What are libertarians?

[rightwinger]

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.

You like your narrowminded interpretation of the scope of our great Constitution

Courts have disagreed with your views fore 200 years

 

[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?

Can't answer the question?

You still here?

If you didn't agree with our form of government, you are welcome to leave at any time

 

[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.

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

No, that's a logical fallacy, argumentum ad populum, or in English the "everybody knows" fallacy.

If "everybody knows/agrees", then what's the point of posing the question? How can there be alternate definitions if "everybody" has already established one?

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.

Then it's odd you articulated it in your next post.

I think yer a Confuseratarian, that's what I think.

 

[Billy000]

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?

It took decades for it to be widely known that cigarettes cause cancer. You think the tobacco industry told everyone? No. That's my point. Making any ingredient or product legal means too many dangerous products will be perceived as safe by consumers because they never knew.

 

[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?

You still here?

If you didn't agree with our form of government, you are welcome to leave at any time

Why should I leave? Why shouldn't government allow me to secede?

 

[bripat9643]

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?

It took decades for it to be widely known that cigarettes cause cancer. You think the tobacco industry told everyone? No. That's my point. Making any ingredient or product legal means too many dangerous products will be perceived as safe by consumers because they never knew.

People referred to cigarettes as "coffin nails" in the 19th century, so it's disengenuous for anyone to claim they didn't know they were harmfull. If a government agency says a product isn't safe, why would anyone believe it's safe? That is, aside from the fact that the government is often dead wrong.

 

[kaz]

No, that's a logical fallacy, argumentum ad populum, or in English the "everybody knows" fallacy.

Makes sense. You would be right if I had said everybody knows. Since I didn't, it's irrelevant.

If "everybody knows/agrees", then what's the point of posing the question? How can there be alternate definitions if "everybody" has already established one?

Another who didn't read the thread I linked to. The first paragraph said this is my opinion and invited other small government libertarians to agree or disagree. Note the first answer above on what again I did not say.

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.

Then it's odd you articulated it in your next post.

I think yer a Confuseratarian, that's what I think.

I said I'm a liberal in the next post? Gotcha...

 

[kaz]

It took decades for it to be widely known that cigarettes cause cancer. You think the tobacco industry told everyone? No. That's my point. Making any ingredient or product legal means too many dangerous products will be perceived as safe by consumers because they never knew.

And in our current system, that didn't matter because it was government's job to take care of us. How did that work out for you?

In a libertarian system, their lies would have destroyed them in civil court.

 

[Pogo]

No, that's a logical fallacy, argumentum ad populum, or in English the "everybody knows" fallacy.

Makes sense. You would be right if I had said everybody knows. Since I didn't, it's irrelevant.

If "everybody knows/agrees", then what's the point of posing the question? How can there be alternate definitions if "everybody" has already established one?

Another who didn't read the thread I linked to. The first paragraph said this is my opinion and invited other small government libertarians to agree or disagree. Note the first answer above on what again I did not say.

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.

Then it's odd you articulated it in your next post.

I think yer a Confuseratarian, that's what I think.

I said I'm a liberal in the next post? Gotcha...[/QUOTE]

Fine, it ain't worth my time to quote your own post back to ya.

 

[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?

Can't answer the question?

You still here?

If you didn't agree with our form of government, you are welcome to leave at any time

Why should I leave? Why shouldn't government allow me to secede?

Why haven't you seceded fingerboy?

My take is that you lack the balls

 

[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.

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.

List the ingredients let the consumer do the "Due Diligence" .............

The experts have been telling you for years what they believed at the time. Look at the salt controversy, when I grew up, salt was given as supplements in tablets to athletes and workers to replace what was sweated out. Later it was said best to cut "all added salt" out of your diet and people were passing out from electrolyte imbalances, gov has been with the experts all along,until they are proved wrong, but in most cases they are right.

Did they get the artificial sweeteners right??

I would like to know what is in it,but don't try and scare me out of eating it.
I have to eat heart healthy, but I would rather do my own research as for what to consume.
I am educated enough to decide for my self with out any hype or hyperbole from the "food Police" ..............

