How Evil is Libertarianism anyway?

[flacaltenn]

You haven't exposed shit.

I exposed that you are a Cafeteria Libertarian who is perfectly fine with free gummint giveaways to military, from extra tax breaks to free health care for life along with their family, to subsidized food and goods at the BX and the Commissary, to free Space A travel anywhere in the world, to...do I need to go on?

None of it is in the Constitution, and all of it was pandering from politicians looking for the military vote and to wrap themselves in the flag.

You're a fake.

And now you prolly won't see me for another week, because an asshole moderator has me on slowdown. I'm sure you can guess which one.

But when I come back, you'll still be a fraud.

Now I admit -- I didn't read all 86 pages.. But am I seeing Synth suggest that taking care of Veterans is "welfare"?? And having a subsidized market on base is some form of HANDOUT? Especially if that base is in Kuwait and it might be dangerous to have uniformed members going out on the streets to buy their mac n cheese?

Is THAT the weakness of Libertarians? That we believe having a military is VALID function of govt?


In our case -- we've been consistent about moving back all those foreign deployments for years now.. Would save GREATLY on training and education for tthe troops to have them HERE in the States. Isn't that a bit more important than getting 25% off a copy of GQ magazine at the PX???

 

[Contumacious]

You haven't exposed shit.

I exposed that you are a Cafeteria Libertarian who is perfectly fine with free gummint giveaways to military, from extra tax breaks to free health care for life along with their family, to subsidized food and goods at the BX and the Commissary, to free Space A travel anywhere in the world, to...do I need to go on?

None of it is in the Constitution, and all of it was pandering from politicians looking for the military vote and to wrap themselves in the flag.

You're a fake.

And now you prolly won't see me for another week, because an asshole moderator has me on slowdown. I'm sure you can guess which one.

But when I come back, you'll still be a fraud.

Now I admit -- I didn't read all 86 pages.. But am I seeing Synth suggest that taking care of Veterans is "welfare"?? And having a subsidized market on base is some form of HANDOUT? Especially if that base is in Kuwait and it might be dangerous to have uniformed members going out on the streets to buy their mac n cheese?

Is THAT the weakness of Libertarians? That we believe having a military is VALID function of govt?


In our case -- we've been consistent about moving back all those foreign deployments for years now.. Would save GREATLY on training and education for tthe troops to have them HERE in the States. Isn't that a bit more important than getting 25% off a copy of GQ magazine at the PX???

The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years....

ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 12


The Congress is CONSTITUTIONALLY (1787) authorized to raised and support armies.

The type of parasitic welfare we refer to is the one where someone is financially supported simply because he voted for the right welfare state candidate.

.

 

[flacaltenn]

You haven't exposed shit.

I exposed that you are a Cafeteria Libertarian who is perfectly fine with free gummint giveaways to military, from extra tax breaks to free health care for life along with their family, to subsidized food and goods at the BX and the Commissary, to free Space A travel anywhere in the world, to...do I need to go on?

None of it is in the Constitution, and all of it was pandering from politicians looking for the military vote and to wrap themselves in the flag.

You're a fake.

And now you prolly won't see me for another week, because an asshole moderator has me on slowdown. I'm sure you can guess which one.

But when I come back, you'll still be a fraud.

Now I admit -- I didn't read all 86 pages.. But am I seeing Synth suggest that taking care of Veterans is "welfare"?? And having a subsidized market on base is some form of HANDOUT? Especially if that base is in Kuwait and it might be dangerous to have uniformed members going out on the streets to buy their mac n cheese?

Is THAT the weakness of Libertarians? That we believe having a military is VALID function of govt?


In our case -- we've been consistent about moving back all those foreign deployments for years now.. Would save GREATLY on training and education for tthe troops to have them HERE in the States. Isn't that a bit more important than getting 25% off a copy of GQ magazine at the PX???

The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years....

ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 12


The Congress is CONSTITUTIONALLY (1787) authorized to raised and support armies.

The type of parasitic welfare we refer to is the one where someone is financially supported simply because he voted for the right welfare state candidate.

.

Ya know...... I never pondered that "2 year" stipulation before and I find it confusing. Did they throw away Naval Frigates after 2 years in the 18th century? Or is just that military appropriations were on a BIannual basis?

 

[Contumacious]

You haven't exposed shit.

I exposed that you are a Cafeteria Libertarian who is perfectly fine with free gummint giveaways to military, from extra tax breaks to free health care for life along with their family, to subsidized food and goods at the BX and the Commissary, to free Space A travel anywhere in the world, to...do I need to go on?

None of it is in the Constitution, and all of it was pandering from politicians looking for the military vote and to wrap themselves in the flag.

You're a fake.

And now you prolly won't see me for another week, because an asshole moderator has me on slowdown. I'm sure you can guess which one.

But when I come back, you'll still be a fraud.

