Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
They aren't.
I did qualify it with a "to me"
Same basic concept, same guaranteed end results.
It is not the same basic concept. Libertarians have never lobbied for an absence of any and all authority.
"Big L" libertarians lobby often for such a husk of a federal government (and sometimes State governments) that you might not get de jure anarchy, but you would end up with it de facto.
That's not exactly how we CHOSE the two 2 term State Governors to BE our 2016 candidates. BOTH these guy worked to keep their respective states from making the same mistakes that is now bankrupting others. THey contributed GREATLY to keeping those states out of budget and fiscal crisis for the future.
They were WELL LIKED for being fiscally responsible. Not for "husking" their states.
Which ones?
I want to see if they are Libertarians or libertarians.
I would fall left of center, but not by a whole lot. I do like classical liberalism (supposedly the foundation of libertarianism, no?), but I do think it is correct to petition our government to ensure not just the simple individual rights of existence and possession, but also of quality of life. I do think we should have publicly funded education, healthcare, and elections. I think our espousal of capitalism generates more than enough wealth to accomplish these things that I feel are the very basics of human existence. I believe every human has a right to the basics of food shelter, and healthcare, and education.I once thought I was libertarian. Then I went to a few meetings of the libertarians and thought they all sounded like goddamn morons. So, I figured it wasn't really rational to think that I was doing it correctly, and all of them were doing it wrong... so I decided I was not a libertarian, and that libertarianism is fucking dumb.
I tried, at least.
So where are you on the spectrum now?
So, call me a libertarian that doesn't hate government, but also does not "trust" government any more than I trust the people who invent and reinvent it every day. I believe in the rule of law, and I do not believe in thought crimes. I think suppression of terrible opinions neuters our society and removes our tools for meeting bad ideas head on with better ideas.
So, you tell me... what am I?
I did qualify it with a "to me"
Same basic concept, same guaranteed end results.
It is not the same basic concept. Libertarians have never lobbied for an absence of any and all authority.
"Big L" libertarians lobby often for such a husk of a federal government (and sometimes State governments) that you might not get de jure anarchy, but you would end up with it de facto.
That's not exactly how we CHOSE the two 2 term State Governors to BE our 2016 candidates. BOTH these guy worked to keep their respective states from making the same mistakes that is now bankrupting others. THey contributed GREATLY to keeping those states out of budget and fiscal crisis for the future.
They were WELL LIKED for being fiscally responsible. Not for "husking" their states.
Which ones?
I want to see if they are Libertarians or libertarians.
I was talking about Gary Johnson of N. Mexico and William Weld of Massachusetts. THAT's who we offered America as alternatives to the 2 narcissistic Meglo power whore "winners". They brought humble and tolerant to an election that will be famous for arrogant and divisive.
Irrelevant, what is at issue is YOUR opinion of it. So, even at the state and local level, you would vote against it.I also wrote in my other response what you want can be dealt with on the local and state level
yet you have, when they make unconstrained arguments against a tax they do not, personally, prefer.
These types of disagreements happen within every party though.yet you have, when they make unconstrained arguments against a tax they do not, personally, prefer.
Give it time, you will see one show up here and make this case against taxes for education. "That is theft! Why should I pay for someone else's education!". And then another libertarian will say, "No, wait, that tax is fine, we need educated children."
So, which of the two above people is a TRUE libertarian? NEITHER. One is an anarchist, and one is a collectivist statist, in their positions. There is no "libertarian intellectual space" in that exchange.
But why is that tax fine, in libertarian ideology ? why is that part of the "acceptable minimum" (A very intentionally vague term that YOU just used as a get-out-of-jail-free card, intellectually). In the view of that colossal fraud Gary Johnson, these taxes are only really acceptable if we pour them into private, unregulated schools. I find that to be fucking nauseating. IOmagine, a self-styled "libertarian" actually SUPPORTING the idea of pouring taxes into private religious schools... letting our taxes sponsor religion... he's a fucking fraud.
"But why is that tax fine, in libertarian ideology ?" Tough to delineate, isn't it? Not for me... I am unfettered by these stupid "purity tests", and i have NO problem whatsoever saying that, yes, I believe we should FORCE you and everyone else to pay for a minimum standard of education for EVERY single child.
*cue half the libertarians hyperventilating into paper bags
And now we know why libertarians will always be intellectually confused and bereft, as a whole. They can't even stop arguing with themselves!
