What are libertarians?

[rightwinger]

Government is not society, moron, so your post is irrelevant to the subject of the OP.

They are the elected representatives of our society

It is part of being a civilization

No, they are elected to represent us in the government, not in society. Do you really not understand the difference? Maybe I should make it easier for you. Is there anything you do understand? Let's start with that and work up. The body of what you don't understand is just enormous and seemingly has no end.

We the People belong to a society. We have chosen a form of government that allows us to select representatives who will do what is in the best interests of our society.

What part of that is so hard for Randians to understand?

The part I don't understand is where I agreed to it.

You still here?

 

[kaz]

Government is not society, moron, so your post is irrelevant to the subject of the OP.

They are the elected representatives of our society

It is part of being a civilization

No, they are elected to represent us in the government, not in society. Do you really not understand the difference? Maybe I should make it easier for you. Is there anything you do understand? Let's start with that and work up. The body of what you don't understand is just enormous and seemingly has no end.

We the People belong to a society. We have chosen a form of government that allows us to select representatives who will do what is in the best interests of our society.

What part of that is so hard for Randians to understand?

I understand it fine, you want a communist government, not the one we have

 

[kaz]

Well, it comes down to whether you believe you can make better choices for yourself or government can make better choices for you. If you have the information to make an informed choice, do you really need a politician to do it for you? Why?

Without regulation or rule of law, producers can easily cause detriment to consumers for the sake of profit. Like it or not there must be a gov agency overseeing the market for the sake of consumer protection. Regulation and capitalism can still go easily hand in hand.

You have this us verses them mentality about the government. You forget how great our system really is. We elect officials that are bound by the same laws we are.

And why can't that agency focus on accurate disclosure without removing our choices?

Again education would be required in such a case. A producer could disclose that sodium nitrate is in their products, but who is going to tell the consumers that it causes cancer? It's easier to ban such a substance.

You're still stuck on an ingredient list, which is what you said not me. I said companies should be required to disclose what they know about their products, not just provide an ingredient list. So if a product may cause cancer, you can't make the choice not to buy it yourself? You need a politician to do that for you? Why?

 

[kaz]

From a start up nation to the most powerful superpower on earth in 225 years? Looks like it has probably exceeded the wildest expectations of the Founding Fathers.

What does that have to do with government?

 

[kaz]

From a start up nation to the most powerful superpower on earth in 225 years? Looks like it has probably exceeded the wildest expectations of the Founding Fathers.

Could you imagine if we tried to do that with libertarian values?

LOL, that's exactly what we did. We became wealthy as the rich got richer, and provided lots of jobs along the way. It's your Marxist values of greed and wealth envy that are destroying it

 

[kaz]

They still profit from a taxpayer expenditure that helps them at the expense of others

You think that business and their employees should not be allowed to vote for a politician who is supporting a road from which they will profit from?

So as a business owner, I pay taxes for both my business and individually for both my business and myself at the Federal, State and local level. I pay income taxes, business taxes, property taxes, payroll taxes for my employees and myself, sales taxes and endless fees by government to do business.

What money are you referring to that I'm not paying but I'm profiting from?

The money that will pay for a new highway that will bring tens of thousands of cars past your place of business. You are benefitting from a tax expenditure being paid by others.

So all those taxes we pay for each gallon of gas does not give us the right to get roads where we need them??

I mean I as a consumer pay taxes on every gallon of gas I use, where does that money go??

kaching, RW's pocket....

 

[kaz]

Libertarians are right-wing hippies.

So we're Republicans who smoke pot. Actually, I haven't smoked pot in over 30 years, so why am I still a libertarian?

And that's the only difference you know between us and Republicans? Pot? You do know almost nothing about everything.

Now how did you pull "pot" out of "hippies"?

Ah -- no true blanket generalinonsequitur time.

Weird thread. I staunchly resist other people putting labels on me -- here you are literally asking for it. Plus, your title asks for what "libertarians" are, but then your poll asks what YOU are. No true nonsequitorial blanket goalpost moving time.

If you read the thread I linked to in the original post, "small government libertarians" generally agreed on what constituted small government. That is what I'm referring to. Which is why ... I liked to it in my original post...

 

[Derideo_Te]

Could you imagine if we tried to do that with libertarian values?

Yup! Still be singing God Save the Queen and saluting the Union Jack.

 

[rightwinger]

They still profit from a taxpayer expenditure that helps them at the expense of others

You think that business and their employees should not be allowed to vote for a politician who is supporting a road from which they will profit from?

So as a business owner, I pay taxes for both my business and individually for both my business and myself at the Federal, State and local level. I pay income taxes, business taxes, property taxes, payroll taxes for my employees and myself, sales taxes and endless fees by government to do business.

