Because there's no rule saying that any of us cannot be rich. That's your answer, troll.

For example, very early on, Muirgeo started asserting that markets require regulation, therefore there is no such thing as a 'free' market, therefore it's never wrong to regulate markets. Everyone here can see the lack of logic, and I've corrected him MANY, MANY times, but does he ever learn?

You know you're being trolled when the troll says increasingly outrageous things in an attempt to keep you on the hook (hence "trolling"). Then, when you get disgusted and stop responding, the troll goes back to making reasonable arguments.

Wash, rinse, repeat for endless amusement. When you're under attack by a troll, the only successful response is 100% silence. If someone breaks discipline and responds, they're on the hook and the troll starts reeling them in and out.

If 100% silence is not possible, then moderation (human filtering) is required. I've seen this again and again and again (google for "russ" if you doubt my experience).

Ooooh, based on Harrison Bergeron. I cannot wait!!!

Anyone care to take a shot at explaining this data and how it's consistent with libertarianism?

Certification required to join the Libertarian Party:
"To validate my membership, I certify that I do not advocate the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals."

Oops. Sounds like you're lost.

And this:
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel."

muirgeo, you approach that jewel very suspiciously whenever you start talking about me paying for others' health care. And I'm not put at ease by your belief that you're using force to advance liberty, even if that's how you rationalize it.

I think that pretty much rules you out as a libertarian. And that's fine, because you're not the first person to make that mistake.

And I'm going to offer you one more thing. The opposite of "libertarian" is "authoritarian." As a supposed libertarian, tell me the difference between your views on health care, and those of an authoritarian.

Now you may not realize this, but nothing that's transpired here, up to this point, bothers me in the slightest. I can dispatch socialist claptrap in my sleep. See? No hard feelings!

What does bother me is that now you will begin to insist that you are a libertarian and I am not. In fact, it's been clearly established that you are a leftist, a socialist, a progressive, a Democrat. You are a liberal, but not the type referred to by Hayek and Boudreaux. You seek security above all else, and while you paste pretty quotes, you in fact fear and despise liberty, because it does not produce the results you want. Liberty is too hard for you.

You are what is known as a "concern troll."

If you want civil treatment, you can start by not insulting the intelligence of everyone here who wants real liberty. They don't want what you want. This is firmly established, and it's all that matters.

Suppose for a second, that you are the true libertarian, and the rest of us are all just anarchists, for example. Aren't you being silly to hang out on an anarchy blog just because it calls itself libertarian? I mean, it's well established that you are not about what this blog is about. Are you here to defend the use of "libertarian" among us anarchists, or do you really hope to convince us that you know a better way?

When your Marxist fallacies are identified, will you at least show us the dignity of getting new ones instead of repeating them?

in your first paragraph you claim that higher education is an inalienable right.
However, I guess you don't believe that private property should be one.

In the second paragraph, funding to higher education turns out to be part of a social contract. Also the money system is guaranteed by force through the state. No mention of fractional reserve banking on all that.

Then in the third paragraph, you launch into generic gratuitous slanders: all of us are somehow complacent with power except you. You're trying to signal that you are morally better than us. It could be true, but (as you said before) you haven't defined morality….

You claim to be the true liberal here, but give no hints as to how you will achieve greater liberty. Through public funded higher ed?

Finally, you link liberty to authority and force and call that "nuance" when in fact you remind us of the guy who is currently president.

Posted by: BoscoH

I don't present an interesting challenge. The realities and complexities of the real world in which we all live presents an interesting challenge. It's very important not to over-simplify.

If our ideas are sound, they will withstand scrutiny and criticism.

Scrutiny and criticism are fine. Idiocy is not. Neither are attempts at argument that have one or more major rhetorical flaws (generalization, straw man argument, anecdotes instead of data, ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority, appeals to popularity, etc.). Most of Muirgeo's posts have one or more of these failings. I see no reason to celebrate the return of such a commenter. It's like rejoicing over the return of athlete's foot: a mildly annoying fungus that's hard to get rid of.

Posted by: Oil Shock

So by this do you mean you believe in Corporate rule or as some call it Corporatism? And do you NOT believe that government should be of, by and for the people? if it's of, by and for the people it can't be a monopoly.

BTW Corporations don't exist with out government.

It's late, I'm tired and the idea of what money is is infinitely complex. You are not telling me you have that all worked out are you? Thanks for the links.

Here's a couple back at you.

http://www.monetary.org/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dmPchuXIXQ

Wait a minute. One more thing. I'm always confounded by conflicting positions. I see you chime some support for modern day corporations yet deride the current monetary/ government system that might likely be responsible for their great success at concentrating power. I have a hard time separating the two. Too often it seems the classic liberal thinker here tries to claim all the success of our current economy in favor of the liberal components of our system and all the failures a result of government intervention. I just don't think the facts support this. The current massive Wall Street collapse was the result of letting the baby play with the gun and not putting a safety lock on it. Wall Streets survival was completely the doing of government intervention.

http://tinyurl.com/64jrty

I agree that it's our hosts' prerogative to decide what passes for a decent comment, and because our hosts have asked us not to respond to someone who calls us assholes and thieves in kind, I've said I'll do my best to ignore Muirduck.

I only took exception to your implied assertion that I should ignore Muirduck because I DISAGREE with him.

LOL. Suddenly I had this image of Al Gore tinkering with the global climate in an attempt to cool it. Global air conditioner??

brotio, let's agree to disagree. I still believe it is Don & Russ's prerogative to decide what passes for a decent comment. I don't see any personal attacks in the comments you quoted. I see muirgeo as misinformed/misguided person and I have no reason to believe that he doesn't believe in what he is talking about. His rants are usually against the philosophy of liberty, not against any individual commenter ( from my experience so far ).

