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.
Is he 'conservative'? On most issues, yes. Is he 'libertarian', indeed. So strongly that I've been hesitant to say I'm anything but a Conservative with libertarian leanings. The truth to tell, Paul like too many that claim to be libertarians are actually racist reactionaries.
The claims are implied in your pompous, patronizing, and overbearing manner...But I also understand the forest-for-the-trees phenomenon, so it's easy to suffer your lack of introspection.
That you cannot work out the math from roughly a century ago (the aforementioned beginning of the progressive era) and do the requisite historical homework is merely a testament to your intellectual laziness and complete lack of curiosity.
Better you than me, chump.
So in other words, you can't explain when and why America was ever a Libertarian government.
Yeah we knew that. it's not like you ever back up claims with specifics. This would be the difference between us.
To a certain degree, if the military was an indoctrination method, it failed miserably. I was in the Marine Corps for four years and can say with absolute certainty that the services are direct cross section of society, faults and all. There was no "Hail government" mentality in there. The majority of people I knew thought our politicians were just as retarded as civilians do.
Hmmm. I guess you misunderstood. My issue was with the minority wanting to rule the majority. This is why we have a Constitution, checks and balances, a USSC to interpret whether new laws adhere, a Congress to amend or over-ride and all kinds of other wonderful stuff!
So if the majority said murder should be okay, it wouldn't fly. But letting women vote? yeah that went okay.
And so on.
Our government used to be a libertarian government but the constitution has been subverted and our rights slowly eroded. All I want is my constitution back along with my government and if you don't lik it FUCK YOU TRAITOR!!!!
The claims are implied in your pompous, patronizing, and overbearing manner...But I also understand the forest-for-the-trees phenomenon, so it's easy to suffer your lack of introspection.
That you cannot work out the math from roughly a century ago (the aforementioned beginning of the progressive era) and do the requisite historical homework is merely a testament to your intellectual laziness and complete lack of curiosity.
Better you than me, chump.
So in other words, you can't explain when and why America was ever a Libertarian government.
Yeah we knew that. it's not like you ever back up claims with specifics. This would be the difference between us.
Actually a good case could be made that until the mid-late 19th century the US was a very libertarian nation. They followed the words of GW, not Bush, very well, with few diversions. Trade not war. We'd keep to our physical boundaries. They's kept us safe, secure, and growing.
Problem was then, the world was shrinking. Call it the modernization of ships, the time elapse needed to get from here to there was shrinking. Even before the Civil War, communications were improving. Rapidly.
In 1848 there were no planes, no machine guns, no submarines, no concertina wire, no mega tanks or cannons, but the plans were there and would be for most to fruition before 1875. Not planes, but all else, along with the concept of total war.
So in other words, you can't explain when and why America was ever a Libertarian government.
Yeah we knew that. it's not like you ever back up claims with specifics. This would be the difference between us.
Actually a good case could be made that until the mid-late 19th century the US was a very libertarian nation. They followed the words of GW, not Bush, very well, with few diversions. Trade not war. We'd keep to our physical boundaries. They's kept us safe, secure, and growing.
Problem was then, the world was shrinking. Call it the modernization of ships, the time elapse needed to get from here to there was shrinking. Even before the Civil War, communications were improving. Rapidly.
In 1848 there were no planes, no machine guns, no submarines, no concertina wire, no mega tanks or cannons, but the plans were there and would be for most to fruition before 1875. Not planes, but all else, along with the concept of total war.
Ah. A civil and reasonable post that at least tries to address or support a point made. this puts you far above a lot of posters here. Kudos for that.
So I would respectfully disagree.
I would present the following counterpoints:
"Trade not war".
War of 1812, Barbary Wars, Invasion of the Carribean, the wars in South America and Asia. All took place during the time you describe.
Additionally, there were tons of social programs and the U.S. Government gave millions in taxpayer money to private enterprises. My understanding is that this would not be considered "Libertarian". Please correct me if I'm wrong about your version of it as I've encountered several.
