Libertarians Are The True Political Moderates

[Dad2three]

That was me. We are political moderates. We believe government should be the last resort, not the first. It should not remove people's rights unless there is no other way. Government should not benefit one citizen at the expense of another. Personal freedom should come with personal responsibility.

What is not moderate about our views?

We believe government should be the last resort, not the first.

GOOD THING THE FOUNDERS THOUGHT DIFFERENTLY, and gave US the STRONG federal Gov't Constitutions

"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."

Thomas Jefferson

LOL, you need to take a history class. Or read a book.

Thomas Jefferson: Government is best which governs least.

BTW, Jefferson didn't mean what you think he meant. He was not advocating that government solve our problems FOR us. LOL. You can twist anything to Marxist rhetoric, can't you Vladimir?

Although the saying "That government is best which governs least" is often attributed to Thomas Jefferson, we have not found this particular statement in his writings.


That government is best which governs least. (Quotation) « Thomas Jefferson?s Monticello

 

[Dad2three]

Getting rid of the minimum wage is certainly moderate. The ideas that someone can't make a choice of what they are willing to work for and government preventing them from working if they are not worth $7.25 an hour is beyond extreme and into loonie kazoonie land.

Eliminating all welfare programs including social security is also moderate. Look at the massive waste when it's done at the national level. And the idea that rural Arkansas = New York City is idiotic. Government charity should be the last resort, not the first, and it should be as local as possible.

I'm with you on the open borders. The libertarians who support that are idiots who are focused on their ideology and not reality.

Conservatives who are against welfare because it "creates dependence on the Government" SHOULD be in favor of an increased minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage to the point that full-time employees do not NEED government assistance would result in a MASSIVE reduction of the people on Gov't aide

That's just stupid. How is preventing people not worth $7.25 from working going to reduce their dependence on government?

That's your problem in a nutshell

" not worth $7.25"

 

[Dad2three]

Libertarians are the true nation wreckers along with marxists.

The last Libertarian elected to power was President Andrew Jackson. So, I don't see how Libertarians are "true nation wreckers" .

So clearly you are dyed-in-the-wool fucktard.

.

Haven't read much on him and his administration huh?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Conservatives who are against welfare because it "creates dependence on the Government" SHOULD be in favor of an increased minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage to the point that full-time employees do not NEED government assistance would result in a MASSIVE reduction of the people on Gov't aide

That's just stupid. How is preventing people not worth $7.25 from working going to reduce their dependence on government?

That's your problem in a nutshell

" not worth $7.25"

The government agrees with that sentiment, which is why it allows people who hire some workers to pay less than the minimum wage.

Various minimum wage exceptions apply under specific circumstances to workers with disabilities, full-time students, youth under age 20 in their first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment, tipped employees and student-learners.

http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/q-a.htm

 

[Pete7469]

Libertarians are the true nation wreckers along with marxists.

The last Libertarian elected to power was President Andrew Jackson. So, I don't see how Libertarians are "true nation wreckers" .

So clearly you are dyed-in-the-wool fucktard.

Andrew Jackson was a libertarian?

Really?

The only thing I can recall he shared with libertarians policy wise was his opposition to a central banking system that controlled currency. Otherwise he was a racist, an authoritarian and a corrupt political whore.


.

Haven't read much on him and his administration huh?

Apparently not....

While AJ did some good things, he did some really bad shit too. Libertarians also love to hold Ron Paul on a pedestal, as if he's the second coming of Thomas Jefferson, and as if Thomas Jefferson was a perfect human being. No man is/was/or ever will be pure.

What libertarians are not are "nation builders", and their policies will never create a strong nation that can withstand foreign domination, or internal implosion. However they are for damn sure not "nation wreckers", that adjective is best applied to marxist assholes who have done nothing but destroy every nation they've gained control of.

A problem we've had in the US is that we're devoted to freedom, and we have to allow the freedom we cherish to be exploited by the bed wetting parasite "liberals" who are motivated to destroy it.

