Hello

[Natural Citizen]

How is everyone? My favorite topics of discussion are those which pertain to matters of Individual Liberty.

 

[The Great Goose]

We are all authoritarian here.

 

[TNHarley]

I love individual liberty. Welcome

 

[Hossfly]

How is everyone? My favorite topics of discussion are those which pertain to matters of Individual Liberty.

​

 

[Natural Citizen]

We are all authoritarian here.

Well. Heh. I see close to a half million discussion here. Surely, there is at least one who is not.

I love individual liberty. Welcome

Agreed. Thank You.

​

Oh, I was just saying hello and that I enjoy topics where matters of Individual Liberty are discussed is all.

 

[TNHarley]

We are all authoritarian here.

Well. Heh. I see close to a half million discussion here. Surely, there is at least one who is not.

I love individual liberty. Welcome

Agreed. Thank You.

​

Oh, I was just saying hello and that I enjoy topics where matters of Individual Liberty are discussed is all.

too bad its a thing of the past. Like baseball..

 

[Picaro]

"Pertaining" isn't allowed here. Take your wierdo fetishes somewhere else!!!

 

[Pumpkin Row]

How is everyone? My favorite topics of discussion are those which pertain to matters of Individual Liberty.

Welcome to USMB, it's very nice to meet you. What would you say your political alignment is?

 

[Natural Citizen]

How is everyone? My favorite topics of discussion are those which pertain to matters of Individual Liberty.

Welcome to USMB, it's very nice to meet you. What would you say your political alignment is?

Hi. Thank You. I'm a libertarian. I'm rather purist in that regard. I believe that government has only 1 legitimate role. And that's to protect Individual Liberty. Individual Liberty is not defined by policy. It's defined by principles. I accept that Individuals or groups of Individuals should be free to make rules for themselves provided that the rules that they make for themselves don't prohibit other Individuals or other groups of Individuals from equally doing the same. I'm a simple man, Pumpkin Row. A fundamentalist.

I do not, however, support the Libertarian Party candidate. The Libertarian candidate is not a libertarian. In fact, he openly rejects its most fundamental principal support. Which makes him an aggressor to the concept of Individual Liberty fully.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

How is everyone? My favorite topics of discussion are those which pertain to matters of Individual Liberty.

Welcome to USMB, it's very nice to meet you. What would you say your political alignment is?

Hi. Thank You. I'm a libertarian. I'm rather purist in that regard. I believe that government has only 1 legitimate role. And that's to protect Individual Liberty. I accept that Individuals or groups of Individuals should be free to make rules for themselves provided that the rules that they make for themselves don't prohibit other Individuals or other groups of Individuals from equally doing the same. I'm a simple man, Pumpkin Row. A fundamentalist.

Oh, I see. I do hold a lot of Libertarian views, but I consider myself a Conservative, since there are a few Libertarian views I just can't agree with. My view is more along the lines of "Do whatever you want, just don't do it on my lawn, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone else.". I'm sure you were expecting this question at one point or another, but who are you voting for?

 

[Natural Citizen]

My view is more along the lines of "Do whatever you want, just don't do it on my lawn, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone else."

Sure. This is what I meant when I mentioned Individiual Liberty's principle support. The right to one's property is an indispensable and principal material support, not only of Man's God-given unalienable rights, but of Man's right to Life and Liberty itself. And, again, Individuals or groups of Individuals should be free to make rules for themselves provided that the rules that they make for themselves don't prohibit other Individuals or other groups of Individuals from equally doing the same. So I agree wit hyour points here.

I'm sure you were expecting this question at one point or another, but who are you voting for?

If I do vote, I'll write in Castle. While I disagree with some of the Constitution Party's so called plank, I like Castle because his personal positions reflect the primary moral foundation that establish the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty itself and are consistent with the traditional philosophy of governance of our Constitutional Republic. Individual Liberty's primary moral foundation is inseparable with its fundamental principles. They cannot be accepted or rejected piece-meal. They must be accepted as an Indivisible whole in order to make a legitimate claim to its benefit.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Thank You for the stimulating conversation this afternoon, Pumpkin Row. I'm going to get off of here now. I was just popping in briefly. Enjoy your day.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

My view is more along the lines of "Do whatever you want, just don't do it on my lawn, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone else."