So while interacting with Libertarians, I've encountered everything from reasonable and intelligent views, to the ignorant oddballs and exceptions. I've heard that the US was Libertarian during a couple different timelines, to the view it has never actually been Libertarian at all. So it's sometimes difficult to sort out what is believed about it.
Allow me to me challenge you, if I may: If Libertarianism is so great, why is it that the only countries that actually practice it in what I've been told is its' purest form, are the most horrific places in the world to live?
allow me to me challenge you, if i may: If libertarianism is so great, why is it that the only countries that actually practice it in what i've been told is its' purest form, are the most horrific places in the world to live?
To a certain degree, if the military was an indoctrination method, it failed miserably. I was in the Marine Corps for four years and can say with absolute certainty that the services are direct cross section of society, faults and all. There was no "Hail government" mentality in there. The majority of people I knew thought our politicians were just as retarded as civilians do.
This is something I've noticed repeatedly in my adult years. Military, and ex-military, people are among the staunchest libertarians I know, which runs counter the assumptions I had coming out of high school. It seems to be further substantiated by the overwhelming preference for Ron Paul among military members - at least those who make political contributions.
There you have it....No matter what evidence you present or how you present it, Independent of Logic will refuse to accept it, in lieu of pointing out the relatively minor departures (certainly minor when compared against of those brought about by socialist progressives in the last century) from the ideal (even libertarians know that absolute perfection can never be an option), over the course of the first century-and-a-half of the nation's history.So in other words, you can't explain when and why America was ever a Libertarian government.
Yeah we knew that. it's not like you ever back up claims with specifics. This would be the difference between us.
Actually a good case could be made that until the mid-late 19th century the US was a very libertarian nation. They followed the words of GW, not Bush, very well, with few diversions. Trade not war. We'd keep to our physical boundaries. They's kept us safe, secure, and growing.
Problem was then, the world was shrinking. Call it the modernization of ships, the time elapse needed to get from here to there was shrinking. Even before the Civil War, communications were improving. Rapidly.
In 1848 there were no planes, no machine guns, no submarines, no concertina wire, no mega tanks or cannons, but the plans were there and would be for most to fruition before 1875. Not planes, but all else, along with the concept of total war.
Ah. A civil and reasonable post that at least tries to address or support a point made. this puts you far above a lot of posters here. Kudos for that.
So I would respectfully disagree.
I would present the following counterpoints:
"Trade not war".
War of 1812, Barbary Wars, Invasion of the Carribean, the wars in South America and Asia. All took place during the time you describe.
Additionally, there were tons of social programs and the U.S. Government gave millions in taxpayer money to private enterprises. My understanding is that this would not be considered "Libertarian". Please correct me if I'm wrong about your version of it as I've encountered several.
So while interacting with Libertarians, I've encountered everything from reasonable and intelligent views, to the ignorant oddballs and exceptions. I've heard that the US was Libertarian during a couple different timelines, to the view it has never actually been Libertarian at all. So it's sometimes difficult to sort out what is believed about it.
Allow me to me challenge you, if I may: If Libertarianism is so great, why is it that the only countries that actually practice it in what I've been told is its' purest form, are the most horrific places in the world to live?
To a certain degree, if the military was an indoctrination method, it failed miserably. I was in the Marine Corps for four years and can say with absolute certainty that the services are direct cross section of society, faults and all. There was no "Hail government" mentality in there. The majority of people I knew thought our politicians were just as retarded as civilians do.
This is something I've noticed repeatedly in my adult years. Military, and ex-military, people are among the staunchest libertarians I know, which runs counter the assumptions I had coming out of high school. It seems to be further substantiated by the overwhelming preference for Ron Paul among military members - at least those who make political contributions.
I think it's because military personnel are at the front of our foreign affairs, and that they live a totalitarian lifestyle during their service. They've lived and seen what the country, and these armchair generals, are completely ignorant about.
