Can I be conservative, liberal, progressive all at once or do I have to pick only one

[oreo]

All these terms sound nice and seem to apply to me: I am a thrifty shopper, I live a conservative lifestyle, I love to see progress every day, I am liberal when it comes to certain things... are these names strictly reserved for political pundits, or can I consider myself all 3? and if I do, will I still be taken seriously on this playing field of politics? please advise...

Everyone has different points of view on certain topics.

I too live my life conservatively--and I believe in a smaller Federal Government. I don't believe the Federal Government should be borrowing .43 cents on every dollar it spends. I consider myself a "fiscal" conservative.

I don't get into social issues--so I would probably be more of what you would refer to as progressive there. I consider myself a moderate on these issues. I don't like to talk about abortion or who's paying for birth control pills--because I feel there is nothing any politician can do about them anyway, and really don't consider them a Federal Government issue.

So I guess in answer to your question, depending on the topic yes you can be all three and make some sense.

 

[Barb]

All these terms sound nice and seem to apply to me: I am a thrifty shopper, I live a conservative lifestyle, I love to see progress every day, I am liberal when it comes to certain things... are these names strictly reserved for political pundits, or can I consider myself all 3? and if I do, will I still be taken seriously on this playing field of politics? please advise...

You are like me and the vast majority of other Americans. We don't fit neatly into pigeon holes.

I congratulate you for not being tied to an "ism" - it's rough sledding sometimes. So many are too lazy to listen and interact l;ong enough to get a complete picture of who you really are in full. They're too lazy - so they'd rather just slap a label on you and be done with you.

It's lazy and it's ignorant - but unfortunately that the way most posters on these boards are. But message boards are not the real world - I hope you have happy interaction here and - more importantly - in the real world.

Thanks, my whole political philosophy revolves around my understanding that what the media shows and the real world is different, here is my speech about that, hope you watch and share, it's short:
Pay attention to the text at 3 minute mark
[ame=http://youtu.be/AfozAw40_zM]Nobody the Leader - Greatest Story Never Told Part 1 - We 1% Will Win - YouTube[/ame]

The text was hard to read - a different color or background color could help. If it's going to move, italic isn't the best choice either. Also, the music overpowers the dialogue. I understand you want the music to speak too, but it should be in the back ground.

 

[eflatminor]

No I am comparing ignorant naïve people who followed Lenin but didn't like the results to the ignorant naïve people who believe in Libertarianism but if they ever got their wish they wouldn't like the results.

And yet another monumentally ignorant statement. Uh, dude...libertarians don't "follow" anyone.

The fact that you've have been completely unable to articulate a single example of why libertarians wouldn't like a libertarian society is rather telling. It tells us you're full of shit.

Or are we supposed to just accept your "because I say so" argument???





Yea, that's it. Libertarians WANT to be slaves to the government.

The more you write, the dumber you sound. I didn't think that could be possible.



Which is only a threat when those business owners have politicians meddling on their behalf beyond their enumerated powers...EXACTLY what libertarians stand against. And ironically (yes, a proper use of the word), EXACTLY who the collectivist assholes embrace in the ridiculous hope those central planners will be benevolent towards their needs and not those owning the means of production.

Yes, you're really that ignorant.



Correct. And, for the first time in history, the American concept of LIMITED GOVERNMENT severely restricted the ability of those owners to inflict their will on others. But you Progressive central planners were just SURE that your guys wouldn't engage in that cronyism.

Remind me, in whose district is Wall Street???

Putting government and power in the hands of the people is a relatively new concept and libertarianism is just about putting it back in the hands of capital owners.

Further demonstrating you haven't a ******* clue what libertarianism is about.

Libertarianism puts power in the hands of individual by involving government only when the rights of others are infringed upon.

Sorry comrade, you're an idiot.

The entire Libertarian movement is a "because I said so" argument. A well funded one at that.

Still looking for evidence to back up anything you've stated, all of which I have refuted with specificity. You keep making the same false statements over and over. Are you expecting a different result?

Seriously. You should educate yourself on the subject before speaking further about it. The ignorance you've displayed is overwhelming.

You keep arguing intent. It is cute. It is ignorant and naive too. Corporations are only a threat because of government? Dude I don't know how anyone could be so ridiculously stupid.

