Libertarians Are The True Political Moderates

[kaz]

"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.

No, the Constitution does not say that if the people vote for something they can trample the minority. Actually, the Constitution was written to actually prevent that. The Constitution does not say we are a people's democracy, it says we have a "Federal" government. You should look up what that actually means. Hint, it doesn't mean ubiquitous central power, again, quite the reverse.

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

If it's not plunder, then why does government need the guns to take our money to give to someone else?

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

The fantasy world is the one you live in that authoritarian leftism is anything but the brutal intolerance and forced conformity that it is. That you believe the idea of people making their own choices is a "fantasy world" just like your belief that the government can make them for us and not become corrupt and indifferent to it's citizens is what's tripping.

 

[kaz]

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!

Do you have anything but rhetoric, or is that pretty much it?

 

[Pete7469]

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?

Civil Rights... And not just for minorities, and not just for protecting extremist bed wetter marxist bullshit "speech", but for the entire bill of rights including the second amendment.

Balanced Budgets, protecting the unborn (even though I don't care if you parasites abort yourselves out of existence) just too name a few.

Libtards are ALWAYS wrong on policy, and even the parts of policies where they promote "individual freedom", the objective is to promote nefarious goals.

 

[Pete7469]

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.

He's dumber than that.

The information he regurgitates has nothing to do with any independent thoughts. He's incapable of such. Imbeciles like these are best ignored.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kaz, well, is at least trying. Petey is fun to read. Didn't realize Pete is such a statist: he wants to regulate abortion at the national and state levels.

 

[Pete7469]

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.

Bed wetters like fakey disdain libertarians for reasons you're more than aware of. He's a fascist pig who likes to call himself a republicrat. Even though he's just a moonbat democrook shill, it's actually republicrats like him that are dragging the party down the marxist shithole.

I'm encouraged by the libertarian movement in the republicrat party. I'm doing what I can to promote it. I don't think a 3rd party is a way to go. It would divide the %60 who oppose bed wetting statist parasites and their minions. The goal should be to take the republicrat party, and use it's considerable foundation to defeat the democrook left.

Then I'll be proud to call myself a Republican.

 

[kaz]

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.

Bed wetters like fakey disdain libertarians for reasons you're more than aware of. He's a fascist pig who likes to call himself a republicrat. Even though he's just a moonbat democrook shill, it's actually republicrats like him that are dragging the party down the marxist shithole.

I'm encouraged by the libertarian movement in the republicrat party. I'm doing what I can to promote it. I don't think a 3rd party is a way to go. It would divide the %60 who oppose bed wetting statist parasites and their minions. The goal should be to take the republicrat party, and use it's considerable foundation to defeat the democrook left.

Then I'll be proud to call myself a Republican.

Yes, there is a movement in the Republican party to actually reduce government. Not enough for me to rejoin the party, but it's there.

And yes, Jake is a fascist, and he doesn't know it. Or what the word means. He wants the economy to be companies controlled by government, which is what fascism really is. And he's naive in his lack of recognition that fascism inevitably leads to socialism.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

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.

Jeebus, you Statists can't even muster up a proper, intelligible sentence.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Interesting that in lieu of debating a point - so many just opt for name-calling.
I just wonder .... does that mean they don't have any logical points to debate with?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Here is a prime example:

While I agree on one level, I know it is not 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

um - yeah - it was about my personal opinions.

 

[Contumacious]

"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.

Comrade Starkiev:

Do you know your ass from a hole in the ground?

.

.

 

[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.

Comrade Starkiev: Do you know your ass from a hole in the ground?

Sturmleader Contumacious, firmly STFU. You and I both know that many "libertarians" want less government so they can engage in activities that are criminalized in today's law.

 

[nodoginnafight]

"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.

Comrade Starkiev: Do you know your ass from a hole in the ground?

Sturmleader Contumacious, firmly STFU. You and I both know that many "libertarians" want less government so they can engage in activities that are criminalized in today's law.

Well ... if I wanted to sell tainted food produced by 12-year-old employees in dangerous working conditions ... I"D BE A LIBERTARIAN.

 

[Dante]

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

um - yeah - it was about my personal opinions.

"Moderate is a subjective term that is only meaningful in context." and Of course Moderate is a subjective term that is only meaningful in context."

You put it down to Nazi's being moderates in Nazi Germany. What about the SS? If they were extremists than regular run-of-the-mill Nazis were moderates?

 

[Dante]

[MENTION=26616]kaz[/MENTION]

Libertarians Are The True Political Moderates

Since most all of todays libertarians insist on following their principles to their logical ends no matter the result -- where is the moderate voice, the moderation in that?

[MENTION=26616]kaz[/MENTION]

[MENTION=26616]kaz[/MENTION]

Since most all of todays libertarians insist on following their principles to their logical ends no matter the result -- where is the moderate voice, the moderation in that?

Maybe you could read my original post and address what I said since I already answered that. I'll be glad to go forward if you want to build on that, but i'm not interested in re-answering it.

"should government even do that? Do we have the right to make that choice for everyone and use force to impose it on all our citizens? Libertarians are the moderates, that is the first question we ask..." -- everyone asks the first question.

The right and the left, the Democrats and Republicans, others -- they all have ideas of the role of government. Implicit in this is the question "should government do that?"

To view the role of government as forcing to impose it on all our citizens something citizens may not want is an extreme ideological position.

We in the USA have a representative form of government. Your extreme position is valid only if one assumes a government not elected by the people in a representative republic

Many of these Libertarian positions need not apply because they do not deal with the reality of life on the ground

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

"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.

No, the Constitution does not say that if the people vote for something they can trample the minority. Actually, the Constitution was written to actually prevent that. The Constitution does not say we are a people's democracy, it says we have a "Federal" government. You should look up what that actually means. Hint, it doesn't mean ubiquitous central power, again, quite the reverse.