I agree with the premise that libertarians are "the true moderates".

I have also said many times that the "moderates" can be the problem.

For many issues there is a right or wrong. Not a Right or left. However the left is almost always wrong, and even in the circumstances the left is "right", they're pushing the agenda for a sinister end.

Libertarians need to realize that "moderating" between right and wrong will ensure you're never more than half-right.

 

[Dante]

Here is a prime example:

I am for true limited republican government. That means letting each state decide if they want a state of junkies or not.

Tapatalk

While I agree on one level, I know it is not a moderate position

Moderate is a subjective term that is only meaningful in context.

Within Germany, if a majority of people were Nazis, then yes. Being a Nazi was a moderate position in Germany. It was not considered moderate around the world and that is what was so scary about Nazi Germany. How so many people could be led into that belief system.

Now, what was it that was so extreme about the Nazi position? Genocide? Most Germans claim they were unaware of that and if they are telling the truth, then genocide would not be a moderate position - even in Nazi Germany.

When YOU use the term moderate - what do YOU mean? Do you mean something YOU consider moderate? So what is "moderate" to an extremist?

The term is only useful when used as a comparative description. There is no objective definition that fits all instances.

Within the context of the United States of America in 2014 - legalizing pot is a moderate position.

Of course "Moderate is a subjective term that is only meaningful in context." in the abstract, but in reality there exists a spectrum that most rational people agree on. Newt Gingrich knew he was representing the right. He only argued the majority was on the right with him.

Moderate does not mean "majority opinion" Societies that take extreme positions or actions are no less extreme because it is the norm in their society. Unless of course you have them living in a vacuum?

My initially saying I agree yet recognize "it is not a moderate position" is misunderstood and misrepresented by you.

People back legalizing pot for a myriad of reasons. It's like me backing a woman's right to choose an abortion, and people like you imagining it means backing abortions as a solution. It is not. It is facing reality no matter how repugnant.

People back legalizing pot for a myriad of reasons. It's like me backing the right to free speech of hateful people and people like you dumbly imagining I support the content of their speech or the way they go about sharing and expressing it.

People back legalizing pot for a myriad of reasons. It's like me backing harm reduction approaches and recognizing people's rights to do drugs and drink themselves to death versus the disease models or self help programs that stress inevitable doom unless abstinence is sought, and people like you coming along and claiming I support something I don't.


People back legalizing pot for a myriad of reasons. It's like me backing laws recognizing a right to assisted suicide and people like you insisting I back idiots (people besides the terminally ill) taking their own lives no matter the reason -- oh wait, I do.

You went to a lot of effort to try to imagine what my positions or responses MIGHT be.
And elected to argue with your own imagination.

What's that called?

Oh yeah .... strawman.

The last resort of a person who has no legitimate argument against the stated position.

you truly think this was about what your personal opinions might be and not a reality check of what is out there?

get a grip

 

[Dante]

No, liberals clearly do not ask that question ever. Well, except for things they don't want government to do.



So seriously, you think it's moderate for 50% plus one to vote to remove the liberty and property of the rest of us. That is ridiculous. If I get my way, you still can make your own choices. If you get your way, my choices are removed.

Clearly mine is the moderate position. No matter how "extreme" a decision I make over my own life, I leave your decision intact. I would be fine with your views if you would extend the same courtesy to me. You very much do not.

and there you have it:

"No, liberals clearly do not ask that question ever."
---

pay attention: "So seriously, you think it's moderate for 50% plus one to vote to remove the liberty and property of the rest of us."

Where do you get 50% + 1?

As far as the government's right to the taking or property goes, it's written into the US Constitution, and Liberty like Speech has always had boundaries if a civilized and functioning society were to exist for long.

As for your question in red, you can start with what you wrote in blue. Seriously, you don't know where I get 50% plus one?