Then tell us, SPECIFICALLY please, how would a corporation threaten anyone without the force of law and bureaucratic rules and regulations behind them? How would the banks have been bailed out without politicians directing that handout? Name a single monopoly today that exists without the force of government to support it. Who gives tax breaks and and hands over taxpayer money to companies? Government does! Whatever it is you don't like about corporations, that is only made possible by their ability to manipulate government officials to their favor. So why are you so willing to give those crony politicians a pass??? Without the cronyism that requires the involvement of government, anyone can simply walk away from any company and make an alternative choice.

Be specific now...

 

[Pogo]

All these terms sound nice and seem to apply to me: I am a thrifty shopper, I live a conservative lifestyle, I love to see progress every day, I am liberal when it comes to certain things... are these names strictly reserved for political pundits, or can I consider myself all 3? and if I do, will I still be taken seriously on this playing field of politics? please advise...

Good thoughts. Anyone who needs a label is using a crutch. What H said in post 2:

Be yourself and **** what anyone else thinks.

 

[pvsi]

You keep arguing intent. It is cute. It is ignorant and naive too. Corporations are only a threat because of government? Dude I don't know how anyone could be so ridiculously stupid.

Then tell us, SPECIFICALLY please, how would a corporation threaten anyone without the force of law and bureaucratic rules and regulations behind them? How would the banks have been bailed out without politicians directing that handout? Name a single monopoly today that exists without the force of government to support it. Who gives tax breaks and and hands over taxpayer money to companies? Government does! Whatever it is you don't like about corporations, that is only made possible by their ability to manipulate government officials to their favor. So why are you so willing to give those crony politicians a pass??? Without the cronyism that requires the involvement of government, anyone can simply walk away from any company and make an alternative choice.

Be specific now...

Excellent answer!

 

[Bombur]

You keep arguing intent. It is cute. It is ignorant and naive too. Corporations are only a threat because of government? Dude I don't know how anyone could be so ridiculously stupid.

Then tell us, SPECIFICALLY please, how would a corporation threaten anyone without the force of law and bureaucratic rules and regulations behind them? How would the banks have been bailed out without politicians directing that handout? Name a single monopoly today that exists without the force of government to support it. Who gives tax breaks and and hands over taxpayer money to companies? Government does! Whatever it is you don't like about corporations, that is only made possible by their ability to manipulate government officials to their favor. So why are you so willing to give those crony politicians a pass??? Without the cronyism that requires the involvement of government, anyone can simply walk away from any company and make an alternative choice.

Be specific now...

Excellent answer!

Even in a libertarian world the tax code has to be written. Even in a libertarian world politicians have to get elected. Even in a libertarian world the government has to break up oligopolies or monopolies.

The premise that people can walk away from corporations is ridiculous. I am sure that is true for some of the population but we are talking about society so we must consider the entire population. Evidence that some can avoid there influence is not evidence all can. History have many examples of corporations using their power in the market to dictate to the people. Children were made to work and die in coal mines and factories, corporations have openly risked harm to others and the environment, corporations have been caught lying to the public, corporations and employers in general have regularly risked the life and well being of their employees, corporations have taken risks and crashed economies to the harm of others, and that is just off the top of my head.

I know you live in a naïve fantast world where somehow this will all go away even as we remove all of the laws that are meant to prevent these things from happening. You will openly claim that some alternate reality will exist and everything mentioned is somehow the fault of government. You are ignorant and naïve.

 

[pvsi]

Then tell us, SPECIFICALLY please, how would a corporation threaten anyone without the force of law and bureaucratic rules and regulations behind them? How would the banks have been bailed out without politicians directing that handout? Name a single monopoly today that exists without the force of government to support it. Who gives tax breaks and and hands over taxpayer money to companies? Government does! Whatever it is you don't like about corporations, that is only made possible by their ability to manipulate government officials to their favor. So why are you so willing to give those crony politicians a pass??? Without the cronyism that requires the involvement of government, anyone can simply walk away from any company and make an alternative choice.

Be specific now...

Excellent answer!

Even in a libertarian world the tax code has to be written. Even in a libertarian world politicians have to get elected. Even in a libertarian world the government has to break up oligopolies or monopolies.