Also personal attacks don't bode well for the intent of this blog.

Concept of money came from the market, not from the diktat of any government. Money as we know today is fiat money. It has value only because of a govenment fiat, in that sense you are right. But, free market money and free banking existed in the world successfully.

Creation of the central bank ( lender of last resort a.k.a government bail out for the rich bankers ) is a leaf taken out of the communist manifesto. The whole purpose of its existence is to lend to institutions that the market won't lend to. It was created by Woodrow Wilson ( A socialist hero ) who also started the income tax.

Yes founders were very concerned about concentration of wealth, but they probably knew that giving the power of regulation to the government will only lead to a situation where moneyed interest can influence decision making instead of the market merits.

You were complaining the other day about big corporations siphoning funds from the public trough. What else would you expect if you make the public trough that juicy? Founders knew better about income taxes, didn't they?

Big Corporations are made of people and so is government. Government is a monopoly where as big corporations in most cases are not. There is no sense in putting your trust in the regulators any more than the big business men.

Regulators are generally paid and bought by the corporations. Less regulation is the solutions.

Here is a good place for you to start some reading

You're kidding, right?

Let me make this clear, I'm not going to ignore Muirduck because I believe I should ignore people I disagree with, but because statements like these:

3. "Suffice it to say individualism where ever it surfaces is ultimately self-destructive.”
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 15, 2008 11:29:41 AM"
or
4. “Planning and tinkering will definitely have a place in creating a strong competitive market. The invisible hand……YOU'RE FIRED!!!… well or at least demoted.”
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 17, 2008 9:13:45 AM

are so frustratingly stupid that I can't respond as nicely as our hosts would like. It's their house and their rules and to do my best to abide by them, I have to do my best to ignore the 'Duck. However, some people have made it plain that they intend to keep feeding the Troll, so I might find it hard to ignore Muirduck all the time.

I, for one, applauded when William F Buckley told Gore Vidal, "Now listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I’ll sock you in your goddamn face and you’ll stay plastered." and I also applauded every time Vidyohs, Methinks, LCJ and others mocked Muirduck's stupidity and his covetousness of other people's property, and I'll continue to applaud every time one of them falls off the civility bandwagon and responds to Muirduck with the same respect that he shows them.

Thomas Jefferson (1791)

These are the words of the man who built our country's first University of higher education in the University of Virginia. He built it and insisted that it be a publicly funded (FREE!) university. He understood that liberty is maximized when a society recognized the inalienable rights of all its citizens.

When you, my detractors, tell me I'm the type to steal your liberty recognize I got some big guns behind me that understood more then any of us could the nuances of liberty. I'm no Jefferson but like he I'm as interested in maximizing liberty contrary to what you all claim. It's a cheap shot when you claim force is being used to steal your liberty when in fact it is being used to spread liberty. Yes force for liberty! There is NO other way. I'm a pragmatist and a reductionist and THAT is what I suspect you all dislike of my post. You don't get to tell us about your beautiful ideology with out telling me how it plays out in the real world as Karl Marx so aptly described. Yes Karl Marx descriptions are potent regardless of his failures at solutions. You don't just get to tell us about "YOUR" money you "earned" with out defining what you mean by money. (Aristotle wrote that “Money exists not by nature but by law.”). Money itself IS law . It is "force". Behind that money you think you made all by yourself is a social contract that includes things like publicly funded institutions of higher learning.

The forefathers absolutely fretted and agonized about great concentrations of wealth and power and their implications for liberty. You guys make every excuse to ignore the conflict of the two. I am the revolutionary ( the ones they referred to as terrorist back then) you guys are the Tory's. You're complacent with power because you have a bit no matter how the masses see their liberties slipping away.

"Liberty is the proper end and object of authority, and cannot subsist without it; and it is liberty to that which is good, just, and honest."

John Winthrop (1588-1649)

Yes liberty requires authority and "force" and thats the nuance you consistently overlook with your pure and simple theory.

"The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered…staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people."

George Washington (1732-1799)

"THE PEOPLE!!!" me

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. "

Patrick Henry (1736-1739)

Public liberty????

Liberty requires the force of the people. That's all I'm saying. If you can find evil in that it's only a lack of pragmatism and a shortage of nuance.

This blog belongs to Russ and Don ( private property anybody? )and for the rest of us it is a privilege to come here and learn and exchange libertarian thoughts.

If you don't like his comments ignore him. Isn't that a very libertarian trait? He neither stealing your property nor is he violating your privilege to comment here.

Regardless of whose fault it is, a bunch of comments soaked in vitriol reflects poorly on the cafe. Some of the first time visitors are very likely to get turned off. How can that be not counter productive?

"A drop of honey catches more flies than a gallon of gall" – Dale Carnegie

If I can't show Muirduck the same respect for his opinion that he shows for my liberty, and for me for having the audacity to defend liberty on a libertarian blog, then I will do my best to do as Russ Nelson and Hodak pleaded with us to do long ago and ignore the troll. He has insinuated that we are all thieves for wanting to keep what we earn – and out-and-out called Methinks and Mesa thieves when he told them that the purpose of their job is to see that "the fruit of their labor has been stolen by the financial wizadry of wall street paper pushing assholes making pyramid schemes and calling them fancy names like derivatives."

I'm not going to say, "I'm sorry I called you a duck for ducking thousands of questions, and I forgive you for calling me an asshole because I think I can spend my money better than you can" because I'm not sorry and he hasn't asked for forgiveness.

I don't put Martin Brock in Muirduck's league, because while his debating style is frustrating (as Vidyohs describes it, "round and round the mulberry bush"), it is apparent that Martin's IQ is solidly in the triple digits. There have been days when I wondered if Muirduck has a brain stem.