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

[eflatminor]

Or, you could reject all three.

Libertarianism is a set of related political philosophies that uphold liberty as the highest political end. This includes emphasis on the primacy of individual liberty, political freedom, and voluntary association. It is an antonym of authoritarianism.

Stated differently, you can be a libertarian that is a thrifty shopper, lives a conservative lifestyle, loves to see progress every day, and is liberal when it comes to certain things.

A more complete definition than Wiki:

Key Concepts of Libertarianism
Key Concepts of Libertarianism | Cato Institute

I love libertarians.

They're the poster child of ignoring everything unless it involves what they want and thinking a nation created as such doesn't exist.

Leave and make your own country.

What we want is for the government to follow the law of the land and stick to the enumerated powers that limit their ability to meddle in the affairs of the people.

Perhaps the most pathetic retort of all is to tell someone to leave the country. It shows a simple mindedness akin to a child's taunt on the playground. Just pathetic.

If you want to argue with the grown ups, feel free to be specific and use even a modicum of logic and reason in your points. Until then, grow the **** up.

 

[Pete7469]

Or, you could reject all three.

Libertarianism is a set of related political philosophies that uphold liberty as the highest political end. This includes emphasis on the primacy of individual liberty, political freedom, and voluntary association. It is an antonym of authoritarianism.

Stated differently, you can be a libertarian that is a thrifty shopper, lives a conservative lifestyle, loves to see progress every day, and is liberal when it comes to certain things.

A more complete definition than Wiki:

Key Concepts of Libertarianism
Key Concepts of Libertarianism | Cato Institute

I love libertarians.

They're the poster child of ignoring everything unless it involves what they want and thinking a nation created as such doesn't exist.

Leave and make your own country.

We did that, over 200 years ago.

You parasites came along and fucked it up.

They have the exact sort of country you want already in North Korea.

You should go there.

 

[Bombur]

Employers put kids into mines and factories to work and get hurt and even die.

None of this changes the fact you made a ridiculous assertion about the government of the past working today and that you are pushing regressive taxation because to do otherwise is crony capitalism.

I love it when libertarians actually start to describe their world view into detail.

Bullshit.

FAMILIES put the kids into mines - so they can earn money for the family, or themselves.

If the family considered it acceptable - why employers won't?

and, btw, it is not the government achievement that child labor was actually banned - it is the union achievement and the people's uprising.

Governments then as governments now do not do good for the people becasue that is their function - governments then and governments now ( and always) only cave to the pressure of the mighty.
At the moment the people became mighty and the government caved to that pressure.

Gosh,, government worshipers are ignorant to the core.

It is like you are trying to be obtuse.

 

[Bombur]

Employers put kids into mines and factories to work and get hurt and even die.

Which is already illegal and perfectly covered for government intervention under the enumerated powers of limited government.

Really, you can't come up with a SINGLE example?

Fail.

None of this changes the fact you made a ridiculous assertion about the government of the past working today

Then explain to us exactly why you believe this is so. "Because I say so" won't cut it. And if you're going to cite "Modern Times", you'll have to tell us SPECIFICALLY what is different today that would prevent the ideals of limited government powers from working.

Again, looking for a single example...

and that you are pushing regressive taxation because to do otherwise is crony capitalism.

How in the **** is a flat tax, particularly one that does not even touch the poor, "regressive"? You're okay with all the current loopholes for the rich who can afford high priced tax attorneys? With a flat tax, those accountants would have ZERO ability to manipulate the tax code. How is that regressive? What in the **** in wrong with you?

I love it when libertarians actually start to describe their world view into detail.

If only we could get a modicum of detail from you, perhaps we could have a reasonable discussion. Any chance of that?

So lets get this straight, an example of people being forced into a bad situation willingly because of harsh market conditions isn't a good example of how corporations can have power over people because the government stepped in.

I am sorry but take off the clown shoes.

It is your idea which you said would work just because you said so. The onus of proving your point is on you, not me. Could you be more ironic?

I am sorry you don't know that a flat tax is regressive. See there is this group of people who do most of the living and working in this country, they are called the middle class. Granted in your system they would all be poor so maybe you are technically right that it won't be all that regressive.

 

[Mac1958]

.

The partisan ideologues are too consumed with their narcissism to see it, but hardcore libertarians are no less credible than hardcore conservatives or hardcore liberals.

It would certainly be a gift to the country if all of those folks would just find another hobby.

.