The premise that people can walk away from corporations is ridiculous. I am sure that is true for some of the population but we are talking about society so we must consider the entire population. Evidence that some can avoid there influence is not evidence all can. History have many examples of corporations using their power in the market to dictate to the people. Children were made to work and die in coal mines and factories, corporations have openly risked harm to others and the environment, corporations have been caught lying to the public, corporations and employers in general have regularly risked the life and well being of their employees, corporations have taken risks and crashed economies to the harm of others, and that is just off the top of my head.

They do this how? by controlling the government. That precisely is the problem. The reason I am not too excited about Libertarians is because they are attempting to play the same game as democrats and republicans as far as elections go - there is no chance in hell Libertarians will win establishments fully controlled elections unless the establishment decides that they can be trusted to continue serving their interest, in other words become hypocrites, the only way, and it is an easy way to replace the establishment is to have a popular referendum to show to the people in America, government in particular and to people of the world, that US government has to go, and in a referendum, like it or not Libertarians WOULD win against republicans and democrats. Now whether Libertarians do have a full vision for American society as a whole I do not know, I trust in myself more. And as far as corporation vs. Zionism - it's all just what name you choose, in my view a corporation is a group of people working together for their own interests, and I see no problem with it as long as they do not bribe the government - how do they expand so much? I believe by getting control of the government. I DO NOT think US government or US president is in control of anything, I think Israel controls US government, because how else can you explain it to me that a nation which receives billions of dollars in aid from USA has universal health care for it's people, while they debate about some joke they call Obama care in USA?

 

[eflatminor]

Then tell us, SPECIFICALLY please, how would a corporation threaten anyone without the force of law and bureaucratic rules and regulations behind them? How would the banks have been bailed out without politicians directing that handout? Name a single monopoly today that exists without the force of government to support it. Who gives tax breaks and and hands over taxpayer money to companies? Government does! Whatever it is you don't like about corporations, that is only made possible by their ability to manipulate government officials to their favor. So why are you so willing to give those crony politicians a pass??? Without the cronyism that requires the involvement of government, anyone can simply walk away from any company and make an alternative choice.

Be specific now...

Excellent answer!

Even in a libertarian world the tax code has to be written.

Actually, if the federal government lived within the confines of the their enumerated powers, there would be no need for an income tax, which many of us consider immoral. After all, our country thrived with no income tax for over 130 years. Further, if we're going to have an income tax, libertarians would support a flat, non-progressive tax rate so as to eliminate the cronyism that occurs through manipulation of the tax code.

Again, if you actually took the time to study the subject...or heck, even read my retorts, you'd see that you're highly mistaken about libertarian ideals.

Even in a libertarian world politicians have to get elected.

Which has nothing to do with libertarian ideals. The "favors" that politicians promise in exchange for campaign contributions necessarily require their meddling outside the enumerated powers. Again, that is exactly the opposite of what libertarians support and ironically, what your big government leaders engage in most.

Even in a libertarian world the government has to break up oligopolies or monopolies.

Wrong again. Read Ludwig Von Mises' explanation of how natural monopolies occur and why you need not worry about them. What you SHOULD worry about are those monopolies brought about by government meddling...again, the very politicians you're supporting.

Oh the irony!

The premise that people can walk away from corporations is ridiculous. I am sure that is true for some of the population but we are talking about society so we must consider the entire population. Evidence that some can avoid there influence is not evidence all can. .

Give one example...just one...where a company can force anything on a consumer without the help of government laws, rules or regulations.

Just one will do. The floor is yours.

History have many examples of corporations using their power in the market to dictate to the people.

Not without the law behind them there isn't. But again, feel free to provide an example.

Children were made to work and die in coal mines and factories,

No libertarian supports forced labor of anyone, much less children.

Thanks Captain Hyperbole!

corporations have openly risked harm to others and the environment,

For the SECOND time, polluting is a non-consensual activity that harms others and infringes on their private property rights. No libertarian supports polluting. Every libertarian supports laws that punish polluters and a civil court system to seek compensation from those that do.

Once again, your ignorance is showing.

corporations have been caught lying to the public,

Lying isn't illegal. If you think a company has lied, feel free to shop elsewhere. Problem solved.

corporations and employers in general have regularly risked the life and well being of their employees,

That would also be illegal, libertarian or otherwise. Stop making shit up.

corporations have taken risks and crashed economies to the harm of others, and that is just off the top of my head.

