Can I be conservative, liberal, progressive all at once or do I have to pick only one

[eflatminor]

Did you think I wouldn't notice that you are moving the goal posts?

We can add "lacks intellectual integrity" to being ignorant and naïve.

Heck I even talk about how child labor provides us a lesson in market economics. I answered your ridiculously stupid question and even fought through your obtuseness. Now it is your turn to actually explain your whole idea about reverting back to the government of the past.

No goalposts were moved in the course of your ass kicking. Sorry, you can't just make shit up.

Anyway, you stick with your narrative. It's clearly all you've got. The grown ups understand that child labor plays no part in libertarian ideology, which was the original point.

You've still got nothing.

Now speaking of moving goalposts, I never said we should revert back to the government of the past, which was not in keeping with libertarian ideals (slavery, for instance). I made the specific point that a federal government restricted to its enumerated powers produces greater liberty and prosperity for all than meddling central planners...and does so without the need to tax a man's labor.

You can argue for all the unconstitutional meddling that only does more harm than good all day long. History, facts, logic and reason are not on your side, evidenced by your inability to produce a single cogent example in support of your position.

I don't mind the fact that you are ignorant and naïve but your lack of integrity makes it damn hard to have an argument.

When you repeat the same question multiple times I generally expect you to want an answer. It is not my fault that you took a ridiculous position, repeated that position multiple times, and then had to run away from it like a scared little child.

I don't care wtf you said about going back to the past honestly. It was unsubstantiated BS and you have still not backed it up with anything other than more BS.

You've become tiresome and pedantic. When you have something to offer that provides even a modicum of support to our positions, let us know.

 

[eflatminor]

Libertarianism is just a clever way of trying to get government out of the way so that corporations can rule without any concern for anything but themselves.

Tell us genius...if politicians were restricted to their limited enumerated powers, how exactly would corporations rule? Stated differently, how could a company make or enforce a law without a crony politicians, which you could not find in a libertarian society???



You have zero proof this ridiculous statement. I'm sorry, put pointing to one or two rich people that happen to be libertarians does mean the "movement is funded by billionaires". And by the way, if billionaires are funding it, why do we see so few libertarian politicians in office?



Bullshit. No libertarian thinks it's acceptable to allow anyone to pollute. That is NOT consensual activity. It is activity that infringes on the rights of others, the illegality of which is at the very heart of the idea of libertarianism.

You clearly have no fucking clue what you're talking about.



Really? And what evidence do you have to support this bullshit claim?

and they are as concerned for your freedom as slave owners were concerned for the freedom of their slaves

And there you have it...the most ridiculous statement of the month, at least so far.

Please tell us how libertarian ideals, which value freedom and liberty above all, are akin to slavery.

What an asshole.

How ironic that the poster who alleges that there would be no political corruption in his utopian libertarian society then accuses someone else of making the "most ridiculous statement of the month"!

Another "because I say so" retort...how boring.

If you care to argue the statement you highlighted with logic, reason and specificity, I'm happy to engage. Otherwise, off you go.

 

[Bombur]

Then tell us, SPECIFICALLY please, how would a corporation threaten anyone without the force of law and bureaucratic rules and regulations behind them?
.

Through inelastic labor markets. Child labor is my example. It is only STOPPED with the rule of law.

I will ignore every single thing you say about intent. Intent is irrelevant because I am not questioning your intent. That is why I called you ignorant and naïve as opposed to intentionally evil.

 

[Bombur]

Tell us genius...if politicians were restricted to their limited enumerated powers, how exactly would corporations rule? Stated differently, how could a company make or enforce a law without a crony politicians, which you could not find in a libertarian society???



You have zero proof this ridiculous statement. I'm sorry, put pointing to one or two rich people that happen to be libertarians does mean the "movement is funded by billionaires". And by the way, if billionaires are funding it, why do we see so few libertarian politicians in office?