 

[eflatminor]

Employers put kids into mines and factories to work and get hurt and even die.

Which is already illegal and perfectly covered for government intervention under the enumerated powers of limited government.

Really, you can't come up with a SINGLE example?

Fail.



Then explain to us exactly why you believe this is so. "Because I say so" won't cut it. And if you're going to cite "Modern Times", you'll have to tell us SPECIFICALLY what is different today that would prevent the ideals of limited government powers from working.

Again, looking for a single example...



How in the **** is a flat tax, particularly one that does not even touch the poor, "regressive"? You're okay with all the current loopholes for the rich who can afford high priced tax attorneys? With a flat tax, those accountants would have ZERO ability to manipulate the tax code. How is that regressive? What in the **** in wrong with you?

I love it when libertarians actually start to describe their world view into detail.

If only we could get a modicum of detail from you, perhaps we could have a reasonable discussion. Any chance of that?

So lets get this straight, an example of people being forced into a bad situation willingly because of harsh market conditions isn't a good example of how corporations can have power over people because the government stepped in.

I am sorry but take off the clown shoes.

I'm sorry, but did you just say "willingly forced"???

Really?

Better think that one through genius.

It is your idea which you said would work just because you said so. The onus of proving your point is on you, not me. Could you be more ironic?.

First, get a dictionary and look up irony.

Then, get a history book and look at the manner in which America thrived compared to the rest of the world and dominated economically before the Progressive era.

Then get back to us.

I am sorry you don't know that a flat tax is regressive. See there is this group of people who do most of the living and working in this country, they are called the middle class.

Only the middle class "lives and works" in the country? Did you really just say that?

Now, if you can, explain to us EXACTLY HOW A FLAT TAX IS REGRESSIVE. Be specific please.

Granted in your system they would all be poor so maybe you are technically right that it won't be all that regressive

Another false statement which you can not back up with logic, reason, facts or an example.

Still looking for a single example to ANY of the points you've raised.

 

[eflatminor]

They won't even exist! Uh why not?

It takes a special kind of someone to see the wealthy and corporations try and buy government and then turn around and be totally positive that if government just got out of the way these same folks won't continue to try and exert their power over people.

The cognitive dissonance must give you a wicked headache.

Let's give this mindless bed wetter one more chance to answer a question with a specific example...or hell, even a modicum of logic or reason. Here goes...

If government did not meddle outside of their limited powers and therefore had NO ability to grant favors, tax loopholes, bailouts, or any other forms of favoritism to these evil corporations, tell us EXACTLY how these companies would be able to exert their power over people. When you answer, please remember that you can't point to something that is already covered by those limited powers granted to the government (like child slavery for instance). No, you must tell us how companies would exert their power over people in a world where government was limited to its enumerated powers.

Please be specific and give us one example. The floor is yours...

Something...anything?

Hmm...crickets

Still crickets...

 

[Bombur]

Which is already illegal and perfectly covered for government intervention under the enumerated powers of limited government.

Really, you can't come up with a SINGLE example?

Fail.



Then explain to us exactly why you believe this is so. "Because I say so" won't cut it. And if you're going to cite "Modern Times", you'll have to tell us SPECIFICALLY what is different today that would prevent the ideals of limited government powers from working.

Again, looking for a single example...



How in the **** is a flat tax, particularly one that does not even touch the poor, "regressive"? You're okay with all the current loopholes for the rich who can afford high priced tax attorneys? With a flat tax, those accountants would have ZERO ability to manipulate the tax code. How is that regressive? What in the **** in wrong with you?



If only we could get a modicum of detail from you, perhaps we could have a reasonable discussion. Any chance of that?

So lets get this straight, an example of people being forced into a bad situation willingly because of harsh market conditions isn't a good example of how corporations can have power over people because the government stepped in.

I am sorry but take off the clown shoes.

I'm sorry, but did you just say "willingly forced"???

Really?

Better think that one through genius.



First, get a dictionary and look up irony.

Then, get a history book and look at the manner in which America thrived compared to the rest of the world and dominated economically before the Progressive era.

Then get back to us.

I am sorry you don't know that a flat tax is regressive. See there is this group of people who do most of the living and working in this country, they are called the middle class.

Only the middle class "lives and works" in the country? Did you really just say that?

Now, if you can, explain to us EXACTLY HOW A FLAT TAX IS REGRESSIVE. Be specific please.

