What presidential candidate would be most beneficial to the climbing community and land access?

RandyR wrote: You use the INTERNET as an example of something invented by the free market? Seriously?

haha, I know. The Internet was the product of DoD. So are many of our nice synthetic materials we use in ropes and other climbing gear.

Todd Graham wrote:Think of all of the amazing things invented in the free market capitalist system the Progressives hate. Then think of any product invented say... in Venezuela ... or China ... or Cuba ... or North Korea. Hmmmm ... was the car invented in those places? Or the computer? Or our vacccines? Or the internet? Hell no. The world's tech advances took place for one simple reason ... the free market in the U.S. But of course ... like the spoiled children of rich parents who have no respect for the hard work required of their parents to be rich ... and to provide those riches and privileges to these kids ... progressives ... with their iPhones and western inventions ... denigrate the system that gave them the quality of life they get to have. They romanticize socialist countries without ever having lived in one. Have you noticed that progressives ... as they sing the praises of socialism ... never move to socialist countries? Instead ... millions of people from socialist countries risk life and limb to escape their misery for the US. People vote with their feet.

LOLZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!! Your bigotry is impressive.

.......I think you need to re-evaluate where in the world 'socialist' countries are. It not just Venezuela and Cuba. Its denmark, France, UK and Germany also. You should also re-evaluate where that great list of inventions came from.

Car- Germany
Internet - Europeans at CERN (though some might argue it was the US government....either way your argument fails)
Computer - England
Our vaccines - hmmmm......which ones?

So yeah, all of those great advances you talk about came outside of the US free market and in largely socialist countries. Great try though.

Henry Ford invented the minimum wage too.

jason.cre wrote: LOLZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!! Your bigotry is impressive. .......I think you need to re-evaluate where in the world 'socialist' countries are. It not just Venezuela and Cuba. Its denmark, France, UK and Germany also. You should also re-evaluate where that great list of inventions came from. Car- Germany Internet - Europeans at CERN (though some might argue it was the US government....either way your argument fails) Computer - England Our vaccines - hmmmm......which ones? So yeah, all of those great advances you talk about came outside of the US free market and in largely socialist countries. Great try though.

Neither England nor Germany would have been considered anything close to socialist at the time of those innovations. Both were heavily vested in ruling over capitalistic empires at the time. Nice try, though.

fee.org/articles/the-myth-o…

Mike Lane wrote: Neither England nor Germany would have been considered anything close to socialist at the time of those innovations. Both were heavily vested in ruling over capitalistic empires at the time. Nice try, though.

My apologies, I was a little overexcited with the irony someone extolling the virtues and innovation of 'Muricas free market by pointing to a bunch of European inventions. Too good.

And thats besides the point that the most innovative countries year after year according to numerous surveys are socialist countries.

Mike Lane wrote:http://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-scandinavian-socialism/

She also forgot to mention denmark:
Has the highest level of personal freedom in the world
Lowest level of corruption
Among the best business climates
Amongst the highest ranking sin terms of standard of living, quality of life, and human development (much higher than the US in all aspects)

Mike, I wonder if you have experienced the horrors of Denmark first hand?

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/6/best-countries-11_Denmark_CHI001.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_…

The countries you keep holding up as examples of successful socialism aren't even that. They are social democracies, or in other words highly taxed welfare states. Socialism itself is when the state assumes control over the means of production. Sweden, Denmark- social democracies. Venezuela, Cuba- socialist. You should at least get the terminology of what you are advocating for correct.

You understand that Denmark is so attractive to corporations because it taxes them very low, right?
And being highly taxed personally is the polar opposite of personal freedom.

My wife is a Czech. I know Europe very well.
Speaking of Europe, there is an experiment in a libertarian society underway right now. Liberland
However, being as dedicated of Statephile as you seem to be, I can't imagine what it's like to wish failure and eventual return to enslavement upon these people.

Another example of Europeans trying to Live Free
studentsforlibertycz.cz/mul…

Are we not all Stewart's of the wall? F*** the political correctness.. The Constitution of the United States was written to be free from government with a common sense to be a free society!! The more we lack common sense, the more the liberals want the government to take charge!...* take care of us, take care of us!!!) The PEOPLE Rule the government... not the other way around... Common ground MUST be reached, otherwise, all will be lost...