Sure. This is what I meant when I mentioned Individiual Liberty's principle support. The right to one's property is an indispensable and principal material support, not only of Man's God-given unalienable rights, but of Man's right to Life and Liberty itself.

I'm sure you were expecting this question at one point or another, but who are you voting for?

If I do vote, I'll write in Castle. While I disagree with some of the Constitution Party's so called plank, I like Castle because his personal positions reflect the primary moral foundation that establish the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty itself and are consistent with the traditional philosophy of governance of our Constitutional Republic. Individual Liberty's primary moral foundation is inseparable with its fundamental principles. They cannot be accepted or rejected piece-meal. They must be accepted as an Indivisible whole in order to make a legitimate claim to its benefit.

Just assuming, but since you're writing in, that must mean you have a problem with Gary Johnson. Just out of curiosity, what problem would that be, if any? I've been wondering for a while what problem people have with him, since a lot of other Conservatives have said they dislike him(And some Libertarians).

 

[Natural Citizen]

My view is more along the lines of "Do whatever you want, just don't do it on my lawn, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone else."

Sure. This is what I meant when I mentioned Individiual Liberty's principle support. The right to one's property is an indispensable and principal material support, not only of Man's God-given unalienable rights, but of Man's right to Life and Liberty itself.

I'm sure you were expecting this question at one point or another, but who are you voting for?

If I do vote, I'll write in Castle. While I disagree with some of the Constitution Party's so called plank, I like Castle because his personal positions reflect the primary moral foundation that establish the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty itself and are consistent with the traditional philosophy of governance of our Constitutional Republic. Individual Liberty's primary moral foundation is inseparable with its fundamental principles. They cannot be accepted or rejected piece-meal. They must be accepted as an Indivisible whole in order to make a legitimate claim to its benefit.

Just assuming, but since you're writing in, that must mean you have a problem with Gary Johnson. Just out of curiosity, what problem would that be, if any? I've been wondering for a while what problem people have with him, since a lot of other Conservatives have said they dislike him(And some Libertarians).

Johnson openly rejected Individual Liberty's most fundamental supporting principal when he professed that he'd send men from the government with guns to force an Individual or a group of Individuals to relinquish their property to another Individual or to another group of Individuals against their will. This is a rejection of Individual Liberty's most fundamental supporting principal.

Again, The right to one's property is an indispensable and principal material support, not only of Man's God-given unalienable rights, but of Man's right to Life and Liberty itself.To openly reject Individual Liberty's most principal supporting mechanism is to openly reject Individual Liberty fully.

Sending men with guns from the government to force an Individual or a group of Individuals to relinquish their property is a patently communist philosophy. It is a case of Government-over-Man.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

My view is more along the lines of "Do whatever you want, just don't do it on my lawn, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone else."

Sure. This is what I meant when I mentioned Individiual Liberty's principle support. The right to one's property is an indispensable and principal material support, not only of Man's God-given unalienable rights, but of Man's right to Life and Liberty itself.

I'm sure you were expecting this question at one point or another, but who are you voting for?

If I do vote, I'll write in Castle. While I disagree with some of the Constitution Party's so called plank, I like Castle because his personal positions reflect the primary moral foundation that establish the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty itself and are consistent with the traditional philosophy of governance of our Constitutional Republic. Individual Liberty's primary moral foundation is inseparable with its fundamental principles. They cannot be accepted or rejected piece-meal. They must be accepted as an Indivisible whole in order to make a legitimate claim to its benefit.

Just assuming, but since you're writing in, that must mean you have a problem with Gary Johnson. Just out of curiosity, what problem would that be, if any? I've been wondering for a while what problem people have with him, since a lot of other Conservatives have said they dislike him(And some Libertarians).

Johnson openly rejected Individual Liberty's most fundamental supporting principal when he professed that he'd send men from the government with guns to force an Individual or a group of Individuals to relinquish their property to another Individual or to another group of Individuals against their will. This is a rejection of Individual Liberty's most fundamental supporting principal.

