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.
Right, I never suggested that one group or another has a monopoly on compassion. I said that libertarians have faith in the efficacy of that compassion, and faith that most of the time if given the chance the majority of people will make good choices for themselves.
You fallaciously attempted to cloak Libertarianism as being a "faith in the inherent goodness of man" and used natural disasters as "evidence".
Now you are backpedaling because your allegation was proven to be based upon a fallacious attempt to disparage other political parties.
So unless you can prove that the Republican and Democratic parties are NOT based upon the concept that the "majority of people will make good choices for themselves" you have nothing but a feeble attempt to usurp the best attributes of the American people for your own partisan purposes.
Right, I never suggested that one group or another has a monopoly on compassion. I said that libertarians have faith in the efficacy of that compassion, and faith that most of the time if given the chance the majority of people will make good choices for themselves.
You fallaciously attempted to cloak Libertarianism as being a "faith in the inherent goodness of man" and used natural disasters as "evidence".
Now you are backpedaling because your allegation was proven to be based upon a fallacious attempt to disparage other political parties.
So unless you can prove that the Republican and Democratic parties are NOT based upon the concept that the "majority of people will make good choices for themselves" you have nothing but a feeble attempt to usurp the best attributes of the American people for your own partisan purposes.
Whatever it was that failed in Kansas, it wasn't libertarianism. That's the main point, as a few others have made.
In the big picture, a national shift toward libertarianism can only occur by small degrees of change. You just aren't going to be able to identify The Libertarian in office and call him a success or a failure.
I am not backpedaling after a fallacious attempt to disparage the two major parties, which are really two sides of the same coin. I remain a critic of that false-dichotomy, and as such I express critical opinions about them/it.
The starting point for any libertarian is that faith in men and communities of men to make proper decisions, local solutions to local problems, within the framework of the Constitution. I offer a frivolous example of the antithesis of that philosophy, which may be called Bloombergisms, like as with banning of super-sized sodas and buttered popcorn. Or, social engineering through sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco. We can have differences of opinion on these issues. The point is that the libertarian trusts individuals to regulate their own behavior. The statist feels more comfortable with top-down social engineering.
No one is purely anarchistic, and no American would support a hegemony with limitless authority. Obviously, my anarchistic views break down at some point and I would not be in favor of allowing people to have personal nuclear weapons or drive down the freeway with a rocket launcher mounted to their hood. There's a spectrum.
What happens though, when we allow authoritarians to define 'anarchy' or 'libertarianism'... that is where things get truly fallacious. Defined by the authoritarian, anarchy is some sort of radical get-mine-and-screw-all-others, destructive, non-cooperative, undisciplined, spiteful manifestation of anger and frustration.
“Before our white brothers came to civilize us we had no jails. Therefore we had no criminals. You can't have criminals without a jail. We had no locks or keys, and so we had no thieves. If a man was so poor that he had no horse, tipi or blanket, someone gave him these things. We were too uncivilized to set much value on personal belongings. We wanted to have things only in order to give them away. We had no money, and therefore a man's worth couldn't be measured by it. We had no written law, no attorneys or politicians, therefore we couldn't cheat. We really were in a bad way before the white men came, and I don't know how we managed to get along without these basic things which, we are told, are absolutely necessary to make a civilized society.” <sarcasm>
-John Lame Deer
Whatever the faults and failings of the two major parties, the 'answer' is not libertarianism.tl;dr
I also, however, am vehemently against supporting the corrupt & false two party paradigm. They are, as you indicated, two sides of the same coin.
BTW- are you native american? i was looking at you siggie.
I know that Vandalshandle posted this elsewhere but I believe that is deserves it's own thread.
The Great Kansas Tea Party Disaster
Extremist Republicans turned their government into a lab experiment of tax cuts and privatization. And now they may be losing control of one of the reddest states in the nation
By Mark Binelli | October 23, 2014
Four years ago, when Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback first took office, you might've wondered if these people, on some subliminal level, actually wanted to be humiliated by a filthy-minded liberal activist looking to add a new "santorum" to Urban Dictionary. As a senator and a failed presidential candidate, Brownback was already one of the nation's most prominent social conservatives, "God's Senator," in the words of a 2006 Rolling Stone profile. But Brownback turned out to be even more radical when it came to economic policy.
In 2012, he enacted the largest package of tax cuts in Kansas history, essentially transforming his state into a lab experiment for extreme free-market ideology. The results (disastrous) have reduced the governor to making appearances at grim strip malls like this one in a desperate attempt to salvage his re-election bid.
The larger problem, of course, is that Perry wouldn't even have to be here in Kansas if Brownback's economic plan had not already proved catastrophic. Back in 2011, Arthur Laffer, the Reagan-era godfather of supply-side economics, brought to Wichita by Brownback as a paid consultant, sounded like an exiled Marxist theoretician who'd lived to see a junta leader finally turn his words into deeds."Brownback and his whole group there, it's an amazing thing they're doing," Laffer gushed toThe Washington Post that December. "It's a revolution in a cornfield." Veteran Kansas political reporter John Gramlich, a more impartial observer, described Brownback as being in pursuit of "what may be the boldest agenda of any governor in the nation," not only cutting taxes but also slashing spending on education, social services and the arts, and, later, privatizing the entire state Medicaid system.
Brownback himself went around the country telling anyone who'd listen that Kansas could be seen as a sort of test case, in which unfettered libertarian economic policy could be held up and compared right alongside the socialistic overreach of the Obama administration, and may the best theory of government win. "We'll see how it works," he bragged on Morning Joe in 2012. "We'll have a real live experiment."
