Which is the shorter distance?

Ive been considering voting for Johnson. But he is falling into the same rhetoric as Romney on the "Government doesnt create jobs" nonsense. As nearly 60% of my machine shop business is government work, I disagree.

I can't speak to what Johnson has, or has not, claimed. But libertarian ideology is opposed to using government to "create jobs" on principle, regardless of whether or not it can do so effectively.


Principles dont keep an economy moving. Principles dont feed my family.

Obviously -- you are voting your pocket book -- not principles then.. I spent a portion of my career shaking down Washington agencies for money. That -- oddly enough was enough to MAKE me a Libertarian..

Principles help you be CONSISTENT on what you believe. It's simple clean and very soothing to have principles that don't tie you up in knots..
 
I can't speak to what Johnson has, or has not, claimed. But libertarian ideology is opposed to using government to "create jobs" on principle, regardless of whether or not it can do so effectively.


Principles dont keep an economy moving. Principles dont feed my family.

Obviously -- you are voting your pocket book -- not principles then.. I spent a portion of my career shaking down Washington agencies for money. That -- oddly enough was enough to MAKE me a Libertarian..

Principles help you be CONSISTENT on what you believe. It's simple clean and very soothing to have principles that don't tie you up in knots..


I think principles SHOULD tie you up in knots. They should keep you from taking the easy path and doing whats right...or at least right to you.

That being said, maybe I am voting my pocketbook. I cant argue that I am not. Though Obama would raise my taxes ( yes I fall into THAT range ) I believe that if theres a stronger middle class, I will make more money in the long run. As Ive said before, I own several bakeries and people dont buy as many donuts in a down economy.
 
Principles dont keep an economy moving. Principles dont feed my family.

Right. You want government to do that. And that's not the kind of government libertarians want. My point isn't that your view is wrong, but that it's the antithesis of libertarianism. I only bring it up because you said you consider yourself (at least in part) "libertarian". But freedom from being dependent on, and thusly controlled by, government is at the core of the libertarian ethos.

No. You are mistaken. You're making assumption about me that are simply not the case.

I don't want government to do that. But, Im not opposed to government doing that temporarily in times of economic crisis.

When things are back to normal, then the government should back the hell off and stay out of the way. When it comes to the economy, I see the government as a last resort only.

Perhaps we can review how granting government temporary powers in an emergency works out for us. They're never temporary.

I don't recall any period in my lifetime that American politicians, in both major parties, weren't preoccupied with "creating jobs". It's their inability to stop pandering in this way that causes them to "leave the spigot on", creating the booms that lead to the busts that are then used to justify more of the same. That's insane in my view.

If one stands only on principle and never on practicality, then one is bound to starve.

Principles that aren't practical, and practicable, aren't worth having.
 
Right. You want government to do that. And that's not the kind of government libertarians want. My point isn't that your view is wrong, but that it's the antithesis of libertarianism. I only bring it up because you said you consider yourself (at least in part) "libertarian". But freedom from being dependent on, and thusly controlled by, government is at the core of the libertarian ethos.

No. You are mistaken. You're making assumption about me that are simply not the case.

I don't want government to do that. But, Im not opposed to government doing that temporarily in times of economic crisis.

When things are back to normal, then the government should back the hell off and stay out of the way. When it comes to the economy, I see the government as a last resort only.

Perhaps we can review how granting government temporary powers in an emergency works out for us. They're never temporary.

I don't recall any period in my lifetime that American politicians, in both major parties, weren't preoccupied with "creating jobs". It's their inability to stop pandering in this way that causes them to "leave the spigot on", creating the booms that lead to the busts that are then used to justify more of the same. That's insane in my view.

If one stands only on principle and never on practicality, then one is bound to starve.

Principles that aren't practical, and practicable, aren't worth having.

Sorry, DBlack, but an unregulated system is far more prone to booms and busts then a regulated one.

but other than that, youre correct. Politicians are ALWAYS talking about creating jobs. But some of that "spigot" must always be left on. In the shop I own we subcontract from another company that provides firearms to the military. We also machine gears for guidance systems for missiles. Its all government work. Anytime one of my employees talk about how bad "government jobs" are, I remind them that THEY have a government job. Sure its a private business, but its taxpayer money that pays their paycheck and my own. And I never forget that. My success ( at least with that particular business ) is based at least in part on taxpayer money and government spending.
 
