's wages needed to be reduced to compete,
> or at least they couldn't rise as much as they ultimately might
> have done.  That is simple economics.

I guess your definition of Libertarian embraces both NeoLiberal and
NeoConservative agendas and policies.  That makes sense, as the
synthesis of NeoLiberal and NeoConservative policy is Fascism - the
foundation of Libertarian economic ideology.

Europe and Japan became industrial powerhouses in the 1950s due to the
aging industrial infrastructure destroyed in WWII being replaced with
the latest and best facilities and equipment, with assistance from the
Marshall Plan.  Military and economic alliances including NATO and the
Trilateral Commission participants were firmed up at that time, as
were strong trans-national alliances among the ruling classes of the
nations involved.

The collapse of the manufacturing sector in the United States was
engineered by that alliance, by removing "protectionist" regulatory
and tax policies to permit dumping on U.S. markets.  The principal
objective was to break U.S. labor unions.  Exploitation of the
resulting political power vacuum to facilitate a hard "Right turn" in
U.S. domestic policy was also a major goal.  This program was
successful, and income inequality began growing exponentially as the
U.S. ruling class began looting the assets of the U.S. middle class, a
process that is still ongoing today.

The new manufacturing bases in Europe /created/ new middle class
income brackets in those nations.  Looting of the asset base this
post-WWII middle class started a couple of decades ago.  I hear it's
going really well, and Fascism is now on the rise in Europe.

> So, when you say,  "asking for a de facto 40% pay cut relative to
> 1968's more or less "living" minimum wage", you are really railing
> against the fact that America has had to begin to compete with the
> rest of the world in manufacturing.   But either you don'[t realize
> that, or you are pretending not to.  The world has changed, and not
> for the worse. But if anything, this rise in manufacturing, outside
> America, has actually resulted in a large increase in the standard
> of living of the rest of the world.  What's wrong with that?  If
> anything, it reduces "income inequality", measured on the entire
> world.

The world has changed, not for the worse but for the worst:  The
enlightened stewardship of our economic ruling class, unchecked by any
meaningful feedback from those ruled over, has driven exponential
growth of toxic and resource-depleting industrialism worldwide.  We
are now well past the point of no return and a global economic and
population crash can not be avoided.  Our rulers are well aware of
this, and their response to date has not included any but token
efforts at mitigation, far more than counterbalanced by a mad dash to
make more money faster and concentrate it into fewer hands before the
game ends.  The rulers of today's world fully intend to rule the
post-collapse world unchallenged, and for all time.

If this means making the population crash happen sooner, massively
increasing the early body count and destroying the means for recovery
in presently habitable regions, so be it:  From a Libertarian
ideological stance, one might say that the world is their property and
they have a natural right to do with it as they please.  If you don't
like it, sue them.  In their Courts, before Judges who appointed by
their club.

:o/