Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
We've had nearly 100 years of progressive/Fabian "pragmatism" and it's not working out so hot.
At this point, just about any reversal of course --as opposed to "reformist" turd polishing-- would be beneficial.
Every time I read something that a 'liberal' writes it always sounds something along the line s of "freedom is bad and control is good".
The writer of the NYT story forgets that is is individual freedom that we are working on. It sucks to have other people be denied something such as being served food but what about the individual serving the food? Aren't we forcing that person to labor against their wish and wouldn't that be some form of slavery?
I believe Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution spells out the requirements about the government's role in building/keeping roads.Absurd questions like who builds, maintains, and pays for the roads
Now we're going into non-sequiturs.the systematic oppression of an entire race is acceptable?
[/QUOTE]Because what you think libertarians "really" think is not what they "really" think.Why don't you just come out and admit what you really think? Why do you libertardians only admit what you really think on accident?
We've had nearly 100 years of progressive/Fabian "pragmatism" and it's not working out so hot.
At this point, just about any reversal of course --as opposed to "reformist" turd polishing-- would be beneficial.
Oh, you're SO right!
Because the last hundred years of American history have been such a dark, dreadful time.
Right?
I mean, we didn't rise to become the most powerful nation in the world during that time...
Or amass huge amounts of wealth during that time...
Or build an infrastructure that tops anything since Rome (relative to technology)...
No, the past hundred years has just been awful, hasn't it?
Every time I read something that a 'liberal' writes it always sounds something along the line s of "freedom is bad and control is good".
The writer of the NYT story forgets that is is individual freedom that we are working on. It sucks to have other people be denied something such as being served food but what about the individual serving the food? Aren't we forcing that person to labor against their wish and wouldn't that be some form of slavery?
That's because you start out with the idea that conservatism is "freedom" and "liberalism" is somehow a form of totalitarianism.
I would suggest taking two aspirin, getting a good night's sleep, and laying off the Glenn Beck for a the rest of your life...
"Probably"??
Care to back that up with anything other than your clearly bigoted surmise?
Do you support state's having the right to segregate? If yes in some cases, list the cases.
Can you show me anyone who claims the state has a right to segregate?
Every time I read something that a 'liberal' writes it always sounds something along the line s of "freedom is bad and control is good".
The writer of the NYT story forgets that is is individual freedom that we are working on. It sucks to have other people be denied something such as being served food but what about the individual serving the food? Aren't we forcing that person to labor against their wish and wouldn't that be some form of slavery?
How does more government oversight of your life, higher taxes and cradle to grave coddling equate to more freedom?
I would suggest you take your own advice and laying off Rachel Madcow and Olberman for the rest of your life.
The trouble with exposition of your posts is that you seldom express any independently formed opinion of your own, but merely defer and link to those who share your affinity for the collectivist authoritarian nanny state.The trouble with any exposition of libertarianism is by the time you remove all the nonsense you end up being a 'bipolar conservative' or maybe a 'bipolar liberal.' Thus Rand Paul's troubles. Take your pick.
Libertarian links
Why I Am Not a Libertarian
Why is libertarianism wrong?
Critiques Of Libertarianism: So You Want To Discuss Libertarianism....
The American Conservative -- Marxism of the Right
Libertarian conservative debate
Reflections on an Early Libertarian
Why I Am Not a Conservative
"There isn't much point arguing about the word "libertarian." It would make about as much sense to argue with an unreconstructed Stalinist about the word "democracy" -- recall that they called what they'd constructed "peoples' democracies." The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called "libertarian" here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. If they want to call that "libertarian," fine; after all, Stalin called his system "democratic." But why bother arguing about it?" Noam Chomsky
Every time I read something that a 'liberal' writes it always sounds something along the line s of "freedom is bad and control is good".
The writer of the NYT story forgets that is is individual freedom that we are working on. It sucks to have other people be denied something such as being served food but what about the individual serving the food? Aren't we forcing that person to labor against their wish and wouldn't that be some form of slavery?
That's because you start out with the idea that conservatism is "freedom" and "liberalism" is somehow a form of totalitarianism.
I would suggest taking two aspirin, getting a good night's sleep, and laying off the Glenn Beck for a the rest of your life...
How does more government oversight of your life, higher taxes and cradle to grave coddling equate to more freedom?
I would suggest you take your own advice and laying off Rachel Madcow and Olberman for the rest of your life.
Looks like we've had a whoooole lotta that there "misrepresentin" thing going on around these here parts, too.
The editors of the New York Times misrepresent libertarianism by way of Rand Paul and his statements about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, saying:
Let’s start with the most obvious canard, which is the proposition that Jim Crow had anything to do with free markets. They were called “Jim Crow Laws“, not “Jim Crow Markets”, the obvious reason for which is that separate accommodations were mandated by state governments, not organically grown in some mythical garden of free association rights. Indeed, the entire reason for the corrupt deal behind the presidential election of 1876 was to throw the South’s support behind a president who would end Reconstruction.
"As a longtime libertarian, he espouses the view that personal freedom should supersede all government intervention. Neighborhood associations should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, he has written, and private businesses ought to be able to refuse service to anyone they wish. Under this philosophy, the punishment for a lunch counter that refuses to seat black customers would be public shunning, not a court order.
It is a theory of liberty with roots in America’s creation, but the succeeding centuries have shown how ineffective it was in promoting a civil society. The freedom of a few people to discriminate meant generations of less freedom for large groups of others.
It was only government power that ended slavery and abolished Jim Crow, neither of which would have been eliminated by a purely free market. It was government that rescued the economy from the Depression and promoted safety and equality in the workplace."
It was government–in this case, the state governments in the South–that imposed Jim Crow, and government that forced private companies to impose the desired restrictions on blacks. If government intervention was required to [abolish] Jim Crow, that was only because governments had imposed it in the first place....
Misrepresenting Libertarianism | Questions and Observations
Prolly the fault of the liberal media.Looks like we've had a whoooole lotta that there "misrepresentin" thing going on around these here parts, too.
Misrepresenting Libertarianism | Questions and ObservationsThe editors of the New York Times misrepresent libertarianism by way of Rand Paul and his statements about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, saying:
Lets start with the most obvious canard, which is the proposition that Jim Crow had anything to do with free markets. They were called Jim Crow Laws, not Jim Crow Markets, the obvious reason for which is that separate accommodations were mandated by state governments, not organically grown in some mythical garden of free association rights. Indeed, the entire reason for the corrupt deal behind the presidential election of 1876 was to throw the Souths support behind a president who would end Reconstruction.
It was governmentin this case, the state governments in the Souththat imposed Jim Crow, and government that forced private companies to impose the desired restrictions on blacks. If government intervention was required to [abolish] Jim Crow, that was only because governments had imposed it in the first place....
So what??? Don't you think that if anyone actually gave a shit about Libertarianism even in the least, they would have a produced at least ONE acceptable candidate by now on the National stage?
Harry Browne was a great candidate.
However, the confluence of --among other factors-- the lamestream media blackout, the demopublicratican duopoly debate lockout, biased ballot access requirements, and the completely fallacious "wasted vote" myth, LP candidates can't get a fair and equal hearing before a national audience.
Long and the short of the matter is that the demopublicratican duopoly fears most that if given an honest choice, most people wouldn't choose them.