Bullshit. Name one corporation that crashed an economy WITHOUT THE MEDDLING OF GOVERNMENT.

Just one will do.

I know you live in a naïve fantast world where somehow this will all go away even as we remove all of the laws that are meant to prevent these things from happening. You will openly claim that some alternate reality will exist and everything mentioned is somehow the fault of government. You are ignorant and naïve

If you can provide a single example to any of the direct questions posed above, we can then talk about who is ignorant and who is naive.

The floor is yours...

 

[Bombur]

Excellent answer!

Even in a libertarian world the tax code has to be written.

Actually, if the federal government lived within the confines of the their enumerated powers, there would be no need for an income tax, which many of us consider immoral. After all, our country thrived with no income tax for over 130 years. Further, if we're going to have an income tax, libertarians would support a flat, non-progressive tax rate so as to eliminate the cronyism that occurs through manipulation of the tax code.

Again, if you actually took the time to study the subject...or heck, even read my retorts, you'd see that you're highly mistaken about libertarian ideals.



Which has nothing to do with libertarian ideals. The "favors" that politicians promise in exchange for campaign contributions necessarily require their meddling outside the enumerated powers. Again, that is exactly the opposite of what libertarians support and ironically, what your big government leaders engage in most.



Wrong again. Read Ludwig Von Mises' explanation of how natural monopolies occur and why you need not worry about them. What you SHOULD worry about are those monopolies brought about by government meddling...again, the very politicians you're supporting.

Oh the irony!



Give one example...just one...where a company can force anything on a consumer without the help of government laws, rules or regulations.

Just one will do. The floor is yours.



Not without the law behind them there isn't. But again, feel free to provide an example.



No libertarian supports forced labor of anyone, much less children.

Thanks Captain Hyperbole!



For the SECOND time, polluting is a non-consensual activity that harms others and infringes on their private property rights. No libertarian supports polluting. Every libertarian supports laws that punish polluters and a civil court system to seek compensation from those that do.

Once again, your ignorance is showing.



Lying isn't illegal. If you think a company has lied, feel free to shop elsewhere. Problem solved.



That would also be illegal, libertarian or otherwise. Stop making shit up.

corporations have taken risks and crashed economies to the harm of others, and that is just off the top of my head.

Bullshit. Name one corporation that crashed an economy WITHOUT THE MEDDLING OF GOVERNMENT.

Just one will do.

I know you live in a naïve fantast world where somehow this will all go away even as we remove all of the laws that are meant to prevent these things from happening. You will openly claim that some alternate reality will exist and everything mentioned is somehow the fault of government. You are ignorant and naïve

If you can provide a single example to any of the direct questions posed above, we can then talk about who is ignorant and who is naive.

The floor is yours...

Your claim that you have to tax the poor at the same effective tax rate of the rich because of crony capitalism is.... there are no words to describe how... . So I stopped reading there.

Maybe I will read the rest later but WTF? Seriously?

 

[Mac1958]

All these terms sound nice and seem to apply to me: I am a thrifty shopper, I live a conservative lifestyle, I love to see progress every day, I am liberal when it comes to certain things... are these names strictly reserved for political pundits, or can I consider myself all 3? and if I do, will I still be taken seriously on this playing field of politics? please advise...

Yeah, the hardcore partisan ideologues expect everyone to just pick a side and run with it whether we actually agree with every issue or not. Intellectually dishonest, of course, but that's evidently the game. Fortunately, they're in the minority. Most of us think on our own.

Don't stop!

.

 

[eflatminor]

Even in a libertarian world the tax code has to be written.

Actually, if the federal government lived within the confines of the their enumerated powers, there would be no need for an income tax, which many of us consider immoral. After all, our country thrived with no income tax for over 130 years. Further, if we're going to have an income tax, libertarians would support a flat, non-progressive tax rate so as to eliminate the cronyism that occurs through manipulation of the tax code.

Again, if you actually took the time to study the subject...or heck, even read my retorts, you'd see that you're highly mistaken about libertarian ideals.



Which has nothing to do with libertarian ideals. The "favors" that politicians promise in exchange for campaign contributions necessarily require their meddling outside the enumerated powers. Again, that is exactly the opposite of what libertarians support and ironically, what your big government leaders engage in most.