Now I admit -- I didn't read all 86 pages.. But am I seeing Synth suggest that taking care of Veterans is "welfare"?? And having a subsidized market on base is some form of HANDOUT? Especially if that base is in Kuwait and it might be dangerous to have uniformed members going out on the streets to buy their mac n cheese?

Is THAT the weakness of Libertarians? That we believe having a military is VALID function of govt?


In our case -- we've been consistent about moving back all those foreign deployments for years now.. Would save GREATLY on training and education for tthe troops to have them HERE in the States. Isn't that a bit more important than getting 25% off a copy of GQ magazine at the PX???

The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years....

ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 12


The Congress is CONSTITUTIONALLY (1787) authorized to raised and support armies.

The type of parasitic welfare we refer to is the one where someone is financially supported simply because he voted for the right welfare state candidate.

.

Ya know...... I never pondered that "2 year" stipulation before and I find it confusing. Did they throw away Naval Frigates after 2 years in the 18th century? Or is just that military appropriations were on a BIannual basis?

The two years clause was a concession to the anti-federalists who did not want standing armies:


The Anti-Federalists Were Opposed to a Standing Army in Peacetime

 

[TemplarKormac]

Do all libertarians believe you should be able to just walk into the White House?

Ya?

We're paying for it, aren't we?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Like I said, you're clueless about the Constitution and the concept of representative government.

And you aren't? Let's put it this way:

 

[Clementine]

I have long been acquainted with Libertarians and used to find them kind of adorable in a yapping lapdog kind of way, bitching about the Federal governments over reach, the rise in taxes and why doesnt the GOP have more Libertarians in it?

Well now we have a blend of conservative and Libertarian that many people confuse with 'true' conservatism, but it is NOT conservatism. It is the putrid purge from the mind of an evil avowed atheist escapee from the Soviet Union who had no use for love or charity or God. All Ayn Rand wanted was for people to hate the government and be willing to kill each other to keep their toys. The deepest thought she produced was a complex system of excuses to let your neighbor starve in the street as was common in many parts of the Soviet Union of her time.

William F Buckley Jr and Whitaker Chambers both exposed Rand for the loveless bitch she was deep in her soul. Both observed that 'Atlas Shrugged' was a fantasy shpeel of a world devoid of God, Christian mercy and charity and any semblance of community. They were quite right to denounce her work, her novels and her values system as alien to the body of Conservative American thought.

But fast forward to today's corporate America and we find Rand rehabilitated and flourishing under the guise of conservatism again, a.k.a. 'Conservatarians' and it is rotting Conservatism from the inside, like a cancer.

The take over of the Conservative movement by 'Conservatarians' or Rand Objectivists is a real disaster for the Conservative movement as we enter a new Digital Age in which jobs will be scarce and the party that offers to help other Americans through their adjustment to it will be the majority party for the distant future. Conservatarians cant even put the words together about how to care for other Americans, because deep in their hearts they truly just dont give a shit about anyone but themselves and maybe a few friends.

Which means that either Conservatism will shed itself of these useless evil parasites that are a pimple on Conservatism's ass or the Conservative movement will die the well deserved death of wicked heresies.

It's tyrants that are evil. And we are heading into tyranny. Would rather have people who actually believe in the constitution than those arrogant idiots who think they know better than our founders.

 

[Tom Horn]

I always considered libertarians agnostic GOPers....unwilling to commit to self-discipline.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Most libertarians aren't against mandatory taxation. Even by libertarian standards, you're pretty extreme.

You're more of an anarcho-libertarian. Which is quite the fringe subset of the philosophy.

And how is the moral stance that it's wrong to initiate aggression against one's fellow man exploitative?

Its your argument. You tell me.

My argument is that libertarianism has few and feeble checks for the concentration of personal power.Especially the radical 'no taxation' anarcho-libertarianism that you favor.

Monopolies, exploitation, environmental damage, anti-competative business practices, intimidation, rampant nepotism, propaganda, racial discrimination, harassment.....just to start. As any concentration of power, unchecked, will eventually be abused. Libertarianism has no checks for these wild abuses.

I'm not sure how these result from people thinking that it's wrong to initiate aggression against one's fellow man.

That's because you don't take into consideration the consequences of say....no mandatory taxation. Absolute property rights. The ability of any property owner to be able to 'secede from the nation' at their whim. Or a nation with no laws.

In the real world, we have to take these consequences into consideration. Which is why a philosophy which ignores them is so practically worthless.

We understand those things perfectly. That would mean all the abuses endemic to government would become impossible. It's you who doesn't understand the consequences of handing over the monopoly on the use of force to a corrupt government. No formal government does not mean "no laws."

Serious question.

Wouldn't imposing any law, no matter how few there are, be an institution of government?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Because of the inevitable consequences of your interpretation of 'aggression' when put into practice. And the horrendous abuses and exploitation that you would sanction and protect as part of your interpretation of 'aggression'.

I wouldn't sanction any abuses or exploitation. I think you're mistaken.

Hmm. I've been reading this conversation in depth...