Principles dont keep an economy moving. Principles dont feed my family.

Obviously -- you are voting your pocket book -- not principles then.. I spent a portion of my career shaking down Washington agencies for money. That -- oddly enough was enough to MAKE me a Libertarian..

Principles help you be CONSISTENT on what you believe. It's simple clean and very soothing to have principles that don't tie you up in knots..


I think principles SHOULD tie you up in knots. They should keep you from taking the easy path and doing whats right...or at least right to you.

That being said, maybe I am voting my pocketbook. I cant argue that I am not. Though Obama would raise my taxes ( yes I fall into THAT range ) I believe that if theres a stronger middle class, I will make more money in the long run. As Ive said before, I own several bakeries and people dont buy as many donuts in a down economy.

Our middle class is suffering from severe GLOBAL dislocation.. NONE of the politicians are discussing how to reverse this decline. It HAS to happen by stimulating extremely hi tech, high risk, ventures. NOT by paying for shovel jobs or "green jobs". You should be VERY VERY angry about all that lousy leadership.. And perhaps looking at leaders who UNDERSTAND that capital has to flow to NEW IDEAS and NEW TECHNOLOGY in order to give the Middle Class a chance. The Dems are completely ABSENT in all of that because they've spent their wad ATTACKING Venture Capital, free markets, and "the rich".

In terms of OP -- THAT RIGHT THERE --- is the insurmountable terrain between Libertarians and the Dems. Although the distance may be closer than commonly accepted, there's a MOUNTAIN directly in the path...

When the best that Silicon Valley and our Venture guys can produce is LinkedIn and Groupon --- you can kiss the Middle Class goodbye and start learning Korean or Mandarin.

Actually no knots in Libertarian philosophy.. It's all pretty concise and simple.. Basically pro-choice on everything, an acceptance of the WHOLE Bill of Rights, and a reverence for the workings of a free market..
 
Last edited:
Obviously -- you are voting your pocket book -- not principles then.. I spent a portion of my career shaking down Washington agencies for money. That -- oddly enough was enough to MAKE me a Libertarian..

Principles help you be CONSISTENT on what you believe. It's simple clean and very soothing to have principles that don't tie you up in knots..


I think principles SHOULD tie you up in knots. They should keep you from taking the easy path and doing whats right...or at least right to you.

That being said, maybe I am voting my pocketbook. I cant argue that I am not. Though Obama would raise my taxes ( yes I fall into THAT range ) I believe that if theres a stronger middle class, I will make more money in the long run. As Ive said before, I own several bakeries and people dont buy as many donuts in a down economy.

Our middle class is suffering from severe GLOBAL dislocation.. NONE of the politicians are discussing how to reverse this decline. It HAS to happen by stimulating extremely hi tech, high risk, ventures. NOT by paying for shovel jobs or "green jobs". You should be VERY VERY angry about all that lousy leadership.. And perhaps looking at leaders who UNDERSTAND that capital has to flow to NEW IDEAS and NEW TECHNOLOGY in order to give the Middle Class a chance. The Dems are completely ABSENT in all of that because they've spent their wad ATTACKING Venture Capital, free markets, and "the rich".

In terms of OP -- THAT RIGHT THERE --- is the insurmountable terrain between Libertarians and the Dems. Although the distance may be closer than commonly accepted, there's a MOUNTAIN directly in the path...

When the best that Silicon Valley and our Venture guys can produce is LinkedIn and Groupon --- you can kiss the Middle Class goodbye and start learning Korean or Mandarin.

Actually no knots in Libertarian philosophy.. It's all pretty concise and simple.. Basically pro-choice on everything, an acceptance of the WHOLE Bill of Rights, and a reverence for the workings of a free market..

I wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment of shovel ready and "green" jobs. Firstly, "green" jobs are often hi tech jobs. Secondly, not everyone has the aptitude for hi tech jobs. What are they to do? Starve? Live off of welfare their whole lives? No these people can push a broom, or lift a shovel. They can then spend their earned income on consumables that hi tech provides and THAT will raise everyone up.

Look at the Tri Borough Bridge. Built during the Great Depression, that ONE bridge provided a million jobs across 22 states. ONE BRIDGE.


You say we lack leadership. I disagree. I think the problem is too many cooks in the kitchen. Obama led with his infrastructure bill. The Republicans blocked it. It could have created millions of jobs. Maybe instead of demanding leadership, we need to start demanding some followers.
 