Granted in your system they would all be poor so maybe you are technically right that it won't be all that regressive

Another false statement which you can not back up with logic, reason, facts or an example.

Still looking for a single example to ANY of the points you've raised.

It is hard to give an example when you just deny reality because it doesn't fit your broken world view.

The market put people in such a bad situation that they sent their kids into factories and mines. How this isn't example of market conditions leading to bad results in your opinion is beyond me. Also the fact that the parents went along with it is my point. It doesn't make it ok.

You have yet to explain how your plan to bring the government back to what it was 200 years ago would work. You have not really shown how your flat tax wouldn't be regressive. It will be.

Instead you say outrageous crap then demand I talk about it. WTF is up with that?

Defend your stupid ideas or not. I don't really care.

 

[The T]

Or, you could reject all three.

Libertarianism is a set of related political philosophies that uphold liberty as the highest political end. This includes emphasis on the primacy of individual liberty, political freedom, and voluntary association. It is an antonym of authoritarianism.

Stated differently, you can be a libertarian that is a thrifty shopper, lives a conservative lifestyle, loves to see progress every day, and is liberal when it comes to certain things.

A more complete definition than Wiki:

Key Concepts of Libertarianism
Key Concepts of Libertarianism | Cato Institute

I love libertarians.

They're the poster child of ignoring everything unless it involves what they want and thinking a nation created as such doesn't exist.

Leave and make your own country.

They did, jackass...Idiots like you can't stand the liberty of others (much lees your own). I think it is YOU that needs to depart. Let me know If I can buy you a one way ticket out of here to somewhere you'd be more comfy.

 

[eflatminor]

So lets get this straight, an example of people being forced into a bad situation willingly because of harsh market conditions isn't a good example of how corporations can have power over people because the government stepped in.

I am sorry but take off the clown shoes.

I'm sorry, but did you just say "willingly forced"???

Really?

Better think that one through genius.



First, get a dictionary and look up irony.

Then, get a history book and look at the manner in which America thrived compared to the rest of the world and dominated economically before the Progressive era.

Then get back to us.



Only the middle class "lives and works" in the country? Did you really just say that?

Now, if you can, explain to us EXACTLY HOW A FLAT TAX IS REGRESSIVE. Be specific please.

Granted in your system they would all be poor so maybe you are technically right that it won't be all that regressive

Another false statement which you can not back up with logic, reason, facts or an example.

Still looking for a single example to ANY of the points you've raised.

It is hard to give an example when you just deny reality because it doesn't fit your broken world view.

If you were to actually give an example to support the points you've made, we would see if I would deny it, deny reality or in any way express my world view.

Until then, we're still looking for a modicum of logic or reason...or a SINGLE example to support your points.

Just one will do...

The market put people in such a bad situation that they sent their kids into factories and mines. How this isn't example of market conditions leading to bad results in your opinion is beyond me. Also the fact that the parents went along with it is my point. It doesn't make it ok.

The problem is that you keep using that as a FALSE example to denigrate libertarianism. It's false because, once again, no libertarian supports forcing children to labor in mines.

Now, if you'd care to provide an example that actually supports the points you're trying to make against libertariansim, I will listen. Until then, you just keep repeating the same bullshit that hasn't a think to do with libertarian ideals.

I could say Progressives eat kittens and beat children...but that doesn't make it so.

So, again, give us a ACTUAL example.

You have yet to explain how your plan to bring the government back to what it was 200 years ago would work.

Because it worked before. We had no debt to speak of, we had no inflation. We managed to say out of the vast majority of wars happening abroad. The country thrived to a far greater extent than any other nation and we did it with NO income tax. It wasn't perfect, but it was a far greater model for success than the centrally planned society you support.

You have not really shown how your flat tax wouldn't be regressive. It will be.

Then you ought to have no trouble explain exactly HOW it would be regressive. The floor is still yours.

Instead you say outrageous crap then demand I talk about it. WTF is up with that?

Defend your stupid ideas or not. I don't really care.

I've backed up my claims with logic, reason and specific examples. You? Not so much.

 

[eflatminor]

Let's give this mindless bed wetter one more chance to answer a question with a specific example...or hell, even a modicum of logic or reason. Here goes...

If government did not meddle outside of their limited powers and therefore had NO ability to grant favors, tax loopholes, bailouts, or any other forms of favoritism to these evil corporations, tell us EXACTLY how these companies would be able to exert their power over people. When you answer, please remember that you can't point to something that is already covered by those limited powers granted to the government (like child slavery for instance). No, you must tell us how companies would exert their power over people in a world where government was limited to its enumerated powers.