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

If it's not plunder, then why does government need the guns to take our money to give to someone else?

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

The fantasy world is the one you live in that authoritarian leftism is anything but the brutal intolerance and forced conformity that it is. That you believe the idea of people making their own choices is a "fantasy world" just like your belief that the government can make them for us and not become corrupt and indifferent to it's citizens is what's tripping.

You've distorted, misconstrued, and confused most everything posted before this.




.............

...

Republicans and Democrats are just so deep into the question of what government can do to impose their social and fiscal wills on us, they have stopped even asking the question, should government even do that? Do we have the right to make that choice for everyone and use force to impose it on all our citizens? Libertarians are the moderates, that is the first question we ask, that is the right question to answer before proceeding any further.

Dante did not say "the Constitution does not say that if the people vote for something they can trample the minority."

You haven't been paying attention because you can't hear anyone else over your own screaming and screeching.

Taxes are not plunder and in a representative republic like ours you do not get to claim teh position that you will not pay taxes because you are in a minority

Our government (yes it's yours too) doesn't take anyone's money to give to others in the way your warped screed presents it. The government pays for infrastructure and more, for programs our elected representatives (as in representatives in a representative republic) have enacted in our name(s)

 

[kaz]

Dante did not say[/B] "the Constitution does not say that if the people vote for something they can trample the minority."

You haven't been paying attention because you can't hear anyone else over your own screaming and screeching.

Yes, Dante said our elected representatives can do so, a distinction without a difference since who elects our representatives? Who elects our representatives? The majority.

Taxes are not plunder and in a representative republic like ours you do not get to claim teh position that you will not pay taxes because you are in a minority

Dante hasn't read kaz's posts very carefully. Kaz doesn't oppose all taxes and never said that. Kaz believes it's appropriate for government to tax and spend on the benefit of all citizens. Roads, defense, police, ... Kaz said plunder is when government takes money from one citizen and gives it to another. Dante should try to address kaz's actual point.

Our government (yes it's yours too) doesn't take anyone's money to give to others in the way your warped screed presents it. The government pays for infrastructure and more, for programs our elected representatives (as in representatives in a representative republic) have enacted in our name(s)[/SIZE]

Again, Dante goes to that if kaz wants any government, and kaz does, then all government is justified. That's ridiculous. Government redistributes wealth all the time. Welfare, including social security is a massive redistribution. Earmarks are redistribution. Refundable tax credits and progressive taxes are redistribution. It is that redistribution kaz is against.

Kaz has been very clear and consistent about this, Dante is just off the mark.

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

You better start reading up on our founding fathers bunkie, because they were not 'libertarians' and they most certainly were not laissez-faire capitalists.

Corporations in their era were required to serve the public good or they were shut down. Their books could be confiscated by government and stockholders could be held personally liable for any harm caused by the corporation.

E-D-U-C-A-T-E yourself and stop emoting.

 

[Pete7469]

Comrade Starkiev: Do you know your ass from a hole in the ground?

Sturmleader Contumacious, firmly STFU. You and I both know that many "libertarians" want less government so they can engage in activities that are criminalized in today's law.

Well ... if I wanted to sell tainted food produced by 12-year-old employees in dangerous working conditions ... I"D BE A LIBERTARIAN.

If I wanted people to be forced to give up 1/3 of their annual salary to the government I'd be a communist, or a democrook. As if there's much difference beyond the gulags.

What bed wetting parasites don't seem to realize is that libertarians have no opposition to reasonable child labor laws, nor would they oppose a business being penalized severely for selling tainted food. I personally think it's total bullshit however to make it nearly impossible for a motivated 12 year old to earn wages at some level. I also can't believe there are people stupid enough to believe that government prevents tainted food from getting sold. The health standards companies maintain are just as much for legal compliance with inspectors as they are to prevent the company from getting the shit sued out of it.

 

[eagle1462010]

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.

You better start reading up on our founding fathers bunkie, because they were not 'libertarians' and they most certainly were not laissez-faire capitalists.

Corporations in their era were required to serve the public good or they were shut down. Their books could be confiscated by government and stockholders could be held personally liable for any harm caused by the corporation.

E-D-U-C-A-T-E yourself and stop emoting.

Ummmmmmm........The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution.........

Hmmmmmmmmmm..... Libertarians want to follow the Constitution, back to it's original intent...........

Perhaps it is you that needs to read more about the Founding Fathers.

They did not include Charity in any part of the Constitution. They enumerated the powers, which has been shredded over time. They WARNED us about Pure Democracy. They WARNED us about what will happen once we learn we can use taxation as hand outs, and Central Currency for hand outs.

I don't know what you've been reading.

 

[dblack]

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.

You better start reading up on our founding fathers bunkie, because they were not 'libertarians' and they most certainly were not laissez-faire capitalists.

Corporations in their era were required to serve the public good or they were shut down. Their books could be confiscated by government and stockholders could be held personally liable for any harm caused by the corporation.

E-D-U-C-A-T-E yourself and stop emoting.

Ummmmmmm........The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution.........

Hmmmmmmmmmm..... Libertarians want to follow the Constitution, back to it's original intent...........

Perhaps it is you that needs to read more about the Founding Fathers.

They did not include Charity in any part of the Constitution. They enumerated the powers, which has been shredded over time. They WARNED us about Pure Democracy. They WARNED us about what will happen once we learn we can use taxation as hand outs, and Central Currency for hand outs.

I don't know what you've been reading.

Yeah.. you know, I'm not the slightest bit interested in arm wrestling over revisionist history. Strictly speaking, I don't give a rat's ass what he founders intended. What matters is what we want, moving forward. And I don't want government ramming its cock down my throat.