Are you a libertarian?

[kaz]

.

I like having them around. They cause me to question my own left-leaning or right-leaning beliefs.

They don't have a chance at national office at any meaningful level, but that doesn't mean they can't contribute to discourse.

For those who actually listen, anyway.

.

When a fence sitter wants to stay on the fence.....this is what you get.

Far better we chose between Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee why exactly?

 

[LoneLaugher]

.

I like having them around. They cause me to question my own left-leaning or right-leaning beliefs.

They don't have a chance at national office at any meaningful level, but that doesn't mean they can't contribute to discourse.

For those who actually listen, anyway.

.

When a fence sitter wants to stay on the fence.....this is what you get.

Far better we chose between Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee why exactly?

It's OK if you don't choose. Just don't sit up there and point fingers in both directions.

 

[kaz]

When a fence sitter wants to stay on the fence.....this is what you get.

Far better we chose between Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee why exactly?

It's OK if you don't choose. Just don't sit up there and point fingers in both directions.

You both suck, why wouldn't we? And you do virtually the same things.

What is gained by supporting one of you when the other is virtually the same?

 

[Zmrzlina]

It's not the denial of coercion not involving violence, merely the fact that to "correct" this coercion would require an act of violence against somebody else.

So is it the position of libertarians that nothing should be done about coercion that doesn't directly involve a gun pointed at someone's head?

If someone is being forced to do something against their will by an entity other than government, and that is something you say a libertarian would support, I'd like to know about that. Please provide an example.

Private property rights. You violate them, even peacefully, even if your life depends on it (starvation) and the guns come out to shoot you.

 

[LoneLaugher]

If only I were smart enough to know better than to join one of the two major parties....I would immediately sign up to be a "libertarian".

Every libertarian I have ever met is just so well informed! It's a wonder why they can't make any real headway. A wonder.

 

[Peach]

Lincoln was correct on this:

There is an important sense in which government is distinctive from administration. One is perpetual, the other is temporary and changeable. A man may be loyal to his government and yet oppose the particular principles and methods of administration.
Abraham Lincoln, Congressional Record, April 15, 1942

 

[LoneLaugher]

Far better we chose between Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee why exactly?

It's OK if you don't choose. Just don't sit up there and point fingers in both directions.

You both suck, why wouldn't we? And you do virtually the same things.

What is gained by supporting one of you when the other is virtually the same?

Is that right? The same?

 

[JWBooth]

So is it the position of libertarians that nothing should be done about coercion that doesn't directly involve a gun pointed at someone's head?

If someone is being forced to do something against their will by an entity other than government, and that is something you say a libertarian would support, I'd like to know about that. Please provide an example.

Private property rights. You violate them, even peacefully, even if your life depends on it (starvation) and the guns come out to shoot you.

And?

How does one peacefully violate a right?

 

[Dot Com]

Libertarians have two arms and two legs.

Terrorists have two arms and two legs.

I rest my case.

Conservatives have two arms and two legs.
Now, which of them supports policies that weaken America?

the ones that vote Republican and thereby sell-out Joe Six Pack to Wall St interests. At least Libertarians aren't Wall St puppets like MANY Republicans are. Democrats are tools in that regard as well. What I'm saying is that both parties are beholden to special interests that DON'T represent what you may think they represent you ASSCLOWN.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Libertarians have two arms and two legs.

Terrorists have two arms and two legs.

I rest my case.

Conservatives have two arms and two legs.
Now, which of them supports policies that weaken America?

the ones that vote Republican and thereby sell-out Joe Six Pack to Wall St interests. At least Libertarians aren't Wall St puppets like MANY Republicans are. Democrats are tools in that regard as well. What I'm saying is that both parties are beholden to special interests that DON'T represent what you may think they represent you ASSCLOWN.

So we take the wealth of the rich away and become like Cuba? No infastructure, no science, no r&D investment, no shit...Let's go back to ******* the goat!

 

[eflatminor]

So is it the position of libertarians that nothing should be done about coercion that doesn't directly involve a gun pointed at someone's head?

If someone is being forced to do something against their will by an entity other than government, and that is something you say a libertarian would support, I'd like to know about that. Please provide an example.

Private property rights. You violate them, even peacefully

Example please. I'm EXTREMELY interested given how highly libertarians value private property rights.

, even if your life depends on it (starvation) and the guns come out to shoot you.

I don't follow. You're saying that if my life depends on private property rights...that I would starve without them...I would still violate those rights until someone shoots me? Did I get that right? Again, I don't follow. Please provide a specific example.

 

[Zmrzlina]

Example please. I'm EXTREMELY interested given how highly libertarians value private property rights.

Ignorance: you unknowing trespass onto someone's land or a child who cognitively does not grasp the concept of property rights picks fruit off someone's tree.