Again, The right to one's property is an indispensable and principal material support, not only of Man's God-given unalienable rights, but of Man's right to Life and Liberty itself.To openly reject Individual Liberty's most principal supporting mechanism is to openly reject Individual Liberty fully.

Sending men with guns from the government to force an Individual or a group of Individuals to relinquish their property is a patently communist philosophy. It is a case of Government-over-Man.

I hadn't actually heard him say that, but I also hadn't watched the Libertarian Town Halls or debates(If there were any). Could you elaborate on his statement so I can better understand?

 

[Natural Citizen]

My view is more along the lines of "Do whatever you want, just don't do it on my lawn, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone else."

Sure. This is what I meant when I mentioned Individiual Liberty's principle support. The right to one's property is an indispensable and principal material support, not only of Man's God-given unalienable rights, but of Man's right to Life and Liberty itself.

I'm sure you were expecting this question at one point or another, but who are you voting for?

If I do vote, I'll write in Castle. While I disagree with some of the Constitution Party's so called plank, I like Castle because his personal positions reflect the primary moral foundation that establish the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty itself and are consistent with the traditional philosophy of governance of our Constitutional Republic. Individual Liberty's primary moral foundation is inseparable with its fundamental principles. They cannot be accepted or rejected piece-meal. They must be accepted as an Indivisible whole in order to make a legitimate claim to its benefit.

Just assuming, but since you're writing in, that must mean you have a problem with Gary Johnson. Just out of curiosity, what problem would that be, if any? I've been wondering for a while what problem people have with him, since a lot of other Conservatives have said they dislike him(And some Libertarians).

Johnson openly rejected Individual Liberty's most fundamental supporting principal when he professed that he'd send men from the government with guns to force an Individual or a group of Individuals to relinquish their property to another Individual or to another group of Individuals against their will. This is a rejection of Individual Liberty's most fundamental supporting principal.

Again, The right to one's property is an indispensable and principal material support, not only of Man's God-given unalienable rights, but of Man's right to Life and Liberty itself.To openly reject Individual Liberty's most principal supporting mechanism is to openly reject Individual Liberty fully.

Sending men with guns from the government to force an Individual or a group of Individuals to relinquish their property is a patently communist philosophy. It is a case of Government-over-Man.

I hadn't actually heard him say that, but I also hadn't watched the Libertarian Town Halls or debates(If there were any). Could you elaborate on his statement so I can better understand?

Sure. When asked whether he felt that Jewish bakers (Individuals with unalienable God-Given rights) should be forced to bake wedding cakes for Nazi customers (also Individuals with unalienable God-Given rights). Stossel directed the question to Johnson, who replied “that would be my contention, yes.”

Cake is property. And the scenario could easily take on the form of any other property. And regardless of whether one is Jewish or Nazi, at the end of the day, they're still an Individual with unalienable rights from God. Mr. Johnson just said here that he'd use the government to force an Individual to relinquish their property to another. Have you ever had a Sheriff show up to enforce something? He tends to have a gun on his hip.

Core liberty principles:
• Groups of individuals can self-organize and impose rules upon themselves, but should not force the same on others.
• You have the right to own property which you can voluntarily give or trade with others as you see fit.
• The fruits of your labor are yours alone, unless you agree otherwise.
• You should not initiate aggression against other people.
• You should not steal or destroy others property.
• You have the right to defend your life, freedom and property.

Gary Johnson's openly admitted position is contrary to these core principles. In fact, his position is aggressive toward them.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

My view is more along the lines of "Do whatever you want, just don't do it on my lawn, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone else."

Sure. This is what I meant when I mentioned Individiual Liberty's principle support. The right to one's property is an indispensable and principal material support, not only of Man's God-given unalienable rights, but of Man's right to Life and Liberty itself.

I'm sure you were expecting this question at one point or another, but who are you voting for?

If I do vote, I'll write in Castle. While I disagree with some of the Constitution Party's so called plank, I like Castle because his personal positions reflect the primary moral foundation that establish the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty itself and are consistent with the traditional philosophy of governance of our Constitutional Republic. Individual Liberty's primary moral foundation is inseparable with its fundamental principles. They cannot be accepted or rejected piece-meal. They must be accepted as an Indivisible whole in order to make a legitimate claim to its benefit.