I'm not going down your rat hole of arguing the Constitution. We are discussing libertarian versus liberal. As I pointed out, liberals believe the majority can set the rules for us all, including and very much performing the acts of removing our liberty and property. Redistributing wealth is not charity, it's plunder. And very much not moderate.

As I said and you ignored, my choices do not involved the removal of your choices. Your choices very much involve the removal of my choices. Clearly my position is the moderate one.

"should government do that?" of course it is what we as a people have asked it to do. That is what the US Constitution is about.

A social compact that includes some redistribution of wealth is not plunder by any rational interpretation of the term plunder.

as far as "liberals believe the majority can set the rules for us all" goes, it's a crock of bullcrap. The ACLU as an example believes and actually fights for the concept and promise in our constitution of protecting a minority from any majority.
[MENTION=26616]kaz[/MENTION] While I respect your right to hold your -- ahem -- views -- You appear to live in a fantasy world like Alice in the Looking Glass

 

[Dad2three]

The last Libertarian elected to power was President Andrew Jackson. So, I don't see how Libertarians are "true nation wreckers" .

So clearly you are dyed-in-the-wool fucktard.

Andrew Jackson was a libertarian?

Really?

The only thing I can recall he shared with libertarians policy wise was his opposition to a central banking system that controlled currency. Otherwise he was a racist, an authoritarian and a corrupt political whore.


.

Haven't read much on him and his administration huh?

Apparently not....

While AJ did some good things, he did some really bad shit too. Libertarians also love to hold Ron Paul on a pedestal, as if he's the second coming of Thomas Jefferson, and as if Thomas Jefferson was a perfect human being. No man is/was/or ever will be pure.

What libertarians are not are "nation builders", and their policies will never create a strong nation that can withstand foreign domination, or internal implosion. However they are for damn sure not "nation wreckers", that adjective is best applied to marxist assholes who have done nothing but destroy every nation they've gained control of.

A problem we've had in the US is that we're devoted to freedom, and we have to allow the freedom we cherish to be exploited by the bed wetting parasite "liberals" who are motivated to destroy it.

I agree with the premise that libertarians are "the true moderates".

I have also said many times that the "moderates" can be the problem.

For many issues there is a right or wrong. Not a Right or left. However the left is almost always wrong, and even in the circumstances the left is "right", they're pushing the agenda for a sinister end.

Libertarians need to realize that "moderating" between right and wrong will ensure you're never more than half-right.

ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on in the USA? Just one please?

 

[ScienceRocks]

So what we had in the late 19th century is a moderate position. Oh'shittt!!!

Corporate highways
No safety net
The workers working for pennies
Child labor
No science investment

Believe me this shit isn't moderate!

 

[Contumacious]

Only in your delusional mind, kaz.

You and your komrades can't even agree on a good definition for libertarianism, much less a decent party framework, much less a workable governmental philosophy.

When people like you stop using the Constitution for a Floor Mat, perhaps we'll understand each other Fakey...................

No one is using the Constitution for a Floor Mat...

No?

How is it then that the federal government controls every aspect of our lives?

How is it that our government is a behemoth?

.

 

[Contumacious]

Libertarians are the true nation wreckers along with marxists.

The last Libertarian elected to power was President Andrew Jackson. So, I don't see how Libertarians are "true nation wreckers" .

So clearly you are dyed-in-the-wool fucktard.

.

Haven't read much on him and his administration huh?

Haven't read much on him and his administration huh?

.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So what we had in the late 19th century is a moderate position. Oh'shittt!!!

Corporate highways
No safety net
The workers working for pennies
Child labor
No science investment

Believe me this shit isn't moderate!

Are you really this stupid, kid?

So the industrial revolution was the result of big government "safety nets" science investment? YOu guys are so brainwashed by Statists bullshit it's pathetic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If anyone believe the industrial revolution without the mitigation of is evil effects is a good thing, like TASB, should never be placed in charge of anything other than washing windows sixty floors in the sky.