What money are you referring to that I'm not paying but I'm profiting from?

The money that will pay for a new highway that will bring tens of thousands of cars past your place of business. You are benefitting from a tax expenditure being paid by others.

So all those taxes we pay for each gallon of gas does not give us the right to get roads where we need them??

I mean I as a consumer pay taxes on every gallon of gas I use, where does that money go??

kaching, RW's pocket....

You are moving the goal posts
We are talking whether someone should be allowed to vote for tax dollars that they benefit from

 

[kaz]

Government is not society, moron, so your post is irrelevant to the subject of the OP.

They are the elected representatives of our society

It is part of being a civilization

No, they are elected to represent us in the government, not in society. Do you really not understand the difference? Maybe I should make it easier for you. Is there anything you do understand? Let's start with that and work up. The body of what you don't understand is just enormous and seemingly has no end.

We the People belong to a society. We have chosen a form of government that allows us to select representatives who will do what is in the best interests of our society.

What part of that is so hard for Randians to understand?

The part I don't understand is where I agreed to it.

You still here?

You still ignoring the Constitution?

 

[Billy000]

Well, it comes down to whether you believe you can make better choices for yourself or government can make better choices for you. If you have the information to make an informed choice, do you really need a politician to do it for you? Why?

Without regulation or rule of law, producers can easily cause detriment to consumers for the sake of profit. Like it or not there must be a gov agency overseeing the market for the sake of consumer protection. Regulation and capitalism can still go easily hand in hand.

You have this us verses them mentality about the government. You forget how great our system really is. We elect officials that are bound by the same laws we are.

And why can't that agency focus on accurate disclosure without removing our choices?

Again education would be required in such a case. A producer could disclose that sodium nitrate is in their products, but who is going to tell the consumers that it causes cancer? It's easier to ban such a substance.

You're still stuck on an ingredient list, which is what you said not me. I said companies should be required to disclose what they know about their products, not just provide an ingredient list. So if a product may cause cancer, you can't make the choice not to buy it yourself? You need a politician to do that for you? Why?

You need science to determine if it is dangerous and them politicians respond accordingly. Products must be regulated at manufacturing. A dangerous product must never even become a consumer choice. Why even pose the risk? As I said the consumer does not likely know it causes cancer.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

You're still stuck on an ingredient list, which is what you said not me. I said companies should be required to disclose what they know about their products, not just provide an ingredient list. So if a product may cause cancer, you can't make the choice not to buy it yourself? You need a politician to do that for you? Why?

You fail to address the problem of phony of false reports of a substance causing cancer. Take for instance the controversy about artificial sweeteners and cancer.

Artificial Sweeteners and Cancer
Key Points

• Artificial sweeteners are regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
• There is no clear evidence that the artificial sweeteners available commercially in the United States are associated with cancer risk in humans.
• Studies have been conducted on the safety of several artificial sweeteners, including saccharin, aspartame, acesulfame potassium, sucralose, neotame, and cyclamate.

1. What are artificial sweeteners and how are they regulated in the United States?
   
   Artificial sweeteners, also called sugar substitutes, are substances that are used instead of sucrose (table sugar) to sweeten foods and beverages. Because artificial sweeteners are many times sweeter than table sugar, smaller amounts are needed to create the same level of sweetness.
   
   Artificial sweeteners are regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA, like the National Cancer Institute (NCI), is an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services. The FDA regulates food, drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, biologics, and radiation-emitting products. The Food Additives Amendment to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which was passed by Congress in 1958, requires the FDA to approve food additives, including artificial sweeteners, before they can be made available for sale in the United States. However, this legislation does not apply to products that are “generally recognized as safe.” Such products do not require FDA approval before being marketed.
   
   
2. Is there an association between artificial sweeteners and cancer?
   
   Questions about artificial sweeteners and cancer arose when early studies showed that cyclamate in combination with saccharin caused bladder cancer in laboratory animals. However, results from subsequent carcinogenicity studies (studies that examine whether a substance can cause cancer) of these sweeteners have not provided clear evidence of an association with cancer in humans. Similarly, studies of other FDA-approved sweeteners have not demonstrated clear evidence of an association with cancer in humans.
   
   
3. What have studies shown about a possible association between specific artificial sweeteners and cancer?
   
   Saccharin
   
   Studies in laboratory rats during the early 1970s linked saccharin with the development of bladder cancer. For this reason, Congress mandated that further studies of saccharin be performed and required that all food containing saccharin bear the following warning label: “Use of this product may be hazardous to your health. This product contains saccharin, which has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals.”
   
