Jake Towne Skyrockets to a "Stunningly High" 8% in the Polls

Take the analogy of a school teacher asking the class, "what is 1+1?" One kid answers, "2!" That's correct. Another answers, "3!" That's wrong. Another answers, "peaches!" That isn't even wrong it is so far off base. It's in another universe.

Your confusion unfortunately is not uncommon. Most of it stems from long indoctrination in socialist thought and warped notions of what liberty is and is not. It is apparent that you've been "educated" if one could call it that, in Orwellian Doublespeak. Likely, you don't even know this.

For starters, please refrain from foul language. Not only does it diminish your claim with your readers, it isn't polite in general.

Second, you are confusing Libertarians with Corporatists. There is a long running debate over Corporations vs. the Free Market. Though there are arguments on both sides, it is pretty simple: a corporation cannot exist without government action because a corporation by definition is the permission by government to do business in a limited liability capacity which it would otherwise not enjoy. Thus, corporations are interventions into the marketplace and as a result, where they exist, the market is not "free." (you were not born into a free market system. You were born into a centrally planned economy of varying degree in various industries and aspects. A close inspection of legislation would reveal that we are today as centrally planned as Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union were in many regards, if not more so in some. We have adopted to varying degree all ten of the planks of the Communist Manifesto for turning a market based economy into a communist one.)

Everyone should be on a level playing field, and most importantly that includes responsibility for your actions, in business and without.

How exactly has regulation worked out for ya? We've had it in droves for 80 years and government still can't get it right. De-regulation is not the problem. Corporate privilege removing responsibility for business actions in the first place IS. (regulations are designed to make up for this faux pas, but they do so in a very haphazard, and Liberty stifling manner, very unlike the original responsibility that would have been assigned to one's actions)

Business would never be able to get so large as to enslave anyone because the mechanism of personal responsibility for business actions would act as a natural check on how large of a business one could be responsible for. You see, it IS corporate privilege that is the problem.

Towne isn't advocating for big business, he's advocating for sensible solutions that don't impair SMALL business in the process. Regulations are truly meant to re-assign responsibility where it was removed by the government granted corporate charter. The problem is that it is APPLIED to EVERYONE, not just corporate businesses. So it stifles innovation and the delivery of goods and services at a price people can afford from SMALL businesses.

It is well known and demonstrated that corporate regulations serve the effect of ENTRENCHING big business and precluding entry into the market by new and innovative players. This is directly due to the costs associated with regulatory compliance both actual and legal. (do not automatically assume, ALL regulation is for the good or protection of the people or consumer. Many regulations are short sighted or ill concieved knee jerk reactions to public sentiment. Others are specifically designed, written, and lobbied for by the biggest corporations in an industry precisely as a tool to keep out competition and innovation. Only the big boys can afford to comply so they are the only ones who can stay in business.)

THIS is where your idea of corporate slavery comes from. There is little or no alternative. There is no other company to turn to. You are a slave to a handful or even a single big corporation in some respect of your life precisely BECAUSE of massive regulation of that industry. The regulations make it more expensive to do business than can be obtained in revenue. No idiot would attempt to provide a service or product at a loss out of their own pocket (which most start-up businesses don't have much of) at least not for very long. (max - 5 years for a new business to fail, most within 1 year with the number one factor being lack of sufficient start-up capital to sustain heavy initial losses.)

Libertarianism is not greed, I don't want more than what I work for, but dog gone it, I better be able to retain and use at my discretion 100% of what I earn, the way I see fit, in order to fulfill my own needs and responsibilities.

Preventing me from doing so is ludicrous on its face. It makes no sense at all, to take from people to dictate how they should live, how much they can make, or how they can spend it. Everyone has different needs, wants and desires, as well as responsibilities. Trying to run someone else's life is not "charitable" or "giving." It is arrogant and tyrannical. Please explain to me why EVERYONE, including single parents working minimum wage, have ANYTHING taken out of their paychecks in Federal or State taxes? THAT MAKES NO SENSE! Why would we engage in a policy which makes it MORE DIFFICULT for people to meet their responsibilities? (there is an answer, but it is even more cynical than you presume to accuse Jake Towne of) Why would we prevent businesses from entering the market to offer new and innovative products and services that such single parents could AFFORD so it is easier for them to meet their responsibilities?

You have much to learn. Start with worrying about your own life and responsibilities, and stop trying to tell others how to live and fulfill theirs and you'll see first hand what being a "Libertarian" is all about.

*DISCLAIMER - I in no way intend to imply by this post that Jake Towne takes any position on corporate charters. I present this as merely a response to an attack on Libertarians. If the reader wishes to know Mr. Towne's position on this issue, I suggest you email him directly if it is not already on his website.