Please be specific and give us one example. The floor is yours...

Something...anything?

Hmm...crickets

Still crickets...

Tell you what Bom, why don't you simply address this one point raised above. Please answer this question with specificity and we'll take it from there.

Is that possible? Any chance?

 

[The T]

Something...anything?

Hmm...crickets

Still crickets...

Tell you what Bom, why don't you simply address this one point raised above. Please answer this question with specificity and we'll take it from there.

Is that possible? Any chance?

Don't hold your breath too long 'Bro...

 

[pvsi]

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.

They won't even exist! Uh why not?

It takes a special kind of someone to see the wealthy and corporations try and buy government and then turn around and be totally positive that if government just got out of the way these same folks won't continue to try and exert their power over people.

The cognitive dissonance must give you a wicked headache.

No Bombur, it is your limited vision that does not allow you to see how the super rich obtain all that wealth - it is not by their own labor. Do you seriously believe Walmart would exist in America today if it were not for government regulations of one sort or another?

 

[Bombur]

Something...anything?

Hmm...crickets

Still crickets...

Tell you what Bom, why don't you simply address this one point raised above. Please answer this question with specificity and we'll take it from there.

Is that possible? Any chance?

Through the market and people's dependence on making money so they can eat. Thus the conversation about how people in such a position have literally sold themselves and their children into slavery and indentured servitude so that they can eat.

A more technical way to talk about it is to refer to it as inelastic demand.

Another market problem is imperfect information. This relates to things like snake oil salesmen or our modern day pharmaceutical industry which is regulated by the government to ensure not only good information but that safety standards are met. This industry has been caught numerous times trying to bribe doctors and lie to consumers.

There is also a history of there being unequal access to the "factors of production" for all sorts of reasons from racism to sexism to classism to simple favoritism.

 

[Bombur]

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.

they won't even exist! Uh why not?

It takes a special kind of someone to see the wealthy and corporations try and buy government and then turn around and be totally positive that if government just got out of the way these same folks won't continue to try and exert their power over people.

The cognitive dissonance must give you a wicked headache.

no bombur, it is your limited vision that does not allow you to see how the super rich obtain all that wealth - it is not by their own labor. Do you seriously believe walmart would exist in america today if it were not for government regulations of one sort or another?

wtf?

 

[Bombur]

I'm sorry, but did you just say "willingly forced"???

Really?

Better think that one through genius.



First, get a dictionary and look up irony.

Then, get a history book and look at the manner in which America thrived compared to the rest of the world and dominated economically before the Progressive era.

Then get back to us.



Only the middle class "lives and works" in the country? Did you really just say that?

Now, if you can, explain to us EXACTLY HOW A FLAT TAX IS REGRESSIVE. Be specific please.



Another false statement which you can not back up with logic, reason, facts or an example.

Still looking for a single example to ANY of the points you've raised.

It is hard to give an example when you just deny reality because it doesn't fit your broken world view.

If you were to actually give an example to support the points you've made, we would see if I would deny it, deny reality or in any way express my world view.

Until then, we're still looking for a modicum of logic or reason...or a SINGLE example to support your points.

Just one will do...



The problem is that you keep using that as a FALSE example to denigrate libertarianism. It's false because, once again, no libertarian supports forcing children to labor in mines.

Now, if you'd care to provide an example that actually supports the points you're trying to make against libertariansim, I will listen. Until then, you just keep repeating the same bullshit that hasn't a think to do with libertarian ideals.

I could say Progressives eat kittens and beat children...but that doesn't make it so.

So, again, give us a ACTUAL example.



Because it worked before. We had no debt to speak of, we had no inflation. We managed to say out of the vast majority of wars happening abroad. The country thrived to a far greater extent than any other nation and we did it with NO income tax. It wasn't perfect, but it was a far greater model for success than the centrally planned society you support.

You have not really shown how your flat tax wouldn't be regressive. It will be.

Then you ought to have no trouble explain exactly HOW it would be regressive. The floor is still yours.

Instead you say outrageous crap then demand I talk about it. WTF is up with that?

Defend your stupid ideas or not. I don't really care.

I've backed up my claims with logic, reason and specific examples. You? Not so much.

It is not a false example.

I stopped reading at that nonsense honestly.

