How Evil is Libertarianism anyway?

[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???

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.

.

Technically he's arguing that when your employer gives you benefits, that's the welfare. Employers be they the government (military) or not (GE) are giving you welfare when part of your employment deal is benefits instead of salary. Amazing, isn't it?

 

[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???

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?

Not an expert in that clause, but my understanding would be that when we pass annual budgets, that is a one year appropriation. It doesn't limit the military to being standing for two years, just budgets should not be approved for longer than two years. Makes sense for all expenditures since the term of a congress is two years

 

[kaz]

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!

Syndi's right, here we don't. We have devolved to tyranny of the majority.

You a Kiwi?

 

[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???

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

That doesn't really answer his question. But the way it's phrased implies that any congress in it's two year term could dissolve the military by defunding it

 

[bripat9643]

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?

American law is derived from English common law. The King or Parliament did not create common law. It was developed over hundreds of years by the peasant class to resolve disputes among themselves. Laws arose as a result of the dispute resolution process and existed only if they were found by unanimous consent to be just and effective. Eventually even the crown became subject to common law.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You are right, natural monopolies can't exist. The ability of capital to enter an industry and compete prevents them from existing. Government regulations aren't required.

 

[kaz]

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.

You are right, natural monopolies can't exist. The ability of capital to enter an industry and compete prevents them from existing. Government regulations aren't required.

Of course natural monopolies exist. Though they can change over time. Take three examples, phones, electricity and water.

Phones were a natural monopoly, you just can't have twelve companies stringing up the country. Clearly over time that ended as most people have mobile phones and there is no wire.

Electricity was and is a natural monopoly for the same reason, multiple wires running on every street isn't practical. But looking into the future, things like fuel cells and solar down the line could remove that monopoly as power like phones becomes distributed. It will happen, the question is when.

Water not being a natural monopoly again for the same reason, multiple pipes going down the street, but right now as the population of the earth grows, water seems will become even a stronger rather than a weaker natural monopoly

 

[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???

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

Hey thanks for the Cliff Notes. Saved me some time.. And Kaz anytime a corporation does something NICE and ETHICAL for their employees ---- IT MUST appear in leftist terms to be welfare. Because to the left -- they hold the patent on altruism and charity... So of COURSE that pension is welfare, and the 2 days a week you were not FORCED to work were "regulation"...

 

[flacaltenn]

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

That doesn't really answer his question. But the way it's phrased implies that any congress in it's two year term could dissolve the military by defunding it

Yeah --- and how INEFFICIENT would THAT be?? Mothball the fleet in one Congress and bring it back under another? The "standing army" battle is one of the few Constitutional concepts that needs modern clarity..

Like to see the Nuclear Triad put in storage and recreated again..

 

[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

Hey thanks for the Cliff Notes. Saved me some time.. And Kaz anytime a corporation does something NICE and ETHICAL for their employees ---- IT MUST appear in leftist terms to be welfare. Because to the left -- they hold the patent on altruism and charity... So of COURSE that pension is welfare, and the 2 days a week you were not FORCED to work were "regulation"...

I agree, but in the case of my GE pension that is according to Syndi "welfare," part of my agreement with them was an annual contribution to the pension plan on my behalf. How he equates that with welfare is just the vacuous airhead that he is

 

[kaz]

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

That doesn't really answer his question. But the way it's phrased implies that any congress in it's two year term could dissolve the military by defunding it

Yeah --- and how INEFFICIENT would THAT be?? Mothball the fleet in one Congress and bring it back under another? The "standing army" battle is one of the few Constitutional concepts that needs modern clarity..

Like to see the Nuclear Triad put in storage and recreated again..

True, but that was another day. The military didn't really have any weapons the people didn't, it was about training and organization

 

[dblack]

I agree, but in the case of my GE pension that is according to Syndi "welfare," part of my agreement with them was an annual contribution to the pension plan on my behalf. How he equates that with welfare is just the vacuous airhead that he is

It makes sense when you consider their premises regarding political and economic power. They consider them to be two sides of the same coin.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I think you owe the Amish an apology, despite them being a bunch of weirdasses like they are, they are not so loathesome as Libertarians.

Lol. Libertarian here.

Unlike Republicans or Democrats, libertarians like me, who don't affiliate themselves with the official Libertarian Party, don't adhere to the rigidity of party politics. Party politics can lead people to be closed minded and prejudiced, as evidenced from what I'm seeing in this thread.

It allows us to tolerate what we please, and be intolerant to what we please. But enjoy being led along like lemmings by the establishments in your respective parties.

TemplarKormac

You're not a "Libertarian" in any possible meaning of the word. You ARE closed minded and prejudiced, to the extreme. You are mindlessly racist, homophobic and consistently post against the US Constitution as well as the principles of justice and equality upon which the US was founded.

I have often wondered how how someone in their early thirties got to be a stubborn old fart and so utterly encased in the cement of hate.

And, for the gazillionth time, Libertarians work to support themselves. They don't leech off the Social Security of little old ladies - especially while railing against Social Security.

To my knowledge, there is no recognized political belief that is based on bragging about being fat, too lazy to get a job with bragging about Twinkies as a platform. Come back when you're willing to walk the walk of principles you currently only give lip service to.


---------

OR


---------

Maybe I am wrong about Libertarian beliefs and principles?

 

[kaz]

I think you owe the Amish an apology, despite them being a bunch of weirdasses like they are, they are not so loathesome as Libertarians.