   Subsequent studies in rats showed an increased incidence of urinary bladder cancer at high doses of saccharin, especially in male rats. However, mechanistic studies (studies that examine how a substance works in the body) have shown that these results apply only to rats. Human epidemiology studies (studies of patterns, causes, and control of diseases in groups of people) have shown no consistent evidence that saccharin is associated with bladder cancer incidence.
   
   Because the bladder tumors seen in rats are due to a mechanism not relevant to humans and because there is no clear evidence that saccharin causes cancer in humans, saccharin was delisted in 2000 from the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s Report on Carcinogens, where it had been listed since 1981 as a substance reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen (a substance known to cause cancer). More information about the delisting of saccharin is available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/append/appb.pdf on the Internet. The delisting led to legislation, which was signed into law on December 21, 2000, repealing the warning label requirement for products containing saccharin.
   
   Aspartame
   
   Aspartame, distributed under several trade names (e.g., NutraSweet® and Equal®), was approved in 1981 by the FDA after numerous tests showed that it did not cause cancer or other adverse effects in laboratory animals. Questions regarding the safety of aspartame were renewed by a 1996 report suggesting that an increase in the number of people with brain tumors between 1975 and 1992 might be associated with the introduction and use of this sweetener in the United States. However, an analysis of then-current NCI statistics showed that the overall incidence of brain and central nervous system cancers began to rise in 1973, 8 years prior to the approval of aspartame, and continued to rise until 1985. Moreover, increases in overall brain cancer incidence occurred primarily in people age 70 and older, a group that was not exposed to the highest doses of aspartame since its introduction. These data do not establish a clear link between the consumption of aspartame and the development of brain tumors.
   
   In 2005, a laboratory study found more lymphomas and leukemias in rats fed very high doses of aspartame (equivalent to drinking 8 to 2,083 cans of diet soda daily) (1). However, there were some inconsistencies in the findings. For example, the number of cancer cases did not rise with increasing amounts of aspartame as would be expected. An FDA statement on this study can be found at FDA Statement on European Aspartame Study on the Internet.
   
   Subsequently, NCI examined human data from the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study of over half a million retirees. Increasing consumption of aspartame-containing beverages was not associated with the development of lymphoma, leukemia, or brain cancer (2).
   
   Acesulfame potassium, Sucralose, and Neotame
   
   In addition to saccharin and aspartame, three other artificial sweeteners are currently permitted for use in food in the United States:
   • Acesulfame potassium (also known as ACK, Sweet One®, and Sunett®) was approved by the FDA in 1988 for use in specific food and beverage categories, and was later approved as a general purpose sweetener (except in meat and poultry) in 2002.
   • Sucralose (also known as Splenda®) was approved by the FDA as a tabletop sweetener in 1998, followed by approval as a general purpose sweetener in 1999.
   • Neotame, which is similar to aspartame, was approved by the FDA as a general purpose sweetener (except in meat and poultry) in 2002.
   Before approving these sweeteners, the FDA reviewed more than 100 safety studies that were conducted on each sweetener, including studies to assess cancer risk. The results of these studies showed no evidence that these sweeteners cause cancer or pose any other threat to human health.
   
   Cyclamate
   
   Because the findings in rats suggested that cyclamate might increase the risk of bladder cancer in humans, the FDA banned the use of cyclamate in 1969. After reexamination of cyclamate’s carcinogenicity and the evaluation of additional data, scientists concluded that cyclamate was not a carcinogen or a co-carcinogen (a substance that enhances the effect of a cancer-causing substance). A food additive petition was filed with the FDA for the reapproval of cyclamate, but this petition is currently being held in abeyance (not actively being considered). The FDA’s concerns about cyclamate are not cancer related.

 

[Pogo]

Libertarians are right-wing hippies.

So we're Republicans who smoke pot. Actually, I haven't smoked pot in over 30 years, so why am I still a libertarian?

And that's the only difference you know between us and Republicans? Pot? You do know almost nothing about everything.

Now how did you pull "pot" out of "hippies"?

Ah -- no true blanket generalinonsequitur time.

Weird thread. I staunchly resist other people putting labels on me -- here you are literally asking for it. Plus, your title asks for what "libertarians" are, but then your poll asks what YOU are. No true nonsequitorial blanket goalpost moving time.

If you read the thread I linked to in the original post, "small government libertarians" generally agreed on what constituted small government. That is what I'm referring to. Which is why ... I liked to it in my original post...

Ah, a link to "generally agreed". Then I am compelled to amend:
no true blanket generalinonsequitur ad populum time.

Why don't you just come out and say you're a Liberal if that's what you mean?

 

[konradv]

If libertarians were both socially and fiscally conservative and serious about small government they would have joined the Tea Party movement which is a realistic approach to their goals. 3rd party politics is doomed to failure and everyone knows it. There may be hard core libertarians left but the main libertarian movement has been hijacked by pot heads and dirty tricks lefties who want to syphon votes from the republican party.