Sorry, DBlack, but an unregulated system is far more prone to booms and busts then a regulated one.

It was the unrestrained goal of "creating jobs" that was used just to justify the most foolhardy of the de-regulating. The goal of regulation, of government in the market place, should be about maintaining transparent, honest dealings - not manipulating the economy.

but other than that, youre correct. Politicians are ALWAYS talking about creating jobs. But some of that "spigot" must always be left on. In the shop I own we subcontract from another company that provides firearms to the military. We also machine gears for guidance systems for missiles. Its all government work. Anytime one of my employees talk about how bad "government jobs" are, I remind them that THEY have a government job. Sure its a private business, but its taxpayer money that pays their paycheck and my own. And I never forget that. My success ( at least with that particular business ) is based at least in part on taxpayer money and government spending.

I guess you're just saying that government will always be spending money, and causing some people to have jobs, but that's irrelevant to my point. What I'm saying is that how government spends money should be decided on based on what is required to perform it's legitimate functions (defense being one). Providing us with jobs (or food, or housing, or health care) is not one of those legitimate functions, at least in the libertarian view. And it's not something we should look to government to do.
 
Sorry, DBlack, but an unregulated system is far more prone to booms and busts then a regulated one.

It was the unrestrained goal of "creating jobs" that was used just to justify the most foolhardy of the de-regulating. The goal of regulation, of government in the market place, should be about maintaining transparent, honest dealings - not manipulating the economy.

Excellent response. I can agree with that.

but other than that, youre correct. Politicians are ALWAYS talking about creating jobs. But some of that "spigot" must always be left on. In the shop I own we subcontract from another company that provides firearms to the military. We also machine gears for guidance systems for missiles. Its all government work. Anytime one of my employees talk about how bad "government jobs" are, I remind them that THEY have a government job. Sure its a private business, but its taxpayer money that pays their paycheck and my own. And I never forget that. My success ( at least with that particular business ) is based at least in part on taxpayer money and government spending.

I guess you're just saying that government will always be spending money, and causing some people to have jobs, but that's irrelevant to my point. What I'm saying is that how government spends money should be decided on based on what is required to perform it's legitimate functions (defense being one). Providing us with jobs (or food, or housing, or health care) is not one of those legitimate functions, at least in the libertarian view. And it's not something we should look to government to do.

I believe that insuring domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare ( as stated in the Constitution ) are also legitimate functions of government. And I believe that providing jobs, food and health care to those in crisis all qualify under those headings.
 
Why are most of the self professed Libertarains voting Romeny then?

I thought most of them were voting for Johnson.

Ive been considering voting for Johnson. But he is falling into the same rhetoric as Romney on the "Government doesnt create jobs" nonsense. As nearly 60% of my machine shop business is government work, I disagree.

The government takes your money, then gives it back to you, and you think that means they create jobs. Do you always have this much trouble with activities that involve logic?
 
I thought most of them were voting for Johnson.

Ive been considering voting for Johnson. But he is falling into the same rhetoric as Romney on the "Government doesnt create jobs" nonsense. As nearly 60% of my machine shop business is government work, I disagree.

The government takes your money, then gives it back to you, and you think that means they create jobs. Do you always have this much trouble with activities that involve logic?

The government taxes us, then invests the money in defense and promoting the general welfare which creates jobs.

Why do you hate the Constitution and the US of A?
 
No. You are mistaken. You're making assumption about me that are simply not the case.

I don't want government to do that. But, Im not opposed to government doing that temporarily in times of economic crisis.

When things are back to normal, then the government should back the hell off and stay out of the way. When it comes to the economy, I see the government as a last resort only.

Perhaps we can review how granting government temporary powers in an emergency works out for us. They're never temporary.

I don't recall any period in my lifetime that American politicians, in both major parties, weren't preoccupied with "creating jobs". It's their inability to stop pandering in this way that causes them to "leave the spigot on", creating the booms that lead to the busts that are then used to justify more of the same. That's insane in my view.

If one stands only on principle and never on practicality, then one is bound to starve.
Principles that aren't practical, and practicable, aren't worth having.

