What is a small government libertarian?

[kaz]

We the People get to decide how much government we want

What a country

And fuck the minority, the mob rules. That is blatantly Un-Constitutional.

Do you think the 10% of Americans who are libertarian should rule?

The irony is I would make far better choices for you over your own life than you do, and I don't want to make your choices. You make terrible choices over both our lives, and you do want to make our choices.

You don't understand what I say because making our own choices is just not part of your world. So rather than grasp my point that it's not the role of government to make our choices for us, when I talk about the tyranny of the majority, you can only conceive I want a tyranny of the minority. No, I don't want tyranny.

And the irony of that is you want a system where even fewer people make our choices, congressmen, the President, judges. That is until you get your American Politburo in place and even fewer do it.

 

[kaz]

We the People get to decide how much government we want

What a country

And fuck the minority, the mob rules. That is blatantly Un-Constitutional.

minority rights are (or were until the hobby lobby case) protected. you do not have the RIGHT to obstruct government because the wing nut gubmint haters are spoiled brats and sore losers.

so no, i'm all for minority rights... not wack jobs.

You don't even understand what we are discussing. Run along and play.

 

[Mac1958]

I have a Libertarian friend who is pro life but he doesn't think government has the moral authority to stand between the individual and God.

Nor does he believe in military activism.

He opposed Iraq from day 1, saying that Washington doesn't have the competence to rebuild an Arab nation.

You want a small government yet you are giving it the budget and power to reshape whole foreign nations?

(Turn off talk radio and take your brain back)

Yeah, your friend sounds more like a Libertarian from a few years ago -- a far more modest military/foreign policy and pro choice. When the Tea Party started, they were more like that, but then the Beck / Bachmann / Palin / Levin brigade saw opportunity and took it over within a few weeks.

Now it's hard to tell who is who, as many who support the Tea Party are also strongly pro-life and strongly pro-sticking our military nose in everyone else's business. They've co-opted Libertarianism to the point where it's pretty much unrecognizable. They're the folks who could benefit by following the advice in your last sentence.

.

 

[dblack]

Seriously? lol

Subjective may refer to: Subjectivity, a subject's personal perspective, feelings, beliefs, desires or discovery


GUESS WHAT, YOUR SIDE KEEPS LOSING ON THE SUBJECTIVE PART: SS, MEDICARE, INCOME TAXES, WELFARE, ACA, ETC... lol

Seriously. Do some reading. It's well established that our government is designed to be a constitutionally limited, representative democracy. This is not controversial, nor subjective. It's objective historical fact. Honest people may disagree on how to interpret constitutional limits, but denying that our government is based on the concept isn't a matter of opinion. It's simply ignorant.

GUESS WHAT, YOUR SIDE KEEPS LOSING ON THE SUBJECTIVE PART: SS, MEDICARE, INCOME TAXES, WELFARE, ACA, ETC... lol

Yeah, so? You keep ranting about that as though someone is disagreeing with you.

 

[kaz]

I have a Libertarian friend who is pro life but he doesn't think government has the moral authority to stand between the individual and God.

Nor does he believe in military activism.

He opposed Iraq from day 1, saying that Washington doesn't have the competence to rebuild an Arab nation.

You want a small government yet you are giving it the budget and power to reshape whole foreign nations?

(Turn off talk radio and take your brain back)

Yeah, your friend sounds more like a Libertarian from a few years ago -- a far more modest military/foreign policy and pro choice. When the Tea Party started, they were more like that, but then the Beck / Bachmann / Palin / Levin brigade saw opportunity and took it over within a few weeks.

Now it's hard to tell who is who, as many who support the Tea Party are also strongly pro-life and strongly pro-sticking our military nose in everyone else's business. They've co-opted Libertarianism to the point where it's pretty much unrecognizable. They're the folks who could benefit by following the advice in your last sentence.

.

I'm confused, I thought you were talking about libertarians, then it evolved in to the tea party. Londoner's friend sounds very small government libertarian. The Tea Party are conservatives. They are not libertarians. There are things I like about Beck, Bachmann, Palin, Levin, and the tea party, but none of them are libertarians, they are not close to being libertarians. They are all fiscal conservatives, which is the part I like about them, but they don't support anything else libertarian. So the term for them would be fiscal conservatives, that accurately describes them.

 

[kaz]

Seriously. Do some reading. It's well established that our government is designed to be a constitutionally limited, representative democracy. This is not controversial, nor subjective. It's objective historical fact. Honest people may disagree on how to interpret constitutional limits, but denying that our government is based on the concept isn't a matter of opinion. It's simply ignorant.