Lol. Libertarian here.

Unlike Republicans or Democrats, libertarians like me, who don't affiliate themselves with the official Libertarian Party, don't adhere to the rigidity of party politics. Party politics can lead people to be closed minded and prejudiced, as evidenced from what I'm seeing in this thread.

It allows us to tolerate what we please, and be intolerant to what we please. But enjoy being led along like lemmings by the establishments in your respective parties.

TemplarKormac

You're not a "Libertarian" in any possible meaning of the word. You ARE closed minded and prejudiced, to the extreme. You are mindlessly racist, homophobic and consistently post against the US Constitution as well as the principles of justice and equality upon which the US was founded.

I have often wondered how how someone in their early thirties got to be a stubborn old fart and so utterly encased in the cement of hate.

And, for the gazillionth time, Libertarians work to support themselves. They don't leech off the Social Security of little old ladies - especially while railing against Social Security.

To my knowledge, there is no recognized political belief that is based on bragging about being fat, too lazy to get a job with bragging about Twinkies as a platform. Come back when you're willing to walk the walk of principles you currently only give lip service to.

Templar is one of the most honest people on the board. Obviously know know that since you're using things he's said against him, including his insecurity issues and weight battles.

I mean this sincerely, you actually are a dick of a human being. You don't just play one on message boards

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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

Ya?

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

That's idiotic.

 

[kaz]

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

Ya?

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

That's idiotic.

We need reasonable positions, like you, such as men should be able to walk into little girl's bathrooms.

But no, most libertarians don't think that, there is a difference between government property and space specifically used for government business

 

[TemplarKormac]

You're not a "Libertarian" in any possible meaning of the word. You ARE closed minded and prejudiced, to the extreme. You are mindlessly racist, homophobic and consistently post against the US Constitution as well as the principles of justice and equality upon which the US was founded.

Interesting. My uncle was gay first off, second, I'm far more open minded than you are. For example, if you were open minded, you wouldn't refer to me as this slew of pejoratives. You can't tolerate my points of view, so therefore that makes you closed minded. Not me. Open minded individuals tolerate points of view that don't agree with theirs.

I have often wondered how how someone in their early thirties got to be a stubborn old fart and so utterly encased in the cement of hate.

The hate card. Do you have an actual argument?

And, for the gazillionth time, Libertarians work to support themselves. They don't leech off the Social Security of little old ladies - especially while railing against Social Security.

Funny, liberals like you preach the gospel of dependence on government. Color me shocked.

(By the way, the insults about my grandmother and my weight got old three years ago, that's why I have most of the trolls like you on my ignore list.)

To my knowledge, there is no recognized political belief that is based on bragging about being fat, too lazy to get a job with bragging about Twinkies as a platform. Come back when you're willing to walk the walk of principles you currently only give lip service to.

This is absolutely hilarious!

You can't argue one single point of mine, so you presume to judge me, not on my points, but on my weight or my lifestyle. Who is it being lazy now? You're too lazy to debate me on the merit of my argument, because if you did, I would destroy you.

And you have no place lecturing me on "principles." Because as I see it, you have none.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I think you owe the Amish an apology, despite them being a bunch of weirdasses like they are, they are not so loathesome as Libertarians.

Lol. Libertarian here.

Unlike Republicans or Democrats, libertarians like me, who don't affiliate themselves with the official Libertarian Party, don't adhere to the rigidity of party politics. Party politics can lead people to be closed minded and prejudiced, as evidenced from what I'm seeing in this thread.

It allows us to tolerate what we please, and be intolerant to what we please. But enjoy being led along like lemmings by the establishments in your respective parties.

TemplarKormac

You're not a "Libertarian" in any possible meaning of the word. You ARE closed minded and prejudiced, to the extreme. You are mindlessly racist, homophobic and consistently post against the US Constitution as well as the principles of justice and equality upon which the US was founded.

I have often wondered how how someone in their early thirties got to be a stubborn old fart and so utterly encased in the cement of hate.

And, for the gazillionth time, Libertarians work to support themselves. They don't leech off the Social Security of little old ladies - especially while railing against Social Security.

To my knowledge, there is no recognized political belief that is based on bragging about being fat, too lazy to get a job with bragging about Twinkies as a platform. Come back when you're willing to walk the walk of principles you currently only give lip service to.

Templar is one of the most honest people on the board. Obviously know know that since you're using things he's said against him, including his insecurity issues and weight battles.

I mean this sincerely, you actually are a dick of a human being. You don't just play one on message boards

Nope. TK demanded that liberals get him a job and then, when many of us offered to help him, he threw a little hissy fit and said he didn't want to work.

What I said is that he does not post "libertarian" values, attitudes and principles. To be fair, I'm old school. I left the Dick Lamm campaign to be one of the original group who sat in Dave Nolan's living room, hammering out what we believed and turning it into the Libertarian political party.

Then, I grew up and, though we stayed friends, through to his death in Tucson, I never again agreed with Libertarian beliefs.

So, if you are saying that I'm wrong to call TK on his lies and hypocrisy, how about you tell me what "real" Libertarians, lie you and him, believe.

Such as - do you believe you should work for a living? Or do you believe you should just be a leech?

 

[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?

That's idiotic.

In what way?

 

[TemplarKormac]

To be fair, I'm old school.

Which makes you the "stubborn old fart", not me.