I don't follow. You're saying that if my life depends on private property rights...that I would starve without them...I would still violate those rights until someone shoots me? Did I get that right? Again, I don't follow. Please provide a specific example.

Those born without land and the ability to sustain their life as a human being homestead land of an absentee landlord.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

I have libertarian leanings, but am certainly not a Libertarian with a capital L.

The reason I am not a full blown libertarian is because I know that human beings are not perfect and will often follow the path of least resistance. They will cheat, lie, and steal if that is easier in the short term.

The really bad news about that is that the more powerful that government is, the more liars, cheaters and stealers that you will attract to it, for power's own sake.

I also know that in a complex world it is physically impossible for a consumer to be fully informed about everything, and therefore they need to be protected from those who cheat, lie, and steal.

Ibid.

I do not believe the government is the answer to every problem. I believe in good laws and regulations, not no laws or regulations. The problem with using the government to solve every problem is that the "solutions" are invariably much wider in scope and power than what is needed to solve the actual problem, and eventually the "solutions" become a means unto themselves, inevitably becoming an even bigger problem than the one they were trying to fix.

I believe most of our country's problems could be solved by fixing our education system. I try to be a critical thinker and not oppose or support something just because the person talking has the right or wrong letter after their name. That's idiotic.

One of the best things that could be done to fix the education system is to get lying, cheating stealing politicians and bureaucrats out of it.

 

[gipper]

A simple question for real Libertarians. Not the anarchists

Do you really want to live in a society with no Government? Exist with no taxation?

Does the OP really reflect your politiical outlook?

YES, YES, and YES!!!

Is that unequivocal enough for you?

One would think ALL people would agree with me and the column I posted in the OP, but in the Age of Stupidity (aka Age of Progressivism), ignorance reigns. All you need do analyze ALL of human history, since humans began to organize into civilizations, governments have caused more human suffering and death than any other factor.

Government is force. It is corrupt. It is waste. It is dumb. It is cruel, despotic, and repressive....it ALWAYS is!

How can anyone dispute this?

 

[eflatminor]

Example please. I'm EXTREMELY interested given how highly libertarians value private property rights.

Ignorance: you unknowing trespass onto someone's land

That is not against the law, nor should it be. No libertarian would suggest otherwise. If you do not wish to have trespassers on your land, it is your obligation to either erect a barrier or clearly post the boundaries. Otherwise, there is no consequence to 'unknowingly' trespassing.

So, I'd agree with you, but you're wrong.

or a child who cognitively does not grasp the concept of property rights picks fruit off someone's tree.

Wrong again. Libertarian's are always sure to qualify our belief in freedom as pertaining to adults. For instance, we believe that no consensual activity should be illegal...consensual activity between adults. Similarly, if an adult jumps my fence and steals my fruit, he is stealing. A child cannot consent to such an act and is therefore not liable for the theft.

Strike two.

I don't follow. You're saying that if my life depends on private property rights...that I would starve without them...I would still violate those rights until someone shoots me? Did I get that right? Again, I don't follow. Please provide a specific example.

Those born without land and the ability to sustain their life as a human being homestead land of an absentee landlord.

What the **** are you talking about here? Are you suggesting that anyone has the right to set up a residence on someone else's land? Really?

As a person born without land, I, like most people, set about to working and earning a living...so that I might acquire my own land. That's how it works.

Now, if you want to discuss the idea that people ought to be able to homestead on the RIDICULOUS amount of land owned by the federal government, fine, but otherwise, you have no right to another's property. Get a ******* job for Christ sake.

Strike three!

 

[kaz]

It's OK if you don't choose. Just don't sit up there and point fingers in both directions.

You both suck, why wouldn't we? And you do virtually the same things.

What is gained by supporting one of you when the other is virtually the same?

Is that right? The same?

Yes, there are virtually no differences between what Obama and Bush actually do. The only real difference is what they say.

 

[FA_Q2]

It's OK if you don't choose. Just don't sit up there and point fingers in both directions.

You both suck, why wouldn't we? And you do virtually the same things.

What is gained by supporting one of you when the other is virtually the same?

Is that right? The same?

That's right. The most egregious actions taken by the right such as the patriot act are repeated by the left.

Don't bother to take off your blinders though - keep convincing yourself that this administration is one of the best in history and the Bush administration one of the worst even though they share most of the same policies.

 

[Pheonixops]

I'm a Liberal so I have a lot in common with Libertarians.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You both suck, why wouldn't we? And you do virtually the same things.

What is gained by supporting one of you when the other is virtually the same?

Is that right? The same?

Yes, there are virtually no differences between what Obama and Bush actually do. The only real difference is what they say.

You are making a great case for empty platitudes.

 

[kaz]

Is that right? The same?

Yes, there are virtually no differences between what Obama and Bush actually do. The only real difference is what they say.

You are making a great case for empty platitudes.

You went to the empty line about platitudes...