Wrong again. Read Ludwig Von Mises' explanation of how natural monopolies occur and why you need not worry about them. What you SHOULD worry about are those monopolies brought about by government meddling...again, the very politicians you're supporting.

Oh the irony!



Give one example...just one...where a company can force anything on a consumer without the help of government laws, rules or regulations.

Just one will do. The floor is yours.



Not without the law behind them there isn't. But again, feel free to provide an example.



No libertarian supports forced labor of anyone, much less children.

Thanks Captain Hyperbole!



For the SECOND time, polluting is a non-consensual activity that harms others and infringes on their private property rights. No libertarian supports polluting. Every libertarian supports laws that punish polluters and a civil court system to seek compensation from those that do.

Once again, your ignorance is showing.



Lying isn't illegal. If you think a company has lied, feel free to shop elsewhere. Problem solved.



That would also be illegal, libertarian or otherwise. Stop making shit up.



Bullshit. Name one corporation that crashed an economy WITHOUT THE MEDDLING OF GOVERNMENT.

Just one will do.

I know you live in a naïve fantast world where somehow this will all go away even as we remove all of the laws that are meant to prevent these things from happening. You will openly claim that some alternate reality will exist and everything mentioned is somehow the fault of government. You are ignorant and naïve

If you can provide a single example to any of the direct questions posed above, we can then talk about who is ignorant and who is naive.

The floor is yours...

Your claim that you have to tax the poor at the same effective tax rate of the rich because of crony capitalism is.... there are no words to describe how... . So I stopped reading there.

Maybe I will read the rest later but WTF? Seriously?

Actually, no. A flat tax rate can exclude the first X dollars of income for everyone, thereby relieving the poor from any income tax burden. But as I said, taxing any man's labor is immoral and would be unnecessary if the government would remain limited to their enumerated powers.

Now, please give us those specific examples. The floor is still yours...

 

[nodoginnafight]

Then tell us, SPECIFICALLY please, how would a corporation threaten anyone without the force of law and bureaucratic rules and regulations behind them? How would the banks have been bailed out without politicians directing that handout? Name a single monopoly today that exists without the force of government to support it.

Well ... you've kinda answered your own question there. "How would a corporation threaten anyone wthout the force of law and bureaucratic rules? ... Name a single monopoly TODAY (my emphasis) that exists without the force of government to support it?

Not many - because NOW the U.S. government discourages monopolies. BEFORE corporations were free to create their monopolies and promote their own self interest at the expense of others because government didn't intervene.

Kinda makes a good case for government intervening.

 

[eflatminor]

Then tell us, SPECIFICALLY please, how would a corporation threaten anyone without the force of law and bureaucratic rules and regulations behind them? How would the banks have been bailed out without politicians directing that handout? Name a single monopoly today that exists without the force of government to support it.

Well ... you've kinda answered your own question there. "How would a corporation threaten anyone wthout the force of law and bureaucratic rules? ... Name a single monopoly TODAY (my emphasis) that exists without the force of government to support it?

Not many - because NOW the U.S. government discourages monopolies.

Not many my tookhes! We have tons of them! The entire market for affordable education are government monopolies for heaven's sake! Ever tried to send a letter through a private postal carrier? Won't happen...another government monopoly. How about central price controls over the price of money...aka the Federal Reserve? That's a government sanctioned monopoly too. Government-granted monopolies are found in public utility services such as public roads, mail, water supply, and electric power, as well as certain specialized and highly regulated fields such as education and gambling. When is the last time your bought a non-government lottery ticket??? Further, franchises granted by governments to operate public transit through public roads are another example. At local levels, we see ALL KINDS of monopolies in telephone, internet and other data services. The list is long.

All of these monopolies exist solely through the power of a government body. How can you not see that?!

BEFORE corporations were free to create their monopolies and promote their own self interest at the expense of others because government didn't intervene.

Kinda makes a good case for government intervening.

You're not understanding how a natural monopoly comes about. Read Mises on the subject and you'll see actual monopolies are a very rare thing that involve ownership of land that holds a very limited natural resource not available outside that land and yet is in demand. An almost impossible circumstance, and one that is quickly remedied through alternative resources and advancements in technology.

Further, if a company comes to dominate a particular market through voluntary customer choice, that's NOT a monopoly. Again, the only damaging monopolies of the past came about because government made them so. Today, after all that intervention, we have more monopolies than we ever had in the past.

