Libertarians Are The True Political Moderates

[Pete7469]

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.

Bed wetters like Bfucker loathe the founders, so fat chance he'd actually read anything they wrote. Besides that it would compromise his programming, that is the brainwashing he calls an "education".

This goes for all you sniveling libtards who talk about "education". When you've memorized 12-16 years of state sponsored marxist bullshit and never questioned it, you're not educated. You're programmed. Liberals in the 60's used to preach shit like "question authority", now they're the authority and if you question them you're "uneducated". When you post this mindless bullshit you're not "debating", you're regurgitating.

Kaz posted excellent facts and opinions. Instead of engaging with rational discussions the moonbat responses are comical at best. Then they get butthurt when they're ridiculed, as if there's really any point in talking to them in the first place.

 

[eagle1462010]

The Federalist #30

Money is, with propriety, considered as the vital principle of the body politic; as that which sustains its life and motion, and enables it to perform its most essential functions. A complete power, therefore, to procure a regular and adequate supply of it, as far as the resources of the community will permit, may be regarded as an indispensable ingredient in every constitution. From a deficiency in this particular, one of two evils must ensue; either the people must be subjected to continual plunder, as a substitute for a more eligible mode of supplying the public wants, or the government must sink into a fatal atrophy, and, in a short course of time, perish.

The more intelligent adversaries of the new Constitution admit the force of this reasoning; but they qualify their admission by a distinction between what they call internal and external taxation. The former they would reserve to the State governments; the latter, which they explain into commercial imposts, or rather duties on imported articles, they declare themselves willing to concede to the federal head. This distinction, however, would violate the maxim of good sense and sound policy, which dictates that every POWER ought to be in proportion to its OBJECT; and would still leave the general government in a kind of tutelage to the State governments, inconsistent with every idea of vigor or efficiency. Who can pretend that commercial imposts are, or would be, alone equal to the present and future exigencies of the Union? Taking into the account the existing debt, foreign and domestic, upon any plan of extinguishment which a man moderately impressed with the importance of public justice and public credit could approve, in addition to the establishments which all parties will acknowledge to be necessary, we could not reasonably flatter ourselves, that this resource alone, upon the most improved scale, would even suffice for its present necessities. Its future necessities admit not of calculation or limitation; and upon the principle, more than once adverted to, the power of making provision for them as they arise ought to be equally unconfined. I believe it may be regarded as a position warranted by the history of mankind, that, in the usual progress of things, the necessities of a nation, in every stage of its existence, will be found at least equal to its resources.

 

[dblack]

People, people. Please be considerate. If you get any starkey on your shoes, please use the doormat!

 

[eagle1462010]

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.

I understand your point, but I believe the answers are in history. So we do not make the same mistakes again. I do care about the original intent of the Constitution as I believe that some of that logic could solve problems today.

 

[Pete7469]

People, people. Please be considerate. If you get any starkey on your shoes, please use the doormat!

I'd throw my shoes away if I ever stepped in anything that diseased and fetid.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"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.

Libertarians want to be able to not water their lawns in a drought without being threatened with a $500 fine.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

Libertarians want to be able to not water their lawns in a drought without being threatened with a $500 fine.

They also want to waste all the water they can afford to pay for even if it becomes too expensive for the poor to have any.

 

[dblack]

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.

Libertarians want to be able to not water their lawns in a drought without being threatened with a $500 fine.

They also want to waste all the water they can afford to pay for even if it becomes too expensive for the poor to have any.

Hmmm..... I didn't see that in their platform.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Libertarians want to be able to not water their lawns in a drought without being threatened with a $500 fine.

They also want to waste all the water they can afford to pay for even if it becomes too expensive for the poor to have any.

Of course they do, which is why their lawns are brown.

 

[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.

Libertarians want to be able to not water their lawns in a drought without being threatened with a $500 fine.

You mean libertarians don't want to be fined for excessive watering, but have to excessively water in order not to be fined for having a brown lawn.

Fucking anarchists!!!!





California couple conserving water amid drought could face fine for brown lawn

 

[JakeStarkey]

We the People work through our leges and courts as provided by the Constitution.

Don't like it? Tough.

 

[dblack]

We the People work through our leges and courts as provided by the Constitution.

Don't like it? Tough.

You is the people??? Whodathunkit?

Poor people.

 

[Pete7469]

We the People work through our leges and courts as provided by the Constitution.

Don't like it? Tough.

You is the people??? Whodathunkit?

Poor people.