Bullshit. No libertarian thinks it's acceptable to allow anyone to pollute. That is NOT consensual activity. It is activity that infringes on the rights of others, the illegality of which is at the very heart of the idea of libertarianism.

You clearly have no fucking clue what you're talking about.



Really? And what evidence do you have to support this bullshit claim?



And there you have it...the most ridiculous statement of the month, at least so far.

Please tell us how libertarian ideals, which value freedom and liberty above all, are akin to slavery.

What an asshole.

How ironic that the poster who alleges that there would be no political corruption in his utopian libertarian society then accuses someone else of making the "most ridiculous statement of the month"!

Another "because I say so" retort...how boring.

If you care to argue the statement you highlighted with logic, reason and specificity, I'm happy to engage. Otherwise, off you go.

Another "because I say so" retort...how boring.

If you care to argue the statement you highlighted with logic, reason and specificity, I'm happy to engage. Otherwise, off you go.

 

[Bombur]

No goalposts were moved in the course of your ass kicking. Sorry, you can't just make shit up.

Anyway, you stick with your narrative. It's clearly all you've got. The grown ups understand that child labor plays no part in libertarian ideology, which was the original point.

You've still got nothing.

Now speaking of moving goalposts, I never said we should revert back to the government of the past, which was not in keeping with libertarian ideals (slavery, for instance). I made the specific point that a federal government restricted to its enumerated powers produces greater liberty and prosperity for all than meddling central planners...and does so without the need to tax a man's labor.

You can argue for all the unconstitutional meddling that only does more harm than good all day long. History, facts, logic and reason are not on your side, evidenced by your inability to produce a single cogent example in support of your position.

I don't mind the fact that you are ignorant and naïve but your lack of integrity makes it damn hard to have an argument.

When you repeat the same question multiple times I generally expect you to want an answer. It is not my fault that you took a ridiculous position, repeated that position multiple times, and then had to run away from it like a scared little child.

I don't care wtf you said about going back to the past honestly. It was unsubstantiated BS and you have still not backed it up with anything other than more BS.

You've become tiresome and pedantic. When you have something to offer that provides even a modicum of support to our positions, let us know.

Another "because I say so" retort...how boring.

If you care to argue the statement you highlighted with logic, reason and specificity, I'm happy to engage. Otherwise, off you go.


Honestly I could point out that every single argument you made is a "because I say so" retort but I would probably get in trouble.

 

[boedicca]

All these terms sound nice and seem to apply to me: I am a thrifty shopper, I live a conservative lifestyle, I love to see progress every day, I am liberal when it comes to certain things... are these names strictly reserved for political pundits, or can I consider myself all 3? and if I do, will I still be taken seriously on this playing field of politics? please advise...

Well, you could try...but then again, you might find that being cognitively dissonant is the path to insanity.

 

[eflatminor]

I don't mind the fact that you are ignorant and naïve but your lack of integrity makes it damn hard to have an argument.

When you repeat the same question multiple times I generally expect you to want an answer. It is not my fault that you took a ridiculous position, repeated that position multiple times, and then had to run away from it like a scared little child.

I don't care wtf you said about going back to the past honestly. It was unsubstantiated BS and you have still not backed it up with anything other than more BS.

You've become tiresome and pedantic. When you have something to offer that provides even a modicum of support to our positions, let us know.

Another "because I say so" retort...how boring.

If you care to argue the statement you highlighted with logic, reason and specificity, I'm happy to engage. Otherwise, off you go.


Honestly I could point out that every single argument you made is a "because I say so" retort but I would probably get in trouble.

The irony is lost on you I see. Ah well, let's have the child have the last word. Please, the floor is yours...

 

[Derideo_Te]

Tell us genius...if politicians were restricted to their limited enumerated powers, how exactly would corporations rule? Stated differently, how could a company make or enforce a law without a crony politicians, which you could not find in a libertarian society???



You have zero proof this ridiculous statement. I'm sorry, put pointing to one or two rich people that happen to be libertarians does mean the "movement is funded by billionaires". And by the way, if billionaires are funding it, why do we see so few libertarian politicians in office?



