I think that's basically the centrist/moderate approach for decades.

Honestly, I'm not sure why that isn't simply the 'everybody' approach.

I'm sure he is, sadly I have met people that are genuinely every bit as offensive as he is.

This thread is so full of win... You all are great

Some of what you say is probably true for some who call themselves libertarian, but little "l" libertarians can mean many different things compared to big "L" Libertarians, which would mean the Libertarian Party. It would be good not to throw all libertarians in with the Libertarian Party. Many Libertarians probably fit what you are describing.

The private property libertarian view is that private property can solve the problem of pollution. Also, in my view, corporations are not private. They are a creation of the state with state benefits. Something private doesn't have limited liability. They have to put their money where their mouth is, so to speak.

So how could private property solve pollution? There is the theory of the tragedy of the commons. To avoid the tragedy of the commons, either the state has to have absolute control over everyone using commons to manage it so that self-interested individuals don't destroy it or there has to be private property that the property owners manage themselves. Murray Rothbard brings up a good point here. What are the two most crucial areas that pollution has become a problem? They are the two areas that private property has not been allowed, air and waterways, owned by the state.

With private property, an agressor against another person's own body or property is a case for criminal or tort charges. If I put my trash in my neighbor's yard, the neighbor will be justified in requesting me to stop. If I keep doing it, the neighbor may bring charges against me. It should be this way whether it is a huge industrial complex polluting or a single individual polluting. Except here with the air and waterways, the state has allowed pollution for what they call the common good. The courts have dismissed charges based on this. They have also disallowed class action lawsuits.

For private property to work to decrease pollution, tort must first be reformed. If we went to laissez faire with the way the courts are now, I agree, it would be very damaging to the environment.

Some more reading on the issue that might help explain it further is in Murray Rothbard's For a New Liberty Chapter 13: "Conservation, Ecology, and Growth." It can be read here - http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp#p242 or listened to here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CV-UCDFDPgw. I do think this chapter is an excellent read, well worth the time. He criticizes Ayn Rand's and Milton Friedman's positions towards the end of the chapter if that is to your liking.

I personally like the way he puts the courts rulings about pollution being allowed for the common good, comparing it to automobiles. A quote, from the minute mark 48:04-50:23 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=CV-UCDFDPgw#t=2884s.

He also had some views on tort with "Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution" here - http://mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf. I could only find it as a PDF.

My reply is already too long so I'll try to keep this part short and anyone bothering to read this far can google keywords if you want. Another thing that a lot of people seem to think about libertarians is that they are all atomistic individuals. I don't know how exactly this became prevalent, but it is not the truth. The truth is that libertarian thought is based on social cooperation. Ludwig Von Mises had a tough time between titling his book Human Action or social cooperation. It might have been better to title it social cooperation. I think that this misconception came about from people who hated liberals (yes, I want to take that word back from what is considered liberal in the U.S. today) shouting insults that if people don't want government intervention or programs, then they must want other people to die. Maybe some people who didn't read the books but didn't like government coercion decided that this must be true and ran with it. I think Bastiat already put it best a long time ago.

Now, I have to be honest too. I might have a bit of a split personality. On the one hand, I see all this technology that comes from private property rights as good. The human population has expanded because of it. Our lives are easier because of it. We also get neat things like computer games and mp3 players because of it. The creature in me that wants to survive is happy because the human race is doing so well.

On the other hand, I love nature. I love being in the woods. If private property takes over everything, there will be more fences and whatnot disrupting the flow of the ecosystem. We have not created anything, only converted. With our huge population there are many things that have to die to support us. Some libertarians claim that the ideology is like a modern Taoism, one that wants to live in harmony with nature rather than control or destroy it. I don't know, maybe.

So I've spent some time reading libertarian theory but there is one principle I try to follow more than any other. "Don't be an asshole."

I always thought that it would be good to require 1 hour of volunteer work for every $100 you get -- either over-zero tax returns (where you literally pay nothing but get something back), WIC, food stamps, disability, etc.

Even someone completely disabled can do SOMETHING to help someone out.

At $100 an hour, those who need it will gladly do something for it. Those who don't need it? Not worth their time.

The problem is that many of the people on social support are simply incapable of any work. And especially "volunteer work" is rather demanding. I know this issue from mandatory "social hours" as part of a court judgement, for some of the detached it is very hard to find some adequate work that they actually can do.

Sometime I was just lucky to get them into a programm were they learned simple things like getting up in the morning.

If you haven't seen it, you can hardly understand how much those people have forsake a "normal" lifestyle.

Well, and you have the working poor, which are already working a lot and still need social backing. You can hardly demand from them to put another few hours into an already bloated worktime.

Edit: but I should mention that those who can get a hold in something "similar to a regulated work enviroment" are usually very happy to made that step. What I'm trying to say is, you can't "demand" it, but you have to actually help them get into such a state. But that is where many people are already comlaining about those "lazy freeloaders".

Kony 2020 eerr 2012

Hmm. No.

There are a lot of people like that. Some people like to live their lives by really obsolete books. You might think think this is an odd practise, but at least XmXFLUXmX's choice was somewhat more adequate than the book some chose: Lobotomies and You: A Beginner's Guide.

I don't like that particular ad that OP posted. It's rather based to much on fear, for me.

On the other hand, it nicely summarizes most of present US wars.

On the contrary. Ron Paul is saying that Americans should have nothing to fear, and that their armed forces shouldn't be in other people's countries any more than the Americans would want foreign troops in their own country.

Agreed. "Texas" was chosen for this ad for a reason, though :P

It was chosen as a state with a lot of natural resources (i.e. oil), just like some other areas the US has occupied. Or at least that would be my guess.