Just assuming, but since you're writing in, that must mean you have a problem with Gary Johnson. Just out of curiosity, what problem would that be, if any? I've been wondering for a while what problem people have with him, since a lot of other Conservatives have said they dislike him(And some Libertarians).

Johnson openly rejected Individual Liberty's most fundamental supporting principal when he professed that he'd send men from the government with guns to force an Individual or a group of Individuals to relinquish their property to another Individual or to another group of Individuals against their will. This is a rejection of Individual Liberty's most fundamental supporting principal.

Again, The right to one's property is an indispensable and principal material support, not only of Man's God-given unalienable rights, but of Man's right to Life and Liberty itself.To openly reject Individual Liberty's most principal supporting mechanism is to openly reject Individual Liberty fully.

Sending men with guns from the government to force an Individual or a group of Individuals to relinquish their property is a patently communist philosophy. It is a case of Government-over-Man.

I hadn't actually heard him say that, but I also hadn't watched the Libertarian Town Halls or debates(If there were any). Could you elaborate on his statement so I can better understand?

Sure. When asked whether he felt that Jewish bakers should be forced to bake wedding cakes for Nazi customers. Stossel directed the question to Johnson, who replied “that would be my contention, yes.”

Cake is property. And it could easily take on the form of any other property. And regardless of whether one is Jewish or Nazi, at the end of the day, they're still an Individual with unalienable rights from God. Mr. Johnson just said here that he'd use the government to force an Individual to relinquish their property to another. Have you ever had a Sheriff show up to enforce something? He tends to have a gun on his hip.

Core liberty principles:
• Groups of individuals can self-organize and impose rules upon themselves, but should not force the same on others.
• You have the right to own property which you can voluntarily give or trade with others as you see fit.
• The fruits of your labor are yours alone, unless you agree otherwise.
• You should not initiate aggression against other people.
• You should not steal or destroy others property.
• You have the right to defend your life, freedom and property.

Oh, I understand now. That's pretty messed up. I believe that businesses shouldn't be forced to provide service, they should be allowed to deny service to anyone for any reason.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Oh, I understand now. That's pretty messed up. I believe that businesses shouldn't be forced to provide service, they should be allowed to deny service to anyone for any reason.

Not only businesses, but ultimately this pertains to The Individual. Again, The Individual has a right to property. This right is an indispensable and principal material support for The Individual's right to Life and Liberty itself. End of the day, a business owner is an Individual.

The issue (and ultimately Johnson's open acknowledgment that he'd infringe on the Individual's property rights by sending men from the government with guns to force relinquishment of property...because that's what "force" means when we're talking about government force) gets watered down when we don't recognize that this is first and foremost and aggression toward The Individual's right to property and Individual Liberty itself given that the right to property is Individual Liberty's principal support.

And it doesn't matter if it's cake here. It could be your car, it could be your house, it could be your food. It can be any property. Johnson's openly admitted position is one that reflects aggresion toward the right to property fully. Not just cake. Property is property. His openly admitted position is one that is patently contrary and aggressive toward the Individual's fundamental right to property. Again, it's a communist position and one that is a patent rejection of Individual Liberty fully given the rejection of its most fundamental principal support and means of securing.

As well, aggression is immoral. In fact, it's anti-moral. Which, while relevant here, is another discussion entirely given that the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty are premised upon a fundamental and primary foundation for moral code and for the purpose of proper Man-to-Man/Government-to-Man relations. So we get into Natural Law there. And The Individual's moral duty/responsibilty to defend and secure his Liberty.

 

[sealybobo]

How is everyone? My favorite topics of discussion are those which pertain to matters of Individual Liberty.

I hope you get better. I can’t wait for you to tell us all about the hell you are going through right now when you get better!

One question. Do you have health insurance?

 

[OldLady]

How is everyone? My favorite topics of discussion are those which pertain to matters of Individual Liberty.

I hope you get better. I can’t wait for you to tell us all about the hell you are going through right now when you get better!

One question. Do you have health insurance?

Sealy, he's already got that thread..
Some bad news coming from our way. (Prayers appreciated)