Are you talking about Gary Johnson, he of the proposed burqa ban?They aren't.
I did qualify it with a "to me"
Same basic concept, same guaranteed end results.
It is not the same basic concept. Libertarians have never lobbied for an absence of any and all authority.
"Big L" libertarians lobby often for such a husk of a federal government (and sometimes State governments) that you might not get de jure anarchy, but you would end up with it de facto.
That's not exactly how we CHOSE the two 2 term State Governors to BE our 2016 candidates. BOTH these guy worked to keep their respective states from making the same mistakes that is now bankrupting others. THey contributed GREATLY to keeping those states out of budget and fiscal crisis for the future.
They were WELL LIKED for being fiscally responsible. Not for "husking" their states.
he kind of failed the purity test there, eh? He did recant though, as I recall.
Are you talking about Gary Johnson, he of the proposed burqa ban?I did qualify it with a "to me"
Same basic concept, same guaranteed end results.
It is not the same basic concept. Libertarians have never lobbied for an absence of any and all authority.
"Big L" libertarians lobby often for such a husk of a federal government (and sometimes State governments) that you might not get de jure anarchy, but you would end up with it de facto.
That's not exactly how we CHOSE the two 2 term State Governors to BE our 2016 candidates. BOTH these guy worked to keep their respective states from making the same mistakes that is now bankrupting others. THey contributed GREATLY to keeping those states out of budget and fiscal crisis for the future.
They were WELL LIKED for being fiscally responsible. Not for "husking" their states.
he kind of failed the purity test there, eh? He did recant though, as I recall.
Bad press coverage. He was correct that as a governor -- drivers license photos SHOULD be take "sans Burkha". It was the same bullshit for calling him a pothead for lending his govt experience to a pot coalition that was working on the SPECIFIC laws to determine how LEGAL weed work.
You know who is doing that EXACT SAME "pothead" job today??? Click below if ya dont..
John "hand me a tissue" Boehner
It absolutely is, when it is unconstrained. You can see examples in this very thread.An argument against a tax one does not prefer is a not an argument for a complete dissolution of taxation.
On this point, I agree.Anarchists are delusional and would abandon their idiotic ideology the moment it negatively affected them in any way... which would be, literally, immediately, were it ever implemented.
A consumption tax was the goal of JohnsonWeld, but it couldn't happen overnite, nor do I think it would really work unless structured to allow low earners relief.yet you have, when they make unconstrained arguments against a tax they do not, personally, prefer.
An argument against a tax one does not prefer is a not an argument for a complete dissolution of taxation.
It's not a horrible idea, but it has to be progressive. And Johnson just could never allow himself to admit this.A consumption tax was the goal of JohnsonWeld, but it couldn't happen overnite, nor do I think it would really work unless structured to allow low earners relief.yet you have, when they make unconstrained arguments against a tax they do not, personally, prefer.
An argument against a tax one does not prefer is a not an argument for a complete dissolution of taxation.
Hi everybody. I'm just trying to get a sense for how many people here are truly freedom-minded. Please vote to indicate your position, and feel free to elaborate, or bring up anything you'd like (or just vent your inevitable frustrations) in this thread! Thanks so much!
*note that I've made a distinction between full-on anarchists/voluntaryists, Libertarian party supporters, and other libertarians who condone some form of minimal government.
Hate to break the love, but the BIG L libertarians only started to make election progress by sending the anarchists to the back of bus. Really doesn't have anything to do with Liberty, freedom. It has to do with the absurd proposition that voters should consider Anarchists to RUN this country..
Gotta decide if you're gonna be a purist wonk or get out and fix things working from the Constitution and where we are...
And yet this is also one of its most important and redeeming qualities. Our justice system may not be perfect, but it is better than anything else anyone has thought of, in its fundamental ideas.This is its distinguishing characteristic - the "authority" to do things that would be wrong if any individual did them
It is not the same basic concept. Libertarians have never lobbied for an absence of any and all authority.
"Big L" libertarians lobby often for such a husk of a federal government (and sometimes State governments) that you might not get de jure anarchy, but you would end up with it de facto.
That's not exactly how we CHOSE the two 2 term State Governors to BE our 2016 candidates. BOTH these guy worked to keep their respective states from making the same mistakes that is now bankrupting others. THey contributed GREATLY to keeping those states out of budget and fiscal crisis for the future.