Sorry, DBlack, but an unregulated system is far more prone to booms and busts then a regulated one.

but other than that, youre correct. Politicians are ALWAYS talking about creating jobs. But some of that "spigot" must always be left on. In the shop I own we subcontract from another company that provides firearms to the military. We also machine gears for guidance systems for missiles. Its all government work. Anytime one of my employees talk about how bad "government jobs" are, I remind them that THEY have a government job. Sure its a private business, but its taxpayer money that pays their paycheck and my own. And I never forget that. My success ( at least with that particular business ) is based at least in part on taxpayer money and government spending.

Good to know you support cronyism.

I bet I know what your business plan looks like.

bizplan.png
 
Ive been considering voting for Johnson. But he is falling into the same rhetoric as Romney on the "Government doesnt create jobs" nonsense. As nearly 60% of my machine shop business is government work, I disagree.

The government takes your money, then gives it back to you, and you think that means they create jobs. Do you always have this much trouble with activities that involve logic?

The government taxes us, then invests the money in defense and promoting the general welfare which creates jobs.

Why do you hate the Constitution and the US of A?

I don't hate CONUS, I hate trying to explain it to people that think they know everything.
 
Perhaps we can review how granting government temporary powers in an emergency works out for us. They're never temporary.

I don't recall any period in my lifetime that American politicians, in both major parties, weren't preoccupied with "creating jobs". It's their inability to stop pandering in this way that causes them to "leave the spigot on", creating the booms that lead to the busts that are then used to justify more of the same. That's insane in my view.

Principles that aren't practical, and practicable, aren't worth having.

Sorry, DBlack, but an unregulated system is far more prone to booms and busts then a regulated one.

but other than that, youre correct. Politicians are ALWAYS talking about creating jobs. But some of that "spigot" must always be left on. In the shop I own we subcontract from another company that provides firearms to the military. We also machine gears for guidance systems for missiles. Its all government work. Anytime one of my employees talk about how bad "government jobs" are, I remind them that THEY have a government job. Sure its a private business, but its taxpayer money that pays their paycheck and my own. And I never forget that. My success ( at least with that particular business ) is based at least in part on taxpayer money and government spending.

Good to know you support cronyism.

I bet I know what your business plan looks like.

bizplan.png

And there you go.

Unsupported backhanded insults when your logic and reason have failed you.

sigh...
 
Sorry, DBlack, but an unregulated system is far more prone to booms and busts then a regulated one.

but other than that, youre correct. Politicians are ALWAYS talking about creating jobs. But some of that "spigot" must always be left on. In the shop I own we subcontract from another company that provides firearms to the military. We also machine gears for guidance systems for missiles. Its all government work. Anytime one of my employees talk about how bad "government jobs" are, I remind them that THEY have a government job. Sure its a private business, but its taxpayer money that pays their paycheck and my own. And I never forget that. My success ( at least with that particular business ) is based at least in part on taxpayer money and government spending.

Good to know you support cronyism.

I bet I know what your business plan looks like.

bizplan.png

And there you go.

Unsupported backhanded insults when your logic and reason have failed you.

sigh...

You argue that more government regulation makes somehow magically creates jobs. I point out how absurd that is, and you accuse me of hating the constitution. Yet, somehow, I am the one whose logic and reason has failed.
 
I think principles SHOULD tie you up in knots. They should keep you from taking the easy path and doing whats right...or at least right to you.

That being said, maybe I am voting my pocketbook. I cant argue that I am not. Though Obama would raise my taxes ( yes I fall into THAT range ) I believe that if theres a stronger middle class, I will make more money in the long run. As Ive said before, I own several bakeries and people dont buy as many donuts in a down economy.

Our middle class is suffering from severe GLOBAL dislocation.. NONE of the politicians are discussing how to reverse this decline. It HAS to happen by stimulating extremely hi tech, high risk, ventures. NOT by paying for shovel jobs or "green jobs". You should be VERY VERY angry about all that lousy leadership.. And perhaps looking at leaders who UNDERSTAND that capital has to flow to NEW IDEAS and NEW TECHNOLOGY in order to give the Middle Class a chance. The Dems are completely ABSENT in all of that because they've spent their wad ATTACKING Venture Capital, free markets, and "the rich".

In terms of OP -- THAT RIGHT THERE --- is the insurmountable terrain between Libertarians and the Dems. Although the distance may be closer than commonly accepted, there's a MOUNTAIN directly in the path...