That word, "experiment," has come to haunt Brownback as the data rolls in. The governor promised his "pro-growth tax policy" would act "like a shot of adrenaline in the heart of the Kansas economy,"but, instead, state revenues plummeted by nearly $700 million in a single fiscal year, both Moody's and Standard & Poor's downgraded the state's credit rating, and job growth sagged behind all four of Kansas' neighbors. Brownback wound up nixing a planned sales-tax cut to make up for some of the shortfall, but not before he'd enacted what his opponents call the largest cuts in education spending in the history of Kansas.Being governor in the midst of a national economic crisis, then, handed Brownback the perfect opportunity to reinvent himself. "My focus is to create a red-state model that allows the Republican ticket to say, ‘See, we've got a different way, and it works,' " he told TheWall Street Journal last year. "We've got a series of blue states raising taxes and a series of red states cutting taxes. Now let's watch and see what happens."Brownback exists in a class of his own, thanks both to the vainglorious scale of his project and the inescapable reality of its flop. And what must have longtime Brownback patrons like the Koch brothers most freaked out is how starkly his failure highlights the shortcomings of their own ideology.Brownback's policies have been so unpopular, in fact, that a group of more than 100 moderate Republicans, nearly all of them former or current state officeholders, have publicly backed his Democratic opponent, state Rep. Paul Davis, who, until the race's recent tightening, had been leading consistently in polls. Calling themselves Republicans for Kansas Values, the moderates released a manifesto of sorts, which reads in part, "We are Republicans in the historical and traditional sense of the word.
Yet in today's political climate in Kansas, traditional Republican values have been corrupted by extremists, claiming to be agents of change. It is a faction which hides behind the respected Republican brand in an effort to defund and dismantle our state's infrastructure. . . .
The policies [they] espouse are radical departures. . . . They jeopardize the economy and endanger our children's future with reckless abandon. . . . We reject their extremist agenda."
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-kansas-tea-party-disaster-20141023#ixzz3H6Qs5r1G
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
Gov Brownback tried to turn Kansas into a "Libertarian Paradise"!
Instead it has become a complete and utter disaster.
So much so that even life long Republicans have switched sides to support a Dem for Governor.
If ever there was hard evidence that Libertarianism doesn't work it is right here in the red state heartland.
The quotes above demonstrate that there is nothing about Libertarianism that actually works in the real world. It has been tried and it has failed just as extremist Communism tried and failed. The evidence is all there but I am willing to bet that not a single Libertarian in this forum will be honest enough to admit to this epic failure.
And nobody said they didn't, limp dick. I'm just telling you that the stats show that the majority of Libertarians vote Republican....something that apparently your pea brain isn't able to digest or understand, and why you keep giving me reasons why you vote Republican. I really don't care who you vote for, but don't tell me that the majority of libertarians in the recent past have not voted for Republicans. End of Story.....Listen closely,dildo,The poster is premature at best. Since no one has handed my ass on a platter.Apparently you don't like to be handed your ass on a platter? Epic Fail.....
No one has shown me that Kansas Theocratic Conservatives decided to vote Libertarian - a party which favors the decriminalization of drugs, abortions and which does not support warmongering.
So , you are the one who banged his head on the hurdle.
.
You responded to my post where I said I didn't see much difference between Libertarian and Tea Party. You said I needed to do more research and you posted some link and article that didn't counter what I said, in fact it had no relevance to what I said. So, yes, you've been handed your ass on a platter because you still haven't disproven what I said but instead have rattled on about what is happening in Kansas.
So, unless you can disprove what I said, and provide a link/article defending your position, don't tell me to do more research. Apparently you are a Libertarian that doesn't know much about your party.
Many people on the left still dismiss the tea party as the same old religious right, but the evidence says they are wrong. The tea party has strong libertarian roots and is a functionally lib- ertarian influence on the Republican Party.
Compiling data from local and national polls, as well as dozens of original interviews with tea party members and leaders, we find that the tea party is united on economic issues, but split on the social issues it tends to avoid. Roughly half the tea party is socially conserva- tive, half libertarian—or, fiscally conservative, but socially moderate to liberal.
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA705.pdf
If someone claims that they agree with us on the gold standard and taxation issues but disagree that marihuana should be decriminalized then they are NOT a Libertarian.
We do not support freedom only when is convenient. Either you support freedom across the board or you are not a Libertarian.
Its as simple as that.
Now well, if the XYZ party begins a petition to abolish the "income tax" we would support that effort. Not because we are members of the XYZ Party but because the "income"tax should be abolished by any means necessary.
But it sounds as though you have an agenda to ignore the facts
.
.
Listen closely, immature idiot. If someone claims to be Libertarian and votes Republican they are not Libertarians. I have provided you with links and articles that support what I have said. So, half of your fucking party is obviously not Libertarian, but just claims to be Libertarian. I suspect you are not a true Libertarian if when push comes to shove you vote Republican.
So, idiot, if the Republican party begins a petition to abolish income tax, you claim you will support that and vote Republican? Why don't you have a Libertarian candidate that supports that so you can vote for your own party? Because you are not a Libertarian, but a flip-flopper, who uses the "Libertarian" label to hide when the Republican party totally loses, like in the 2012 election and Romney was handed his ass on a platter. Then all of a sudden you and others became Libertarians.
OK, cum breath, Let's look at the 2012 election. 1, 275 951 Americans voted Libertarians , including your truly, even though we knew that Gary Johnson's chances of getting elected president was nil to none.
That's right, pea brain, and it just so happens that 7 out of 10 Libertarians seem to like the Republican candidates better, for whatever reasons. Get it!Americans have the right to vote for a candidate for whatever reasons that individual believe are appropriate.