How many people here extolling the pure virtues of pure capitalism have taken any time whatsoever to reflected upon this history?

This was the conclusion the last time corporations were allowed to have more power than government. Interestingly, with the recent changes (i.e. Citizens United), corporations again have more power than government. Interestingly, we are again headed in the direction of having robber barons, or the contemporary equivalent.

No telling how things will turn out, but seems like there are a lot of R's that won't support Trump, and a lot of D's that won't support Bernie or Hillary, at least as it stands now...

At least some folks claim this seeming 'pick the loser' choice in the D/R world leaves things open for a 3rd party candidate....

There are also claims that when people are surveyed about what they do or don't want from government, the answers come out closer to the libertarians than to any other party (i.e. a strong desire for less intrusive government in general, lower taxes, etc...)

Given that, it's worth pointing out that one of the candidates for the Libertarian Party Presidential nomination is former Gov. Gary Johnson, who IS a climber - last I heard, he has climbed at least 5 of the 'Seven Sisters' (including Everest) along with lots of smaller peaks...

Never heard any discussion by him about what he would do for climbing community / land access, but at least if someone asks, he will have a clue about what he is talking about...

In the past 3 decades or more, the Democratic party has generally been a far better steward of public lands than the GOP. There are many elements of the GOP that would open up more lands for energy extraction and do not care about wilderness or outdoor recreation. Either Clinton or Sanders would be far better than a Republican president. Trump has given very few specifics on any issue, other than immigration, so it is unclear what he thinks.

Go onto a college campus these days, the nerve center of the modern progressive movement, and try out a little "free speech" that isn't approved by the PC police. Micro aggressions ... free speech zones ... speech codes ... shouting down non PC speakers ... these campuses are microcosms of what the Progressives want to do to the rest of society. Fascistic and totalitarian.

Mike Lane wrote:Socialism itself is when the state assumes control over the means of production.

That's not what socialism is; that is what communism is in practice (not in theory). In a socialist state, a portion of the fruit of people's and businesses' labor is redistributed to the laborers. In an agricultural society, this means the field workers get a portion of the harvest. In modern society, it means businesses get taxed to provide services to the working class.

Pro-Capitalists often romanticize the "hard work" and "labor" that led to the wealth amassed by the "opportunist", but conveniently forget that most of the "hard work" is provided by the working class.

They make the arguments that social welfare programs enable people to be lazy. The socialist responds with an argument that is essentially "just because we have a few bad apple doesn't mean we should cut down the whole tree". This is not an reasonable argument to the capitalist. Ironically though, when the Wall Street crowd made the same argument, the capitalists ate it up.

Todd Graham wrote:Go onto a college campus these days, the nerve center of the modern progressive movement, and try out a little "free speech" that isn't approved by the PC police. Micro aggressions ... free speech zones ... speech codes ... shouting down non PC speakers ... these campuses are microcosms of what the Progressives want to do to the rest of society. Fascistic and totalitarian.

I live on a college campus and say lots of thing that aren't "PC" all the time without any form of social "PC" police doing jack shit about it. Plus, the college and the nearby town would both be considered fairly progressive. But go ahead and make some more inaccurate generalizations why don't you?

eli poss wrote: That's not what socialism is; that is what communism is in practice (not in theory). In a socialist state, a portion of the fruit of people's and businesses' labor is redistributed to the laborers. In an agricultural society, this means the field workers get a portion of the harvest. In modern society, it means businesses get taxed to provide services to the working class. Pro-Capitalists often romanticize the "hard work" and "labor" that led to the wealth amassed by the "opportunist", but conveniently forget that most of the "hard work" is provided by the working class. They make the arguments that social welfare programs enable people to be lazy. The socialist responds with an argument that is essentially "just because we have a few bad apple doesn't mean we should cut down the whole tree". This is not an reasonable argument to the capitalist. Ironically though, when the Wall Street crowd made the same argument, the capitalists ate it up. I live on a college campus and say lots of thing that aren't "PC" all the time without any form of social "PC" police doing jack shit about it. Plus, the college and the nearby town would both be considered fairly progressive. But go ahead and make some more inaccurate generalizations why don't you?