Example. I was still in the service on 9/11, I was eating breakfast when the news starting rolling in. I witnessed several Marines begin to freak out when the reality of war hit them. Granted, they knew that war was a possibility when they signed up, but the actual reality of it scared them more than they were prepared for. Being in the military during at that time gave them a very realistic outlook of the situation, beyond the emotional reactionary of REVENGE!
And during the Iraq war, they weren't swayed by all of the bullshit "We wanna win" that conservatives were spewing. Being in the middle of that culture showed them that that part of world is pretty much beyond hope. Tribal wars will not stop because we kick one tyrant out of power. They wanted to come home. Even a buddy of mine who was pressuring me to re-enlist and go to Iraq changed his tune once he got there. I still remember the email "Don't come over here, it fucking sucks".
Then there's PTSD. My wife is a CNA and tells me stories of residents (names withheld of course) who wake up in the middle of the night screaming because they think they're still in the middle of the war.
I can totally believe that more servicemen are libertarian. They know better than anyone everything that goes in, and comes out, of a war are nowhere near worth stopping a potential threat or nation building. They don't give a shit about the politics of foreign affairs, they care about their life and the life of their family. And if it can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a threat, then fuck it.
There you have it....No matter what evidence you present or how you present it, Independent of Logic will refuse to accept it, in lieu of pointing out the relatively minor departures (certainly minor when compared against of those brought about by socialist progressives in the last century) from the ideal (even libertarians know that absolute perfection can never be an option), over the course of the first century-and-a-half of the nation's history.Actually a good case could be made that until the mid-late 19th century the US was a very libertarian nation. They followed the words of GW, not Bush, very well, with few diversions. Trade not war. We'd keep to our physical boundaries. They's kept us safe, secure, and growing.
Problem was then, the world was shrinking. Call it the modernization of ships, the time elapse needed to get from here to there was shrinking. Even before the Civil War, communications were improving. Rapidly.
In 1848 there were no planes, no machine guns, no submarines, no concertina wire, no mega tanks or cannons, but the plans were there and would be for most to fruition before 1875. Not planes, but all else, along with the concept of total war.
Ah. A civil and reasonable post that at least tries to address or support a point made. this puts you far above a lot of posters here. Kudos for that.
So I would respectfully disagree.
I would present the following counterpoints:
"Trade not war".
War of 1812, Barbary Wars, Invasion of the Carribean, the wars in South America and Asia. All took place during the time you describe.
Additionally, there were tons of social programs and the U.S. Government gave millions in taxpayer money to private enterprises. My understanding is that this would not be considered "Libertarian". Please correct me if I'm wrong about your version of it as I've encountered several.
So while interacting with Libertarians, I've encountered everything from reasonable and intelligent views, to the ignorant oddballs and exceptions. I've heard that the US was Libertarian during a couple different timelines, to the view it has never actually been Libertarian at all. So it's sometimes difficult to sort out what is believed about it.
Allow me to me challenge you, if I may: If Libertarianism is so great, why is it that the only countries that actually practice it in what I've been told is its' purest form, are the most horrific places in the world to live?
He wins again...Just ask him, he'll tell you.
There you have it....No matter what evidence you present or how you present it, Independent of Logic will refuse to accept it, in lieu of pointing out the relatively minor departures (certainly minor when compared against of those brought about by socialist progressives in the last century) from the ideal (even libertarians know that absolute perfection can never be an option), over the course of the first century-and-a-half of the nation's history.Ah. A civil and reasonable post that at least tries to address or support a point made. this puts you far above a lot of posters here. Kudos for that.
So I would respectfully disagree.
I would present the following counterpoints:
"Trade not war".
War of 1812, Barbary Wars, Invasion of the Carribean, the wars in South America and Asia. All took place during the time you describe.
Additionally, there were tons of social programs and the U.S. Government gave millions in taxpayer money to private enterprises. My understanding is that this would not be considered "Libertarian". Please correct me if I'm wrong about your version of it as I've encountered several.