They were WELL LIKED for being fiscally responsible. Not for "husking" their states.
Which ones?
I want to see if they are Libertarians or libertarians.
I was talking about Gary Johnson of N. Mexico and William Weld of Massachusetts. THAT's who we offered America as alternatives to the 2 narcissistic Meglo power whore "winners". They brought humble and tolerant to an election that will be famous for arrogant and divisive.
Ok then.
The issue is they didn't even really do anything in the election. We are too entrenched in a two party system currently.
How would anarchists handle a serial killer then? Everyone knows that that guy is killing people, but i as one citizen can't kill him back because killing is wrong. Can the government then apprehend/jail/kill that serial killer since an individual can't kill someone else so therefore the government shouldn't be able to? ...even though the rest of the community would likely agree that not having a serial killer around is a good idea?Anarchists can run a country, they don't believe in governmental authority (i.e. an inequality of rights). That is the fundamental distinction between anarchists and everyone else - the former does not condone the use of immoral violence (force used outside the scope of defense), everyone else does, to some degree. If a government does not employ such violence, it is no longer government. This is its distinguishing characteristic - the "authority" to do things that would be wrong if any individual did them.
Hi everybody. I'm just trying to get a sense for how many people here are truly freedom-minded. Please vote to indicate your position, and feel free to elaborate, or bring up anything you'd like (or just vent your inevitable frustrations) in this thread! Thanks so much!
*note that I've made a distinction between full-on anarchists/voluntaryists, Libertarian party supporters, and other libertarians who condone some form of minimal government.
Hate to break the love, but the BIG L libertarians only started to make election progress by sending the anarchists to the back of bus. Really doesn't have anything to do with Liberty, freedom. It has to do with the absurd proposition that voters should consider Anarchists to RUN this country..
Gotta decide if you're gonna be a purist wonk or get out and fix things working from the Constitution and where we are...
Anarchists can run a country, they don't believe in governmental authority (i.e. an inequality of rights). That is the fundamental distinction between anarchists and everyone else - the former does not condone the use of immoral violence (force used outside the scope of defense), everyone else does, to some degree. If a government does not employ such violence, it is no longer government. This is its distinguishing characteristic - the "authority" to do things that would be wrong if any individual did them.
"Big L" libertarians lobby often for such a husk of a federal government (and sometimes State governments) that you might not get de jure anarchy, but you would end up with it de facto.
That's not exactly how we CHOSE the two 2 term State Governors to BE our 2016 candidates. BOTH these guy worked to keep their respective states from making the same mistakes that is now bankrupting others. THey contributed GREATLY to keeping those states out of budget and fiscal crisis for the future.
They were WELL LIKED for being fiscally responsible. Not for "husking" their states.
Which ones?
I want to see if they are Libertarians or libertarians.
I was talking about Gary Johnson of N. Mexico and William Weld of Massachusetts. THAT's who we offered America as alternatives to the 2 narcissistic Meglo power whore "winners". They brought humble and tolerant to an election that will be famous for arrogant and divisive.
Ok then.
The issue is they didn't even really do anything in the election. We are too entrenched in a two party system currently.
How could you DO anything with all the pussy grabbing, computer smashing, basket of deplorables, Bernie screwing, illegal murdering headlines dude? Johnson/Weld was polling over 10% in 9 states until nut-cutting time. THAT's actually impressive considering the juvenile horseshit noise.
"Entrenched" is too polite. Brain damaged would be much more accurate. Just poke around USMB for any adult reasoned sanity. If you find ANY ---- PM me and let me know. I'll go delete it.
What about objecting to being automatically enrolled in a failed Ponzi scheme set up 40 years before my birth? I had no choice in that decision, yet here I am, paying into it without a way to opt out. Make no mistake...it is a fucking tax.It absolutely is, when it is unconstrained. You can see examples in this very thread.An argument against a tax one does not prefer is a not an argument for a complete dissolution of taxation.
"Why should I pay for someone else's choices?"
Choices... like, voting for public education? Like, voting for gas tax to fund roads? It is completely unconstrained, and it is usually the quality of argument one gets against specific taxes.
It is much harder to delineate why we should pay for one thing, and not for another. there will be no "objective truth" to be found there, and it is the intellectually lazy who pretend to "defer to a code", like liberalism... when really they are only deferring to their own fetishes and neuroses.