GUESS WHAT, YOUR SIDE KEEPS LOSING ON THE SUBJECTIVE PART: SS, MEDICARE, INCOME TAXES, WELFARE, ACA, ETC... lol

Yeah, so? You keep ranting about that as though someone is disagreeing with you.

Dad thinks truth is what the majority says it is. Well, unless the majority is wrong, then truth is what the courts say it is.

 

[dblack]

I have a Libertarian friend who is pro life but he doesn't think government has the moral authority to stand between the individual and God.

Nor does he believe in military activism.

He opposed Iraq from day 1, saying that Washington doesn't have the competence to rebuild an Arab nation.

You want a small government yet you are giving it the budget and power to reshape whole foreign nations?

(Turn off talk radio and take your brain back)

Yeah, your friend sounds more like a Libertarian from a few years ago -- a far more modest military/foreign policy and pro choice. When the Tea Party started, they were more like that, but then the Beck / Bachmann / Palin / Levin brigade saw opportunity and took it over within a few weeks.

Now it's hard to tell who is who, as many who support the Tea Party are also strongly pro-life and strongly pro-sticking our military nose in everyone else's business. They've co-opted Libertarianism to the point where it's pretty much unrecognizable. They're the folks who could benefit by following the advice in your last sentence.

.

I'm confused, I thought you were talking about libertarians, then it evolved in to the tea party. Londoner's friend sounds very small government libertarian. The Tea Party are conservatives. They are not libertarians. There are things I like about Beck, Bachmann, Palin, Levin, and the tea party, but none of them are libertarians, they are not close to being libertarians. They are all fiscal conservatives, which is the part I like about them, but they don't support anything else libertarian. So the term for them would be fiscal conservatives, that accurately describes them.

I have a hard time seeing them as fiscal conservatives either, depending on exactly who you're talking about. Most seem more than willing to turn a blind eye to our insane military budget.

 

[bripat9643]

And fuck the minority, the mob rules. That is blatantly Un-Constitutional.

Do you think the 10% of Americans who are libertarian should rule?

Rule?

You're such a moron, RWer.

Liberals simply can't imagine a society were someone isn't giving them orders.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, your friend sounds more like a Libertarian from a few years ago -- a far more modest military/foreign policy and pro choice. When the Tea Party started, they were more like that, but then the Beck / Bachmann / Palin / Levin brigade saw opportunity and took it over within a few weeks.

Now it's hard to tell who is who, as many who support the Tea Party are also strongly pro-life and strongly pro-sticking our military nose in everyone else's business. They've co-opted Libertarianism to the point where it's pretty much unrecognizable. They're the folks who could benefit by following the advice in your last sentence.

.

I'm confused, I thought you were talking about libertarians, then it evolved in to the tea party. Londoner's friend sounds very small government libertarian. The Tea Party are conservatives. They are not libertarians. There are things I like about Beck, Bachmann, Palin, Levin, and the tea party, but none of them are libertarians, they are not close to being libertarians. They are all fiscal conservatives, which is the part I like about them, but they don't support anything else libertarian. So the term for them would be fiscal conservatives, that accurately describes them.

I have a hard time seeing them as fiscal conservatives either, depending on exactly who you're talking about. Most seem more than willing to turn a blind eye to our insane military budget.

The military budget is a fraction of what it used to be.

 

[Mac1958]

I have a Libertarian friend who is pro life but he doesn't think government has the moral authority to stand between the individual and God.

Nor does he believe in military activism.

He opposed Iraq from day 1, saying that Washington doesn't have the competence to rebuild an Arab nation.

You want a small government yet you are giving it the budget and power to reshape whole foreign nations?

(Turn off talk radio and take your brain back)

Yeah, your friend sounds more like a Libertarian from a few years ago -- a far more modest military/foreign policy and pro choice. When the Tea Party started, they were more like that, but then the Beck / Bachmann / Palin / Levin brigade saw opportunity and took it over within a few weeks.

Now it's hard to tell who is who, as many who support the Tea Party are also strongly pro-life and strongly pro-sticking our military nose in everyone else's business. They've co-opted Libertarianism to the point where it's pretty much unrecognizable. They're the folks who could benefit by following the advice in your last sentence.

.

I'm confused, I thought you were talking about libertarians, then it evolved in to the tea party. Londoner's friend sounds very small government libertarian. The Tea Party are conservatives. They are not libertarians. There are things I like about Beck, Bachmann, Palin, Levin, and the tea party, but none of them are libertarians, they are not close to being libertarians. They are all fiscal conservatives, which is the part I like about them, but they don't support anything else libertarian. So the term for them would be fiscal conservatives, that accurately describes them.