So while interacting with Libertarians, I've encountered everything from reasonable and intelligent views, to the ignorant oddballs and exceptions. I've heard that the US was Libertarian during a couple different timelines, to the view it has never actually been Libertarian at all. So it's sometimes difficult to sort out what is believed about it.
Allow me to me challenge you, if I may: If Libertarianism is so great, why is it that the only countries that actually practice it in what I've been told is its' purest form, are the most horrific places in the world to live?
He wins again...Just ask him, he'll tell you.
Here again, your inferiority complex is showing. You project a feeling of superiority on me and I get it - you view me as your superior! j/k.
So while you have this need and compusion to have winners and losers in a discussion, I'm simply having a discussion.
You call dozens of wars in which thousands were killed "relatively minor" so that you can satisfy your need to prove that the bad ol' Independent is ignoring evidence. Poor little guy.
You call pouring a much larger percentage of our GDP into private businesses, than has ever been done under Obama "minor compared to..." for the same reason. Tsk tsk tsk. Pitiful.
Look, I haven't won anything. I don't claim to.
Unlike you, I am completely open to correction. So if starting dozens of wars and pouring huge amounts of taxpayer money into private business doesn't disqualify a government from being Libertarian, by all means elighten me as to where my misunderstanding of what constitutes a Libertarian government is inaccurate.
Minarchism (also known as minimal statism) is variously defined by sources. It is a libertarian capitalist political philosophy. In the strictest sense, it maintains that the state is necessary and that its only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts. In the broadest sense, it also includes fire departments, prisons, the executive, and legislatures as legitimate government functions.[1][2][3] Such states are generally called night-watchman states.
Minarchists argue that the state has no authority to use its monopoly on force to interfere with free transactions between people, and see the state's sole responsibility as ensuring that contracts between private individuals and property are protected, through a system of law courts and enforcement. Minarchists generally believe a laissez faire approach to the economy is most likely to lead to economic prosperity.
There you have it....No matter what evidence you present or how you present it, Independent of Logic will refuse to accept it, in lieu of pointing out the relatively minor departures (certainly minor when compared against of those brought about by socialist progressives in the last century) from the ideal (even libertarians know that absolute perfection can never be an option), over the course of the first century-and-a-half of the nation's history.
He wins again...Just ask him, he'll tell you.
Here again, your inferiority complex is showing. You project a feeling of superiority on me and I get it - you view me as your superior! j/k.
So while you have this need and compusion to have winners and losers in a discussion, I'm simply having a discussion.
You call dozens of wars in which thousands were killed "relatively minor" so that you can satisfy your need to prove that the bad ol' Independent is ignoring evidence. Poor little guy.
You call pouring a much larger percentage of our GDP into private businesses, than has ever been done under Obama "minor compared to..." for the same reason. Tsk tsk tsk. Pitiful.
Look, I haven't won anything. I don't claim to.
Unlike you, I am completely open to correction. So if starting dozens of wars and pouring huge amounts of taxpayer money into private business doesn't disqualify a government from being Libertarian, by all means elighten me as to where my misunderstanding of what constitutes a Libertarian government is inaccurate.
There is a failure on your part to understand libertarianism and the problem is that you think you do understand it. There are many different forms of Libertarianism but I think the majority of libertarians today are Minarchists.
Minarchism (also known as minimal statism) is variously defined by sources. It is a libertarian capitalist political philosophy. In the strictest sense, it maintains that the state is necessary and that its only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts. In the broadest sense, it also includes fire departments, prisons, the executive, and legislatures as legitimate government functions.[1][2][3] Such states are generally called night-watchman states.
Minarchists argue that the state has no authority to use its monopoly on force to interfere with free transactions between people, and see the state's sole responsibility as ensuring that contracts between private individuals and property are protected, through a system of law courts and enforcement. Minarchists generally believe a laissez faire approach to the economy is most likely to lead to economic prosperity.