 

[kaz]

The laughable commentary of the "libertarians" continue.

When all the goobering and garbaging are distilled, the result simply is that they don't want to be subject to that states and governments in the modern age cannot conform to the small, limited government model, because civil and personal liberties will not be protected.

Sure jake, big government is "moderate." LOL. You're the leftist authoritarian extremist, you don't even know what moderate is.

Only in your delusional mind, kaz.

You and your komrades can't even agree on a good definition for libertarianism, much less a decent party framework, much less a workable governmental philosophy.

I defined small government libertarian in my original post, what about that confuses you little guy? BTW, what I defined is almost exactly what the founding fathers actually wrote in the Constitution. We aren't the confused ones, you are. Though you're even more delusional calling a small government libertarian a Marxist when you're an authoritarian leftist. Up is down, night is day. Great arguing there Jake.

BTW, since you obviously aren't going to read it, I even stated I am not referring to anarchists as moderates.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"You" don't count, kaz. I wrote "You and your komrades can't even agree on a good definition for libertarianism, . . .".

Marxism is the flip side of libertarianism: both are gangster political models.

 

[kaz]

Well kaz, the premise of your thread has been easily debunked. Not by any comments from liberals, but by the very comments of your 'libertarian' buddies. Moderate people speak in moderate terms. These ideas forwarded by you ilk are not moderate.

Let's go to the video tape. From the OP, who is me, in the original post.

I am not referring to anarchists who want no government here who like calling themselves libertarians, I am referring to the masses of us who want government limited, not eliminated.

Ouch! Face first into the pavement. That one even has to hurt for a brain dead liberal. Contumacious is a ... wait for it ... anarchist! He clearly says so, my pretty. So the thread wasn't referring to him, and I said so. He's welcome to post here, and I'm not dissing his views. I just said he is ... NOT ... a moderate. So what you have is you agreed with me. Anarchists are not moderates.

Sit and lick your wounds, dumb ass. It'll stop stinging in a bit. Unfortunately you won't get any smarter and I doubt you'll learn to read much less analyze, but you're not very smart, you'll quickly forget what a dumb fuck you just showed you are if you haven't already forgotten.

LOL, read the OP when you post in threads, putz. Unbelievable.

 

[kaz]

Good thing the Founders wanted the Gov't's hand in the economy then....

The next post will not be you backing that up because you are full of crap and you made it up. Seriously, before you embarrass yourself further, you need to learn something about history.

Here's a test for you. What do the 9th and 10th amendments say and what do they mean?

What's the 9th and 10th have to do with it?

Um, nothing, nothing at all. Here's a ball, it's bouncy. Run along and play...

 

[Moonglow]

Libertarianism is the political equivalent of Scientology.

Just louder and more obnoxious....

 

[kaz]

We believe government should be the last resort, not the first.

GOOD THING THE FOUNDERS THOUGHT DIFFERENTLY, and gave US the STRONG federal Gov't Constitutions

"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."

Thomas Jefferson

LOL, you need to take a history class. Or read a book.

Thomas Jefferson: Government is best which governs least.

BTW, Jefferson didn't mean what you think he meant. He was not advocating that government solve our problems FOR us. LOL. You can twist anything to Marxist rhetoric, can't you Vladimir?

Although the saying "That government is best which governs least" is often attributed to Thomas Jefferson, we have not found this particular statement in his writings.

Thomas Jefferson: If we can but prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy.

 

[kaz]

Conservatives who are against welfare because it "creates dependence on the Government" SHOULD be in favor of an increased minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage to the point that full-time employees do not NEED government assistance would result in a MASSIVE reduction of the people on Gov't aide

That's just stupid. How is preventing people not worth $7.25 from working going to reduce their dependence on government?

That's your problem in a nutshell

" not worth $7.25"

What is my "problem in a nutshell?"