Once again, meddling central planners doing more harm than good.

 

[pvsi]

Then tell us, SPECIFICALLY please, how would a corporation threaten anyone without the force of law and bureaucratic rules and regulations behind them? How would the banks have been bailed out without politicians directing that handout? Name a single monopoly today that exists without the force of government to support it.

Well ... you've kinda answered your own question there. "How would a corporation threaten anyone wthout the force of law and bureaucratic rules? ... Name a single monopoly TODAY (my emphasis) that exists without the force of government to support it?

Not many - because NOW the U.S. government discourages monopolies. BEFORE corporations were free to create their monopolies and promote their own self interest at the expense of others because government didn't intervene.

Kinda makes a good case for government intervening.

No he did not, and neither did you. Seems to me like a smart way to weasel out of the question And when you have about 2 choices for cable TV and about 2 choices for telephone services/internet etc. etc. I would NOT consider that government combatting monopoly, on the contrary, the government SOLD OUT the technology that was invented using tax money to the very few.

 

[Bombur]

Actually, if the federal government lived within the confines of the their enumerated powers, there would be no need for an income tax, which many of us consider immoral. After all, our country thrived with no income tax for over 130 years. Further, if we're going to have an income tax, libertarians would support a flat, non-progressive tax rate so as to eliminate the cronyism that occurs through manipulation of the tax code.

Again, if you actually took the time to study the subject...or heck, even read my retorts, you'd see that you're highly mistaken about libertarian ideals.



Which has nothing to do with libertarian ideals. The "favors" that politicians promise in exchange for campaign contributions necessarily require their meddling outside the enumerated powers. Again, that is exactly the opposite of what libertarians support and ironically, what your big government leaders engage in most.



Wrong again. Read Ludwig Von Mises' explanation of how natural monopolies occur and why you need not worry about them. What you SHOULD worry about are those monopolies brought about by government meddling...again, the very politicians you're supporting.

Oh the irony!



Give one example...just one...where a company can force anything on a consumer without the help of government laws, rules or regulations.

Just one will do. The floor is yours.



Not without the law behind them there isn't. But again, feel free to provide an example.



No libertarian supports forced labor of anyone, much less children.

Thanks Captain Hyperbole!



For the SECOND time, polluting is a non-consensual activity that harms others and infringes on their private property rights. No libertarian supports polluting. Every libertarian supports laws that punish polluters and a civil court system to seek compensation from those that do.

Once again, your ignorance is showing.



Lying isn't illegal. If you think a company has lied, feel free to shop elsewhere. Problem solved.



That would also be illegal, libertarian or otherwise. Stop making shit up.



Bullshit. Name one corporation that crashed an economy WITHOUT THE MEDDLING OF GOVERNMENT.

Just one will do.



If you can provide a single example to any of the direct questions posed above, we can then talk about who is ignorant and who is naive.

The floor is yours...

Your claim that you have to tax the poor at the same effective tax rate of the rich because of crony capitalism is.... there are no words to describe how... . So I stopped reading there.

Maybe I will read the rest later but WTF? Seriously?

Actually, no. A flat tax rate can exclude the first X dollars of income for everyone, thereby relieving the poor from any income tax burden. But as I said, taxing any man's labor is immoral and would be unnecessary if the government would remain limited to their enumerated powers.

Now, please give us those specific examples. The floor is still yours...

You are now arguing with your own point and denying what you said.

Referencing the Constitution tells no one anything about what you actually think about how taxes would work today.

 

[Pogo]

Then tell us, SPECIFICALLY please, how would a corporation threaten anyone without the force of law and bureaucratic rules and regulations behind them? How would the banks have been bailed out without politicians directing that handout? Name a single monopoly today that exists without the force of government to support it.

Well ... you've kinda answered your own question there. "How would a corporation threaten anyone wthout the force of law and bureaucratic rules? ... Name a single monopoly TODAY (my emphasis) that exists without the force of government to support it?

Not many - because NOW the U.S. government discourages monopolies. BEFORE corporations were free to create their monopolies and promote their own self interest at the expense of others because government didn't intervene.

Kinda makes a good case for government intervening.

"The government discourages monopolies"???



Reeeeeally....

It's always good to ponder, if the government controls the country, who controls the government?
Hint: it ain't we the people...