Minarchism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Constitution allows for a libertarian government and the Declaration of Independence is steeped in libertarian philosophical language. The problem was that there was loopholes in the language that allowed the original intent to be twisted and stretched until now people don't even really understand what our government was supposed to be like. What it used to be like in the beginning. I haven't spoken to a single Libertarian that wants anarchy. I think in general we realize that the state is a necessary evil.
There you have it....No matter what evidence you present or how you present it, Independent of Logic will refuse to accept it, in lieu of pointing out the relatively minor departures (certainly minor when compared against of those brought about by socialist progressives in the last century) from the ideal (even libertarians know that absolute perfection can never be an option), over the course of the first century-and-a-half of the nation's history.
He wins again...Just ask him, he'll tell you.
Here again, your inferiority complex is showing. You project a feeling of superiority on me and I get it - you view me as your superior! j/k.
So while you have this need and compusion to have winners and losers in a discussion, I'm simply having a discussion.
You call dozens of wars in which thousands were killed "relatively minor" so that you can satisfy your need to prove that the bad ol' Independent is ignoring evidence. Poor little guy.
You call pouring a much larger percentage of our GDP into private businesses, than has ever been done under Obama "minor compared to..." for the same reason. Tsk tsk tsk. Pitiful.
Look, I haven't won anything. I don't claim to.
Unlike you, I am completely open to correction. So if starting dozens of wars and pouring huge amounts of taxpayer money into private business doesn't disqualify a government from being Libertarian, by all means elighten me as to where my misunderstanding of what constitutes a Libertarian government is inaccurate.
There is a failure on your part to understand libertarianism and the problem is that you think you do understand it. There are many different forms of Libertarianism but I think the majority of libertarians today are Minarchists.
Minarchism (also known as minimal statism) is variously defined by sources. It is a libertarian capitalist political philosophy. In the strictest sense, it maintains that the state is necessary and that its only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts. In the broadest sense, it also includes fire departments, prisons, the executive, and legislatures as legitimate government functions.[1][2][3] Such states are generally called night-watchman states.
Minarchists argue that the state has no authority to use its monopoly on force to interfere with free transactions between people, and see the state's sole responsibility as ensuring that contracts between private individuals and property are protected, through a system of law courts and enforcement. Minarchists generally believe a laissez faire approach to the economy is most likely to lead to economic prosperity.
Minarchism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Constitution allows for a libertarian government and the Declaration of Independence is steeped in libertarian philosophical language. The problem was that there was loopholes in the language that allowed the original intent to be twisted and stretched until now people don't even really understand what our government was supposed to be like. What it used to be like in the beginning. I haven't spoken to a single Libertarian that wants anarchy. I think in general we realize that the state is a necessary evil.
why do paulians think ANYONE is afraid of ron paul?
Poor Jillian who just trolls and negs me without offering anything of substance.
You are garbage and completely incapable of having a discussion on the issues. Go dump yourself into a polluted harbor.
Being a libertarian doesn't equate to being a pacifist. I think you would find the opposite to be true in most cases. Libertarians are fiercely protective of our rights. If you consider that we have the right to defense of self and property then you can take the next logical step and assume that a libertarian could justify war for defense. It's wars of aggression without sufficient cause that we have a problem with. For example, you would be hard pressed to find a libertarian that would disagree with going to war with Japan but you would be equally hard pressed to find one in favor of the war in Iraq.
As far as government subsidizing businesses, this sounds like corporatism to me but specific details would be nice so that I can research it myself. I am not in favor of the government interfering in the free market. Subsidizing businesses is manipulating supply and demand. It is picking favorites because those being subsidized can lower their prices and undercut other businesses. This will gain them a larger than normal market share. This can create monopolies. So I would say this is a divergence from the libertarian ideal.
I can't think of a single country at the moment that is even close to a libertarian form of government in the world today. I think I know where you are going with this though so I will say this. Even if our government wasn't a libertarian government in its purist form, it was still way more into the libertarian spectrum than our current government. That isn't to say I would like to see a return to the days when women didn't vote or when blacks were slaves either. A true libertarian believes everyone is equal regardless of sex ,color,religion or whatever else.