 

[Billy000]

It took decades for it to be widely known that cigarettes cause cancer. You think the tobacco industry told everyone? No. That's my point. Making any ingredient or product legal means too many dangerous products will be perceived as safe by consumers because they never knew.

And in our current system, that didn't matter because it was government's job to take care of us. How did that work out for you?

In a libertarian system, their lies would have destroyed them in civil court.

As I said, corporations already have a knack for deceiving the consumer for the sake of profit. They are creative like that. Letting corporations design and sell whatever the hell they want is dangerous and absolutely insane. How could a consumer always prove in court a product harmed them?

Let's talk about our healthcare system for a moment as another bad libertarian idea. There's a lot of private money in our healthcare system right? That's part of why it is state of the art. Tell me do you think the maker of cancer drugs care that poor people can't afford their products? No because all the money is in the middle class and wealthy class. They make huge buck with or without the poor buying their products. That is the danger of a privately funded healthcare system. Profit comes before care.

 

[kaz]

Fine, it ain't worth my time to quote your own post back to ya.

I guess so because I still don't know what you're talking about. As I'm the OP, I've written a lot of posts in the thread, are you saying I had a typo somewhere? I am actually a classic liberal and the people who call themselves liberal are actually authoritarian leftists, but I don't believe I've made that point here other than in my sig. Is that what you are referring to? I'm lost.

 

[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.

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.

List the ingredients let the consumer do the "Due Diligence" .............

The experts have been telling you for years what they believed at the time. Look at the salt controversy, when I grew up, salt was given as supplements in tablets to athletes and workers to replace what was sweated out. Later it was said best to cut "all added salt" out of your diet and people were passing out from electrolyte imbalances, gov has been with the experts all along,until they are proved wrong, but in most cases they are right.

Did they get the artificial sweeteners right??

I would like to know what is in it,but don't try and scare me out of eating it.
I have to eat heart healthy, but I would rather do my own research as for what to consume.
I am educated enough to decide for my self with out any hype or hyperbole from the "food Police" ..............

So you don't want companies to disclose what they know about their products? I'm not clear what you're arguing.

 

[kaz]

It took decades for it to be widely known that cigarettes cause cancer. You think the tobacco industry told everyone? No. That's my point. Making any ingredient or product legal means too many dangerous products will be perceived as safe by consumers because they never knew.

And in our current system, that didn't matter because it was government's job to take care of us. How did that work out for you?

In a libertarian system, their lies would have destroyed them in civil court.

As I said, corporations already have a knack for deceiving the consumer for the sake of profit. They are creative like that. Letting corporations design and sell whatever the hell they want is dangerous and absolutely insane. How could a consumer always prove in court a product harmed them?

Let's talk about our healthcare system for a moment as another bad libertarian idea. There's a lot of private money in our healthcare system right? That's part of why it is state of the art. Tell me do you think the maker of cancer drugs care that poor people can't afford their products? No because all the money is in the middle class and wealthy class. They make huge buck with or without the poor buying their products. That is the danger of a privately funded healthcare system. Profit comes before care.

Consumers have a way of seeing through the bull. As bripat already told you, everyone knew cigarettes were bad for you, very bad. No one was fooled. The question is who chooses, the government, or the consumer?

 

[Billy000]

It took decades for it to be widely known that cigarettes cause cancer. You think the tobacco industry told everyone? No. That's my point. Making any ingredient or product legal means too many dangerous products will be perceived as safe by consumers because they never knew.

And in our current system, that didn't matter because it was government's job to take care of us. How did that work out for you?

In a libertarian system, their lies would have destroyed them in civil court.

As I said, corporations already have a knack for deceiving the consumer for the sake of profit. They are creative like that. Letting corporations design and sell whatever the hell they want is dangerous and absolutely insane.

Let's talk about our healthcare system for a moment as another bad libertarian idea. There's a lot of private money in our healthcare system right? That's part of why it is state of the art. Tell me do you think the maker of cancer drugs care that poor people can't afford their products? No because all the money is in the middle class and wealthy class. They make huge buck with or without the poor buying their products. That is the danger of a privately funded healthcare system. Profit comes before care.

It took decades for it to be widely known that cigarettes cause cancer. You think the tobacco industry told everyone? No. That's my point. Making any ingredient or product legal means too many dangerous products will be perceived as safe by consumers because they never knew.