When the best that Silicon Valley and our Venture guys can produce is LinkedIn and Groupon --- you can kiss the Middle Class goodbye and start learning Korean or Mandarin.

Actually no knots in Libertarian philosophy.. It's all pretty concise and simple.. Basically pro-choice on everything, an acceptance of the WHOLE Bill of Rights, and a reverence for the workings of a free market..

I wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment of shovel ready and "green" jobs. Firstly, "green" jobs are often hi tech jobs. Secondly, not everyone has the aptitude for hi tech jobs. What are they to do? Starve? Live off of welfare their whole lives? No these people can push a broom, or lift a shovel. They can then spend their earned income on consumables that hi tech provides and THAT will raise everyone up.

Look at the Tri Borough Bridge. Built during the Great Depression, that ONE bridge provided a million jobs across 22 states. ONE BRIDGE.


You say we lack leadership. I disagree. I think the problem is too many cooks in the kitchen. Obama led with his infrastructure bill. The Republicans blocked it. It could have created millions of jobs. Maybe instead of demanding leadership, we need to start demanding some followers.

You are "way off" about green jobs.. Garbagemen are officially green workers. So are record shop workers, charity clothing workers, and gun repair shops.. It's been MANGLED beyond recognition..

Rep. Issa Exposes the Obama Administration's Green Jobs Scam - Forbes

Does the teenage kid who sells used records count as someone who has a green job? What about an oil lobbyist, or someone who works at an antique shop? Those all count as “Green Jobs” according to the Obama Administration’s top statistician at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

A total failure to comprehend and address the Global dislocation that I was talking about.

America cannot survive on a Service Economy.. We MUST design and produce goods. That will done with a lot more efficiency and automation than before. But it's good for ALL level of skills, because even the most automated of factories has jobs at all levels.

Our workforce HAS to lead in technology and innovation in a Global Economy. And our kids should be flocking to training in robotics, materials science, bioengineering, artificial intelligience and all the other leading tech disciplines. That's the ONLY way our Middle Class is gonna survive destruction. It's those long supply chains tails that multiply jobs -- NOT GOVT shovels. In my field, not only are the END PRODUCTS gone -- but the supply chain is gone also.. No more volume production of resistors, capacitors, wire, PC Boards, and tools. THAT'S what is endangered by politicians that want to disparage Venture Capital, free markets and investment in manufacturing infrastructure. More regulation kills off start-ups and favors the big MultiNationals. And the latest Dem revolution has actually given PROTECTION to the very companies that stand in the way of returning jobs to this country.

You couldn't be more wrong in your assessment..
 
Liberalism reminds me of "He got his, I didnt, take his and give it to me" political philosophy.

Conservatism reminds me of........Mine, mine....mine


Why shouldn't you be able to keep as much of what you have earned as possible?

I think some misinterpreted your intent here. They read it that you are determined to be selfish and hoard what you have and those in need be damned.

As a true libertarian (small "L"), however, I read it as "Short of violating the rights of another, why shouldn't we be able to spend what we earn as we choose rather than others taking it and spending it as they choose?"

It has been shown that conservatives are more likely to be generous with their time, talents, and personal resources than are liberals. Conservatives even give more blood.

For those who would chastise you for your 'un-Christian' attitude, I would remind them that it is pretty un-Christian to feel righteous when they leave it to government to take whatever it wants for whatever purposes, however noble those purposes seem to be.
 
Last edited:
In my opinion, a true libertarian is a free market, laizzez-faire classical liberal when it comes to the economy and he or she will wants the federal government to secure our unalienable rights in all matters and then be hands off.

After doing considerable reading in the past year, I am convinced that the only financial stability--one that does not create artifiial booms and busts--is one based on the gold standard.

Where I think our American liberals sometimes err, however, is on the social side of the ledger when they want the federal government to take more of a proactive role in religious and social issues. The federal government again should secure our unalienable rights and then again leave us alone in such matters as did the Founders. If a local school wants to have a Christimas program instead of a 'winter program', that should be their business. If a community wants to outlaw abortion, it should be able to do so. If a town wants a bar, strip club, brothel, adult bookstore, and casino on every block, so be it and the towns/states should be able to outlaw any and all of these if it doesn't want them.

In other words, I believe a true libertarian sees a very specific and very limited role for the federal government and is 100% pragmatic when it comes to our liberty to otherwise create whatever sort of society we wish to have.
 

Forum List

Back
Top