I work out my legs on Tues and Thurs, Wens and Fri are upper body.

I don't exercise my agenda through the courts.

Bed wetters do that because their policies are unpopular. Fascist dipshits like fakeyboy think it's ok because too many people are "reactionary". Funny how people who lose their minds when a black thug is shot in self defense by a "white hispanic", but have no problem with a black woman being arrested for carrying a handgun with a license aren't "reactionary".

No...

The people who promote individual rights over the welfare of a nanny state are "reactionary", because fascist policies promote "equality"...

or something...

 

[Bfgrn]

The Federalist #30

Money is, with propriety, considered as the vital principle of the body politic; as that which sustains its life and motion, and enables it to perform its most essential functions. A complete power, therefore, to procure a regular and adequate supply of it, as far as the resources of the community will permit, may be regarded as an indispensable ingredient in every constitution. From a deficiency in this particular, one of two evils must ensue; either the people must be subjected to continual plunder, as a substitute for a more eligible mode of supplying the public wants, or the government must sink into a fatal atrophy, and, in a short course of time, perish.

The more intelligent adversaries of the new Constitution admit the force of this reasoning; but they qualify their admission by a distinction between what they call internal and external taxation. The former they would reserve to the State governments; the latter, which they explain into commercial imposts, or rather duties on imported articles, they declare themselves willing to concede to the federal head. This distinction, however, would violate the maxim of good sense and sound policy, which dictates that every POWER ought to be in proportion to its OBJECT; and would still leave the general government in a kind of tutelage to the State governments, inconsistent with every idea of vigor or efficiency. Who can pretend that commercial imposts are, or would be, alone equal to the present and future exigencies of the Union? Taking into the account the existing debt, foreign and domestic, upon any plan of extinguishment which a man moderately impressed with the importance of public justice and public credit could approve, in addition to the establishments which all parties will acknowledge to be necessary, we could not reasonably flatter ourselves, that this resource alone, upon the most improved scale, would even suffice for its present necessities. Its future necessities admit not of calculation or limitation; and upon the principle, more than once adverted to, the power of making provision for them as they arise ought to be equally unconfined. I believe it may be regarded as a position warranted by the history of mankind, that, in the usual progress of things, the necessities of a nation, in every stage of its existence, will be found at least equal to its resources.

What are you trying to say? That libertarians support Hamilton defending the constitution’s provisions authorizing the national government to impose taxes on the people directly?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Here is the most uneducted bed wetting statement of the day: "The people who promote individual rights over the welfare of a nanny state are "reactionary", because fascist policies promote 'equality'"...

Pete the bed wetter does not understand the terms 'nanny state', 'reactionary', 'fascist', or 'equality.'

No one is mad at you, Pete, but, wow, how ignorant.

And folks wonder why the GOP can't win nationally.

Well, yeah, they can.

 

[Dante]

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.

Distinctions with a difference wide enough to drive some fat asses through...

the majority in an election is not always 'the mob' going after a minority. Only when the majority is going after a minority is it a mob. Jesus, you're dense sometimes -- or is it all the time?

Saying the government takes money from you and gives it to another is as disingenuous as it gets.

If we rounded up percentage wise the amount of money you pay in taxes going to any individual or any specific social program that you do NOT benefit from...what would that percentage be?

maybe so minuscule you'd need a calculator to tally it? give it a rest

Being against redistribution of wealth is like being against -- civilized society in the modern era

 

[Dante]

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.

Libertarians want to be able to not water their lawns in a drought without being threatened with a $500 fine.

always with the bumper sticker or talk radio slogan out of context?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Libertarians want to be able to not water their lawns in a drought without being threatened with a $500 fine.

always with the bumper sticker or talk radio slogan out of context?

Your ignorance doesn't mean my post is out of context.

 

[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.

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.

LOL, talk about a post that's long on high winded accusations ... and devoid of facts ...

Name some corporations the founding fathers "shut down."

They did have general quotes wanting to limit the power of corporations, but you don't understand the difference between fascism and free enterprise. It was the former they were against. I realize you don't know what that means, but my explaining it to you ... again ... won't change that, will it?

 

[kaz]

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.

LOL, this liberal thing that the founders were Marxists who wanted big government is delusional even for them. All you have to do is read it.

I love asking them what the 9th and 10th amendments mean. Or what enumerated powers are. All you have to do is read it. Or their endless writings on their distrust of government.

But no, apparently the founders were Marxists when Marxism wasn't cool...