And in our current system, that didn't matter because it was government's job to take care of us. How did that work out for you?

In a libertarian system, their lies would have destroyed them in civil court.

As I said, corporations already have a knack for deceiving the consumer for the sake of profit. They are creative like that. Letting corporations design and sell whatever the hell they want is dangerous and absolutely insane. How could a consumer always prove in court a product harmed them?

Let's talk about our healthcare system for a moment as another bad libertarian idea. There's a lot of private money in our healthcare system right? That's part of why it is state of the art. Tell me do you think the maker of cancer drugs care that poor people can't afford their products? No because all the money is in the middle class and wealthy class. They make huge buck with or without the poor buying their products. That is the danger of a privately funded healthcare system. Profit comes before care.

Consumers have a way of seeing through the bull. As bripat already told you, everyone knew cigarettes were bad for you, very bad. No one was fooled. The question is who chooses, the government, or the consumer?

Are you kidding me? Um no. Cigarettes sold decades before consumers knew the hazardous effects. Are consumers supposed to intuitively grasp what causes heart disease, lung cancer, throat cancer, or mouth cancer? Um no.

 

[kaz]

Are you kidding me? Um no. Cigarettes sold decades before consumers knew the hazardous effects. Are consumers supposed to intuitively grasp what causes heart disease, lung cancer, throat cancer, or mouth cancer? Um no.

Ask people from that generation if they seriously did not know that cigarettes were bad for them. They will admit they did.

 

[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.

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.

List the ingredients let the consumer do the "Due Diligence" .............

The experts have been telling you for years what they believed at the time. Look at the salt controversy, when I grew up, salt was given as supplements in tablets to athletes and workers to replace what was sweated out. Later it was said best to cut "all added salt" out of your diet and people were passing out from electrolyte imbalances, gov has been with the experts all along,until they are proved wrong, but in most cases they are right.

Did they get the artificial sweeteners right??

I would like to know what is in it,but don't try and scare me out of eating it.
I have to eat heart healthy, but I would rather do my own research as for what to consume.
I am educated enough to decide for my self with out any hype or hyperbole from the "food Police" ..............

So you don't want companies to disclose what they know about their products? I'm not clear what you're arguing.

Was it that far above your pay grade?? I want a list of ingredients, I do not want a warning label on a pack of cigarettes that says the surgeon general has determined cigarette smoking bad for my health ................

 

[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.

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.

List the ingredients let the consumer do the "Due Diligence" .............

The experts have been telling you for years what they believed at the time. Look at the salt controversy, when I grew up, salt was given as supplements in tablets to athletes and workers to replace what was sweated out. Later it was said best to cut "all added salt" out of your diet and people were passing out from electrolyte imbalances, gov has been with the experts all along,until they are proved wrong, but in most cases they are right.

Did they get the artificial sweeteners right??

I would like to know what is in it,but don't try and scare me out of eating it.
I have to eat heart healthy, but I would rather do my own research as for what to consume.
I am educated enough to decide for my self with out any hype or hyperbole from the "food Police" ..............

So you don't want companies to disclose what they know about their products? I'm not clear what you're arguing.

How about we get back to companies that make wholesome, healthy products without a lot of additive's and preservatives. The more small print you put on a product label the less most will pay attention to it ,,,,,,,,

Companies already have sites that disclose public information. In this day and age, self appointed scientist test all types of products and report on them. Private industry does a good job, has kept consumer advocates selling plenty of car rating mags.

What exactly are you wanting to get these companies to state??
If they use an artificial sweetener it is not enough to know it is in it??
That was a pretty lengthy piece I posted concerning this, how big of a container we got to work with??
What happens if the container is smaller??

Can we just not post this on the product web site??
Who decides what is pertinent??

 

[kaz]

Was it that far above your pay grade?? I want a list of ingredients, I do not want a warning label on a pack of cigarettes that says the surgeon general has determined cigarette smoking bad for my health ................

Then it's that far above your pay grade too, because general, not specific statements like it's "bad for my health" isn't what I advocated either. It would be things like that it's more specific, like that it can cause cancer and how likely that is and what sort of testing was done on it.