https://www.google.com/search?q=socialism+definition&rlz=1C9BKJA_enUS676US676&oq=socialism&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0j69i59l2j69i60.6360j0j8&hl=en-US&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

Simple Google search and on the results page alone every definition says state or collective ownership of the means of production. And you live on a college campus, huh?
Here's the thing. The redistribution you love so much is done at the point of a gun. By men with badges. That never ends well for a people. You are advocating surrendering the rights of the individual to a colossal entity that is ruled by elites.
Libertarianism is a superior system to socialism because in our system, voluntary socialism is perfectly allowed. In a socialist state you can't say free markets are allowed because the state controls the means of production. Any voluntary transactions take place in the form of a black market. And when you engage in unregulated transactions and the state finds you, you get the Eric Garner situation. It is the height of not only irony but utter ignorance that the BLM crowd uses Eric Garner as a reason to increase the power of the state.
This is my last post because in my absence Mountain Project has become tyrannical and I've been timed out. I'm going to try and summarize for the lurkers out there why you need to resist this sudden romanticizing of a paradigm proven in the last century to do nothing but lead to untold human suffering on a scale never seen.

• The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, North Korea all called themselves a democratic socialist state.
• Socialism always fails because because the state cannot set or determine market value. Only free association can. Why are you socialists seeking to outlaw the natural path and impose an artificial one?
• As Tony Bubb stated way up thread, when individuals are forced to surrender the fruits of their labor, the motivation to push hard ends. I can guarantee that every one of socialists here do not possess the same drive to succeed as most of the people I know who have gone out and started businesses that employ people. I am a contractor, as are most of my friends. Thousands of people are employed by the friends I have in total. None of them feel optimistic about about further government intrusion and property confiscation, a few have already closed their doors, ending jobs.
• If you are so convinced that people need to share more, would you be willing to pick up a gun and go into your neighbors house and take the money directly? Because there really is no difference in letting the state do the exact same thing.
• The notion that reducing the state will lead to some sort of return to corporate feudalism is utterly ridiculous. I'll tell you why. I am actually involved with the Libertarian Party, and I know for a fact that they receive almost nothing in donations from corporations.
• I consider myself a Voluntaryist. Ultimately, we seek a world that is actually stateless. By stateless, I mean there are no more borders. Once we have no more borders to worry about and complete free association, the likelihood of having wars drops massively. So, if advocate strengthening the state, and by extension the power of a border, who benefits from that? The war machine sure does, I'll tell you that. So, if you think that warfare is still one of the most powerful economic influences on the planet, who then is supporting this push for more statism? Y'all are being played. It started with kindergarten and continued throughout you years of public education. Socialism socialism socialism. The bodies of the endless warfare from the 20th century are still warm but your rulers seem to think they have already distracted you to forget the cause.

This ad is demonstrative why socialism is so appealing to the children. As a father of millenials, and a foreman who has trained 100s of apprentices through the years I can tell that this is very much the mindset of most of the youth in this country. When it comes time for me to keep pulling the wagon while you children sit in the back, I'm done. Good luck running a welfare state where production drops to less than half of what is now. You won't hear this from your educators because they do not understand production, entrenuership or free association. If you are an adult and still feel the need to impose the state into the lives of your neighbors, you might want to look into why you hold sociopathic feelings.
Farewell folks.
Live Free
Google Voluntaryism.

I support the concepts of libertarianism, but her is the question that I haven't heard anyone answer. What happens to the free market when there is nothing left, or the system is so broken there are no more checks and balances?

You look at our economic system currently and it is as defined. 99% of the population is spending pretty much their entire income, while the top 1% is spending what? About 10% of their income?

There is no trickle down economics, there is no circulation of money. Wages are stagnate or declining while the income of the 1% is steadily increasing.