While they may be fiscally conservative, most Libertarians part ways with the religious right and social conservatives. They are also less likely to support military adventurism than most right wingers.

Without religion where will your social compass of morals and right and wrong come from??

Same place as religious ones, by social consensus.

Really don't have much of a clue do you??
Let me know how that works out for you ......... when the perverts decide it will be children having sex !!

Why would it be any different? Seems it's you that doesn't have much of a clue of how ethics, morals and civilization came about. Are you telling me that without religion, you'd be out having sex with children? That's as dumb as the people who say we need laws against doing heroin or more people would be doing it. It wouldn't, would you?

 

[kaz]

You're still stuck on an ingredient list, which is what you said not me. I said companies should be required to disclose what they know about their products, not just provide an ingredient list. So if a product may cause cancer, you can't make the choice not to buy it yourself? You need a politician to do that for you? Why?

You need science to determine if it is dangerous and them politicians respond accordingly. Products must be regulated at manufacturing. A dangerous product must never even become a consumer choice. Why even pose the risk? As I said the consumer does not likely know it causes cancer.

Well, people chose to smoke cigarettes knowing it causes cancer. Which means there is a judgement call. Why remove that choice? Again, can you not make it yourself? Sounds like you don't want to buy the product. That's cool. Why remove someone else's choice to make a different choice? That is not cool.

As for testing, we are not disagreeing on the testing. What we are disagreeing on is who makes the choice at that point for me. Government or me?

 

[kaz]

You're still stuck on an ingredient list, which is what you said not me. I said companies should be required to disclose what they know about their products, not just provide an ingredient list. So if a product may cause cancer, you can't make the choice not to buy it yourself? You need a politician to do that for you? Why?

You fail to address the problem of phony of false reports of a substance causing cancer. Take for instance the controversy about artificial sweeteners and cancer.

Artificial Sweeteners and Cancer...

You seem to be arguing on my side, I'm not clear how I'm failing to address that. Are you not arguing that government should not decide? That is what I am arguing.

 

[rightwinger]

Government is not society, moron, so your post is irrelevant to the subject of the OP.

They are the elected representatives of our society

It is part of being a civilization

No, they are elected to represent us in the government, not in society. Do you really not understand the difference? Maybe I should make it easier for you. Is there anything you do understand? Let's start with that and work up. The body of what you don't understand is just enormous and seemingly has no end.

We the People belong to a society. We have chosen a form of government that allows us to select representatives who will do what is in the best interests of our society.

What part of that is so hard for Randians to understand?

The part I don't understand is where I agreed to it.

You still here?

You still ignoring the Constitution?

As one of We the people....I cherish it

all the while being amused by your lame interpretations of a great document

 

[kaz]

Libertarians are right-wing hippies.

So we're Republicans who smoke pot. Actually, I haven't smoked pot in over 30 years, so why am I still a libertarian?

And that's the only difference you know between us and Republicans? Pot? You do know almost nothing about everything.

Now how did you pull "pot" out of "hippies"?

Ah -- no true blanket generalinonsequitur time.

Weird thread. I staunchly resist other people putting labels on me -- here you are literally asking for it. Plus, your title asks for what "libertarians" are, but then your poll asks what YOU are. No true nonsequitorial blanket goalpost moving time.

If you read the thread I linked to in the original post, "small government libertarians" generally agreed on what constituted small government. That is what I'm referring to. Which is why ... I liked to it in my original post...

Ah, a link to "generally agreed". Then I am compelled to amend:
no true blanket generalinonsequitur ad populum time.

So if I say it's my observation based on a thread that I started that small libertarians generally agree what we think a small government libertarian is, that is me saying no one who disagrees is a small government libertarian?

That's just stupid

Why don't you just come out and say you're a Liberal if that's what you mean?

Don't know what that means.

 

[kaz]

all the while being amused by your lame interpretations of a great document

I like what the Constitution says, you like what you want it to have said. I see what you mean about my interpretation being lame.

 

[bripat9643]

Government is not society, moron, so your post is irrelevant to the subject of the OP.

They are the elected representatives of our society

It is part of being a civilization

No, they are elected to represent us in the government, not in society. Do you really not understand the difference? Maybe I should make it easier for you. Is there anything you do understand? Let's start with that and work up. The body of what you don't understand is just enormous and seemingly has no end.

We the People belong to a society. We have chosen a form of government that allows us to select representatives who will do what is in the best interests of our society.

What part of that is so hard for Randians to understand?

The part I don't understand is where I agreed to it.

You still here?

Can't answer the question?