 

[eflatminor]

It is hard to give an example when you just deny reality because it doesn't fit your broken world view.

If you were to actually give an example to support the points you've made, we would see if I would deny it, deny reality or in any way express my world view.

Until then, we're still looking for a modicum of logic or reason...or a SINGLE example to support your points.

Just one will do...



The problem is that you keep using that as a FALSE example to denigrate libertarianism. It's false because, once again, no libertarian supports forcing children to labor in mines.

Now, if you'd care to provide an example that actually supports the points you're trying to make against libertariansim, I will listen. Until then, you just keep repeating the same bullshit that hasn't a think to do with libertarian ideals.

I could say Progressives eat kittens and beat children...but that doesn't make it so.

So, again, give us a ACTUAL example.



Because it worked before. We had no debt to speak of, we had no inflation. We managed to say out of the vast majority of wars happening abroad. The country thrived to a far greater extent than any other nation and we did it with NO income tax. It wasn't perfect, but it was a far greater model for success than the centrally planned society you support.



Then you ought to have no trouble explain exactly HOW it would be regressive. The floor is still yours.

Instead you say outrageous crap then demand I talk about it. WTF is up with that?

Defend your stupid ideas or not. I don't really care.

I've backed up my claims with logic, reason and specific examples. You? Not so much.

It is not a false example.

I stopped reading at that nonsense honestly.

Translated: You got nothing. Got it.

 

[eflatminor]

Still crickets...

Tell you what Bom, why don't you simply address this one point raised above. Please answer this question with specificity and we'll take it from there.

Is that possible? Any chance?

Through the market and people's dependence on making money so they can eat.

Let's get this straight. In response to the question 'How would these companies be able to exert their power over people without help from meddling politicians?', your answer is...people have to eat?

Did I get that right?

Seriously? Are you really this shallow? This ignorant?

Amazing that in the pre-Progressive era anyone ate, isn't it?

Hey, dumbshit, OF COURSE everyone needs to eat. That does not however answer the question as to EXACTLY HOW these companies could exert power of people. You are free to work for a company, or not. You are free to move to seek employment. You are free to make a living on your own. You are free to start your own company and be as benevolent as you wish.

Sorry, but you might as well have answered with "because the sky is blue". Your answer makes no sense and the rest of your comments are equally unrelated and nonsensical. Without the force of law behind any particular company, you are free to choose an alternative for employment, for products or for services. Anyone with a modicum of common sense understands this.

My goodness, what a low opinion you have or yourself. I can't image anyone believing themselves to be so damn pathetic that they are unable to make choices in their own best interest...that they require an overlord to guide them through life. It's just sad, really. Anyway, best of luck to you. You need it.

 

[Bombur]

Tell you what Bom, why don't you simply address this one point raised above. Please answer this question with specificity and we'll take it from there.

Is that possible? Any chance?

Through the market and people's dependence on making money so they can eat.

Let's get this straight. In response to the question 'How would these companies be able to exert their power over people without help from meddling politicians?', your answer is...people have to eat?

Did I get that right?

Seriously? Are you really this shallow? This ignorant?

Amazing that in the pre-Progressive era anyone ate, isn't it?

Hey, dumbshit, OF COURSE everyone needs to eat. That does not however answer the question as to EXACTLY HOW these companies could exert power of people. You are free to work for a company, or not. You are free to move to seek employment. You are free to make a living on your own. You are free to start your own company and be as benevolent as you wish.

Sorry, but you might as well have answered with "because the sky is blue". Your answer makes no sense and the rest of your comments are equally unrelated and nonsensical. Without the force of law behind any particular company, you are free to choose an alternative for employment, for products or for services. Anyone with a modicum of common sense understands this.

My goodness, what a low opinion you have or yourself. I can't image anyone believing themselves to be so damn pathetic that they are unable to make choices in their own best interest...that they require an overlord to guide them through life. It's just sad, really. Anyway, best of luck to you. You need it.

Like I said, naive and ignorant crap.

History proves me right and you wrong. Unlike you I can think about people other than myself. The true sign of someone who is completely ignorant about market economics is that they always reduce entire markets to single people.

 

[Toro]

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...

Ideology is an intellectual straight-jacket.

Take off the straight-jacket and see the world as it is, not as the ideologue thinks it ought to be.

Empiricism will guide you better through life than ideology.

An empiricist will change his beliefs in light of contrary evidence. An ideologue will retain his beliefs despite contrary evidence.