That's essentially my point, though, it's an amalgam.

The Libertarians have always been (for better or worse) absolutist on all things economic. Shut this program, close that agency, all the way down to a skeleton government. Now, look at Tea Party Republicans like Ted Cruz. When's the last time he went in the opposite direction? Everything is less, less, less. We can call it anything we want, but I don't see an economic difference between Cruz & the Tea Party and Libertarianism, do you?

Then, on top of that, these same people are strongly pro-life and pro-aggressive military.

So the GOP has essentially split between what's known as the "establishment" party and the pro-life, pro-military Libertarians. The more traditional Libertarians, those who are pro-choice and anti-aggressive military, are rarely heard from.

.

 

[kaz]

Yeah, your friend sounds more like a Libertarian from a few years ago -- a far more modest military/foreign policy and pro choice. When the Tea Party started, they were more like that, but then the Beck / Bachmann / Palin / Levin brigade saw opportunity and took it over within a few weeks.

Now it's hard to tell who is who, as many who support the Tea Party are also strongly pro-life and strongly pro-sticking our military nose in everyone else's business. They've co-opted Libertarianism to the point where it's pretty much unrecognizable. They're the folks who could benefit by following the advice in your last sentence.

.

I'm confused, I thought you were talking about libertarians, then it evolved in to the tea party. Londoner's friend sounds very small government libertarian. The Tea Party are conservatives. They are not libertarians. There are things I like about Beck, Bachmann, Palin, Levin, and the tea party, but none of them are libertarians, they are not close to being libertarians. They are all fiscal conservatives, which is the part I like about them, but they don't support anything else libertarian. So the term for them would be fiscal conservatives, that accurately describes them.

I have a hard time seeing them as fiscal conservatives either, depending on exactly who you're talking about. Most seem more than willing to turn a blind eye to our insane military budget.

I don't know about "most" but I certainly agree with you that they are all over the board on that. They are not fiscally conservative in the way that we are, I certainly agree on that and said so in my original post. However, the ones mentioned are certainly fiscally conservative compared to where the Federal government is now.

 

[kaz]

We can call it anything we want, but I don't see an economic difference between Cruz & the Tea Party and Libertarianism, do you?

Yes, libertarians are true fiscal conservatives. We want small government. The Tea Party just wants smaller government than we have. Libertarians want to change the role of government and redefine it, the Tea Party just want to tighten it's belt and keep essentially what we have.

Also, you can't call the Tea Party libertarian because outside fiscal issues, they are not libertarian at all. Even though the tea party wants to focus on economic more than social and they question military expenditures, again, they don't want to transform government, just tighten it's belt.

 

[Dad2three]

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

This board is polluted with your posts ranting how AWFUL life is for the common man in the U.S., so your utopian view could not possibly be represented by the U.S.

The rest are hardly the socialist paradises you envision, as any reading of the news would enable a person with a functioning higher brain functions to comprehend.

I do like Switzerland's mandatory gun ownership - that's good policy.

Oh you change it to utopian? Sorry. Misunderstood that. US 1945-1980? Around 30% unionized, SHARED increase in wages and standards, growing middle class, education system #1 in the world, forward thinking, etc

Then, Reaganomics (myths and fairy tales) took hold



Socialist paradises? ANOTHER premise in one post? Weird.

Are you honestly saying things were just swell from 1945-1980?

Why did we need the "War on Poverty" and the "Great Society" then? Why did we need to start Medicare? Why did Kennedy advocate for a massive income tax cut?

Were the Carter years good in your opinion?

Weird, you don't think an economy where ALL are improving is better than the past 33 years of Renominates where the VAST majority of benefits go to the 1%ers?

War on poverty and great society were GOOD PROGRAMS to assist the most needy, the opposite of Reaganomics!

All those things you list? BENEFITED a LARGE proportion of US society. Reaganomics? Not so much

LBJ had a demand side tax cut. Carter had 9+ million private sector jobs in 4 years to Reagan's 14 million in 8 and yes, Nixon/Fords wage and price controls harmed him, as did OPEC...

ALL you have are false premises, distortions and lies. I'm shocked

 

[Dad2three]

"Two posters who don't have a clue on why the Founders created a Republic"


KINDA THINK WE DID, ONCE MORE

"A Republic based on democratic representation!"