So what does a libertarian recommend when the well has run dry and there is no more free market because a small population owns EVERYTHING.

Shall we revolt then?

Wow, a lot to reply to lol. All right here we go:

Tony B wrote: Correct, that's why it is done by population, not by acreage.

If you're talking about the electoral college, that's only half right. Yes, electoral votes are distributed in a pseudo-proportional way according to population. But, it isn't wholly proportional. The entire system is slated well in favor of states with smaller populations. To argue otherwise is simply ignoring fact. A single voter in Wyoming (the lest populous state) has 4x the voting power of one in California (the most populous state). If it were truly proportional, it would not be possible to win the election even if you don't have the popular vote. I am opposed to any system that has this as a possible outcome. I am opposed to any system that gives people unequal voting power. Nobody's vote should be worth more than anyone else's.

If you're talking about representation, its again only half right. The House of Representatives is roughly proportional, but still slated towards smaller states. Case in point, California has 53 representatives, and Wyoming only has one. California's population is 38,800,000. Wyoming's is 585,000. So, each California Congressman represents 732,075 people. So, a person in California has a is represented by 1/732075 of one vote in Congress. Compared to Wyoming, whose lone Congressman represents the whole state. So, someone in Wyoming is represented by 1/585000 of a vote in Congress. This works out to a Wyoming resident having about 25% more representation than a California resident. This is unfair. I think Congress should switch to Mixed Member Proportional Representation and lift the 435 member limit, so as to provide a more equal representation system.

The senate is non-proportional, and never claims to be. Each state gets 2 representatives, regardless of population. This is also unfair, but I'm not sure exactly how I feel about it. My gut tells me it should be abolished, but I think that might be short-sighted. So, I'm not really sure how I feel about this.

Last can scenario- buying the last can is not an act of aggression. Racing the other guy to it still isn't. Knocking him down is. Lying to him that your daughter is deathly ill and needs it is.
What is voluntary and what is coercion? This is a good place to interject a difference most of you folks aren't aware of. A Ayn Rand devotee would use this scenario to describe how bad altruism is and that the self interest of the individual is what moves society further than anything. Randians do not subscribe to the NAP. They are known as Objectivists. I favor Rothbard, who did use the NAP to define his philosophy of Liberty. But he too has some bad ideas, children are property for one. He also went full retard towards the end and thought recruiting Neo Nazis was a good idea (he was Jewish). But I digress. As for your premise as to are you entitled to 100% of your labor. Yes, you are. Because to agree to let the state take a portion of the product of your labor by threat of violence, you then allow the state at least partial ownership of you. No one disputes that roads and bridges and fire engines are good things and necessary to acquiring wealth. The question then becomes how do accommodate for those things. We say that to do so voluntarily through free association as a principle will lead to synergetically better results. But it will also take a lot of work, and the obstacles are enormous. Especially if you consider the greater the amount of wealth in a society the less the need for the state. Which then implies that there is no motivation for the state to increase wealth.

1.) To decide its no longer about imposition of will and removal of choice (what my original question was asking) and claim that its simply about "aggression" is moving the goal posts. It doesn't matter if you knock him down or lie to him or not, the simple act of you buying it removes his choice to buy it. Now, his part in the interaction is non-voluntary.

2.) I don't think you are entitled to 100% of that labor. Society as a whole provides you with necessary services. The threat of some sort of consequences from the police is what keeps people from breaking the law (normally. there are obviously some exceptions). We are protected from foreign aggression by our military. We drive on roads built buy the government. We have access to clean water (generally. I dont think this argument holds up in Flint, MI lol) because the government makes sure its clean. There are necessary services provided by the government that you rely on. Therefore, society as a whole is entitled to a portion of the product of your labor (money, in this case). You are intrinsically dependent upon the labor of others and you owe part of your own labor to them in return. Lastly, I believe you are who you are because of other people, and your interactions with them. You would not be in the situation you are in, have the things you have, believe what you believe without others. You are not truly self-owned, as you'd like to be.

3.) Do you believe public services would be better if they were done by private companies? Who would pay them? Would all roads be toll roads? Do firefighters and police now send you a bill?