 

[eflatminor]

Your claim that you have to tax the poor at the same effective tax rate of the rich because of crony capitalism is.... there are no words to describe how... . So I stopped reading there.

Maybe I will read the rest later but WTF? Seriously?

Actually, no. A flat tax rate can exclude the first X dollars of income for everyone, thereby relieving the poor from any income tax burden. But as I said, taxing any man's labor is immoral and would be unnecessary if the government would remain limited to their enumerated powers.

Now, please give us those specific examples. The floor is still yours...

You are now arguing with your own point and denying what you said.

Not at all. A flat tax is a flat tax and it is the only "fair" tax. Where that tax begins to take effect is a matter of debate, but that doesn't mean it isn't still a flat tax as I originally stated. And, as I said, I'm fine with it starting after $X of income in order to shield the poor from any tax burden. This in no way denigrates the libertarian ideals you seem to be so much against, though without any specifics, logic or reason.

Referencing the Constitution tells no one anything about what you actually think about how taxes would work today

Wrong. It tells us that we THRIVED with no income tax in the past. We can do so again, but not if folks like you keep supporting the nanny staters that meddle beyond the Constitution's limited powers. What's so ironic, and sad, is that you lament the things brought about by those very politicians you support! Again, the irony is overwhelming!

Now, how about those specific examples to support your claims. Still looking for them. Don't tell us you got nothing!

 

[Bombur]

Actually, no. A flat tax rate can exclude the first X dollars of income for everyone, thereby relieving the poor from any income tax burden. But as I said, taxing any man's labor is immoral and would be unnecessary if the government would remain limited to their enumerated powers.

Now, please give us those specific examples. The floor is still yours...

You are now arguing with your own point and denying what you said.

Not at all. A flat tax is a flat tax and it is the only "fair" tax. Where that tax begins to take effect is a matter of debate, but that doesn't mean it isn't still a flat tax as I originally stated. And, as I said, I'm fine with it starting after $X of income in order to shield the poor from any tax burden. This in no way denigrates the libertarian ideals you seem to be so much against, though without any specifics, logic or reason.

Referencing the Constitution tells no one anything about what you actually think about how taxes would work today

Wrong. It tells us that we THRIVED with no income tax in the past. We can do so again, but not if folks like you keep supporting the nanny staters that meddle beyond the Constitution's limited powers. What's so ironic, and sad, is that you lament the things brought about by those very politicians you support! Again, the irony is overwhelming!

Now, how about those specific examples to support your claims. Still looking for them. Don't tell us you got nothing!

Just because you call a tax "fair" that doesn't mean it is fair. You are proposing the government impose a tax that is regressive(some poor excluded). What does that have to do with "liberty" or really anything at all? Sounds like just another example of you placating to billionaires.

Also saying something worked in 1820 and assuming it would work today is just the kind ignorant and naive crap I already accused you of. Honestly I didn't think you would say something so ignorant and naive as that. So thanks. Feel free to try and rationalize your position with something more than appeals to emotion.

 

[pvsi]

Wrong. It tells us that we THRIVED with no income tax in the past. We can do so again, but not if folks like you keep supporting the nanny staters that meddle beyond the Constitution's limited powers. What's so ironic, and sad, is that you lament the things brought about by those very politicians you support! Again, the irony is overwhelming!

The bold part is very wrong: In a referendum, Libertarian party would defeat democrats and republicans any day, today even, but the problem is that no third party will sand up and demand a referendum on this government, which makes me suspicious that maybe those third parties are actually in on it. I am definitely not going back into the voting booth to vote for ANYONE until the establishment is replaced, my explanation is here:

[ame=http://youtu.be/3DvwMrRzrPw]Fraud They call Democratic Elections in America (same I'm sure in other axis of democracy nations) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Pete7469]

Libertarianism is just a clever way of trying to get government out of the way so that corporations can rule without any concern for anything but themselves. It is a movement that is funded by billionaires who don't like that government tells them not to pollute the environment. They are anti-science and they are as concerned for your freedom as slave owners were concerned for the freedom of their slaves.

Bullshit.

If government's powers are properly limited, corporate lobbyists will not even exist.

The billionaires LOVE a massive incredibly powerful government that can be bought to do their bidding and suppress competition.

You're a mindless bed wetter.