I call shenanigans. Where does Democracy or Democratic Representation appear in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

The term does not appear, and deliberately so, apparently. The states kept it out of their constitutions as well.

To be fair, though, selection of local representatives by the people was constitutionally provided for in 1789. In no way, though, did our founding documents provide for the popular selection of any other officer. That democracy is no longer contained in the lower chamber of the legislature is the handiwork of progressivism, a movement that explicitly and directly contravenes our founding principles.

Weird, you take something I didn't say and argue as if I diud? HMM

Know what else isn't in the Constitution? Capitalism or 'free markets'...

 

[Dad2three]

Yes they did. Furthermore, you only mentioned a small percentage of what America is.

Without PROGRESSIVE GOV'T POLICIES the US would look like a 3rd world nation right? HONESTY, TRY IT!

Actually, British Americans as early as the 1640s were better off economically than British commoners were. The Americans continued to prosper, and quite easily, largely because they were able to tap into abundant resources, to be sure, but also because Britain essentially left them alone to engage Europe in trade with their agriculture and shipbuilding. When Britain finally decided to impose on them with the Intolerable Acts, the Americans protested, and, of course, continued to prosper.

When the Progressives of the 20th century were finally able to inject their ideology into our government and impose on the Americans, the protests they were met with were feeble and overcome. Progressivism, consequently, has been choking us for more than 100 years, and now, finally, the United States is no longer the city on the hill. It's ordinary.

Given even more time, you progressives very well may transform our nation into third-world toilet.

Well, AEI couldn't have rewritten it better Bubba

 

[Dad2three]

Bush didn't go off the deep end by threatening and insulting the SCOTUS, you moron.

Nor did he claim he would go against SCOTUS ruling by issuing executive orders.

Nope, he just wiretapped without court orders and tortured people....

Which became OK to you when the R after the Presidents name turned to a D and he did the same thing

Yeah, that's why the REAL critics of his admin are left leaning, instead of made up crap like birth certs, Ben-Gazzzzi, E/O's, IRS, etc... lol

 

[Dad2three]

Mr Dingle Berry Sir

1- The Saint Paul and Pacific Railroad (also known as the St. Paul & Pacific Railroad and the SP&P) was a shortline railroad in the state of Minnesota in the United States which existed from 1857 to 1879. Founded as the Minnesota and Pacific Railroad, it was the state's first active railroad.[1][2

James J. Hill, who ran steamboats on the Red River, knew that the SP&P owned very valuable land grants and saw the potential of the railroad.[14] Hill convinced John S. Kennedy (a New York City banker who had represented the Dutch bondholders), Norman Kittson (Hill's friend and a wealthy fur trader), Donald Smith (a Montreal banker and executive with the Hudson's Bay Company), and George Stephen (Smith's cousin and a wealthy railroad executive) to invest $5.5 million in purchasing the railroad.[1

Show me where the federal government gave Hill's investment group one single penny to buy the bankrupt RR.

.

Like I said, THEY BENEFITED FROM GOV'T SUBSIDIES FROM THE RR'S THEY TOOK OVER. True or false?

WUT?

How much of the 5.5 million investment was a subsidy from

a) the State of Minnesota, __________________________%

b) from the federal government _____________________%


.

Got it, YOU can''t be honest

 

[Dad2three]

I'm confused, I thought you were talking about libertarians, then it evolved in to the tea party. Londoner's friend sounds very small government libertarian. The Tea Party are conservatives. They are not libertarians. There are things I like about Beck, Bachmann, Palin, Levin, and the tea party, but none of them are libertarians, they are not close to being libertarians. They are all fiscal conservatives, which is the part I like about them, but they don't support anything else libertarian. So the term for them would be fiscal conservatives, that accurately describes them.

I have a hard time seeing them as fiscal conservatives either, depending on exactly who you're talking about. Most seem more than willing to turn a blind eye to our insane military budget.

The military budget is a fraction of what it used to be.

A Century of Defense Spending

 

[asterism]

Somalia is anarchy, not libertarian. Read my OP post, I said I am not referring to anarchy.

Somalia is a collapsed Marxist nation, not anarchy. The crony-capitalism didn't work and now the politicos run their own fiefdoms.

You just said Somalia's not anarchy, it's anarchy. Independent fiefdoms are not contradictory to anarchy, they are anarchy. Think about it.

Anarchy is the lack of government creating lawlessness. Instead of a central government, warlords have their own system in its place. It's not anarchy.

 

[BobPlumb]

Small government is what the US started with when the constitution was drafted and ratified.