It would seem to me that both systems, the form of society libertarianism presents, and the form of society those advocating governance present, can be used to commit aggression against or used to exploit the person.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And we have checks for most of them. Your example of blacks not being able to use the roads? The Supreme Court. Local ordinances forbidding it. Federal laws.

And I believe you fail to recognize how politically oriented our governance system has become. Federal laws aren't made out of necessity (necessarily) anymore, they are passed based on the political alignments of the legislature, whether it be a state's, or congress itself. North Carolina's law for example, or Colorado's transgender law as another, or religious freedom bills.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No monopoly has ever existed? Really?

No so-called "natural monopoly" has ever existed. Only government enforced monopolies have existed.

Prove it.

Name one.

You'll need to define your terms first. With evidence.

With evidence? A natural monopoly is one that exists without any legal assistance from the government.

Natural monopolies can't exist, because those firms would be allowed to abuse their power over their respective industry. You can't let a firm operate independently of government regulations. It isn't practical.

 

[TemplarKormac]

BTW, the phrase "mandatory laws" is nonsensical because by definition laws are all mandatory.

That's actually news to me. I would think that not all laws are mandatory. Mandatory doesn't equal "just" or "fair."

 

[TemplarKormac]

Your argument that in the Segregationist South that EVERY instance of denial of service was FORCED by law....seems a little far fetched

So how was it enforced, then?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm much more self-sufficient than you've ever been.

Cute. But you advocate for policies that re-enforce the need for dependence. Your views contradict the very concept of "self sufficiency." I call that a conflict of interest.

 

[TemplarKormac]

In my country majority rules.

Okay, so if the majority rules, then states who passed bans against gay marriage via referendum, and the Supreme Court, should have deferred to the will of the majority, correct?

But why is it that a minority, oh, three or so percent of people who are gay/trans, get to dictate the policy for the other 97 percent? This is a big hole in your argument, Synth. If the majority rules, then by that merit, gays should be forced to submit to the will of the majority. How interesting.

Oh, here's another. Since Christianity is the predominant religion in the US, people should eschew themselves of other beliefs and succumb to the will of the Christian faith, right? No, the minority has rights in every case. But what it can't do is influence policy without the will and consent of a majority. Read Federalist #10.

 

[TemplarKormac]

love exposing you wingnuts for the frauds you are.

Wow. Such projection. Much fail.

 

[kaz]

You haven't exposed shit.

I exposed that you are a Cafeteria Libertarian who is perfectly fine with free gummint giveaways to military, from extra tax breaks to free health care for life along with their family, to subsidized food and goods at the BX and the Commissary, to free Space A travel anywhere in the world, to...do I need to go on?

Yes, paying people who work for you is welfare, got it. You really don't get the connection between work and money, do you?

BTW, I keep telling you I'm not a Libertarian, I'm a libertarian. You don't know the difference, do you? That damned government education again ...

None of it is in the Constitution, and all of it was pandering from politicians looking for the military vote and to wrap themselves in the flag.

You're a fake.

And now you prolly won't see me for another week, because an asshole moderator has me on slowdown. I'm sure you can guess which one.

But when I come back, you'll still be a fraud.

Um ... the military's not in the Constitution? Or paying the military's not in the Constitution? You just get dumber and dumber

 

[kaz]

You haven't exposed shit.

I exposed that you are a Cafeteria Libertarian who is perfectly fine with free gummint giveaways to military, from extra tax breaks to free health care for life along with their family, to subsidized food and goods at the BX and the Commissary, to free Space A travel anywhere in the world, to...do I need to go on?

None of it is in the Constitution, and all of it was pandering from politicians looking for the military vote and to wrap themselves in the flag.

You're a fake.

And now you prolly won't see me for another week, because an asshole moderator has me on slowdown. I'm sure you can guess which one.

But when I come back, you'll still be a fraud.

Now I admit -- I didn't read all 86 pages.. But am I seeing Synth suggest that taking care of Veterans is "welfare"?? And having a subsidized market on base is some form of HANDOUT? Especially if that base is in Kuwait and it might be dangerous to have uniformed members going out on the streets to buy their mac n cheese?

Is THAT the weakness of Libertarians? That we believe having a military is VALID function of govt?


In our case -- we've been consistent about moving back all those foreign deployments for years now.. Would save GREATLY on training and education for tthe troops to have them HERE in the States. Isn't that a bit more important than getting 25% off a copy of GQ magazine at the PX???

You might as well as have read all 86 pages because yep, that's what he's arguing. When benefits for you and your family are part of your employment package, that's welfare. Not only does he say that for the military, but he said my GE pension I'm going to get for working for GE for 11 years is welfare.

I guess he's just trying to justify that his welfare check is as earned as if he'd worked for it

 

[dblack]

In my country majority rules.

I'm sure it looks like tyranny to the losers.

Glad I don't live there. In my country, we protect the rights of the losers, regardless of the majority!