Bullshit. No libertarian thinks it's acceptable to allow anyone to pollute. That is NOT consensual activity. It is activity that infringes on the rights of others, the illegality of which is at the very heart of the idea of libertarianism.

You clearly have no fucking clue what you're talking about.



Really? And what evidence do you have to support this bullshit claim?



And there you have it...the most ridiculous statement of the month, at least so far.

Please tell us how libertarian ideals, which value freedom and liberty above all, are akin to slavery.

What an asshole.

How ironic that the poster who alleges that there would be no political corruption in his utopian libertarian society then accuses someone else of making the "most ridiculous statement of the month"!

Another "because I say so" retort...how boring.

If you care to argue the statement you highlighted with logic, reason and specificity, I'm happy to engage. Otherwise, off you go.

No, I am not in least surprised that it went over your head and no, I am not wasting my time trying to explain the obvious to you. Been there, done that and I don't need another t-shirt. Playing whack-a-mole with whackjobs is a complete waste of time in my opinion and yes, I am looking at you, eflatliner, when I say that!

 

[Bombur]

You've become tiresome and pedantic. When you have something to offer that provides even a modicum of support to our positions, let us know.

Another "because I say so" retort...how boring.

If you care to argue the statement you highlighted with logic, reason and specificity, I'm happy to engage. Otherwise, off you go.


Honestly I could point out that every single argument you made is a "because I say so" retort but I would probably get in trouble.

The irony is lost on you I see. Ah well, let's have the child have the last word. Please, the floor is yours...

What great logic and reason. That one was almost as good as the one where you wanted to set the nation back 250+ years because you say so. Or that time you claimed that corporations have no power over people without government because you say so. Or that one where you said a flat tax isn't regressive because you say so. Or that one where you said a libertarian world would work because you say so.

Your entire world view is nothing more than agitprop of a bunch of the wealthy who have more money than compassion.

 

[eflatminor]

How ironic that the poster who alleges that there would be no political corruption in his utopian libertarian society then accuses someone else of making the "most ridiculous statement of the month"!

Another "because I say so" retort...how boring.

If you care to argue the statement you highlighted with logic, reason and specificity, I'm happy to engage. Otherwise, off you go.

No, I am not in least surprised that it went over your head and no, I am not wasting my time trying to explain the obvious to you. Been there, done that and I don't need another t-shirt. Playing whack-a-mole with whackjobs is a complete waste of time in my opinion and yes, I am looking at you, eflatliner, when I say that!

So you got nothing. Got it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Another "because I say so" retort...how boring.

If you care to argue the statement you highlighted with logic, reason and specificity, I'm happy to engage. Otherwise, off you go.

No, I am not in least surprised that it went over your head and no, I am not wasting my time trying to explain the obvious to you. Been there, done that and I don't need another t-shirt. Playing whack-a-mole with whackjobs is a complete waste of time in my opinion and yes, I am looking at you, eflatliner, when I say that!

So you got nothing. Got it.

Ironic!

 

[nodoginnafight]

how could a company make or enforce a law without a crony politicians, which you could not find in a libertarian society??

Because corruption is impossible in a libertarian society?
Yeah, right.
And you wonder why people call it a Utopian fantasy??????

And contrary to what you may believe, a law is not the only instrument of oppression.

 

[FA_Q2]

how could a company make or enforce a law without a crony politicians, which you could not find in a libertarian society??

Because corruption is impossible in a libertarian society?
Yeah, right.
And you wonder why people call it a Utopian fantasy??????

And contrary to what you may believe, a law is not the only instrument of oppression.

No, it is not BUT its main purpose should be protecting us from oppression. When you merge the law and commercial interests (thereby giving the companies an avenue and reason to purchase politicians) you repurpose the law from protecting us from oppression to creating oppression itself.

Companies buy politicians because it ensures that the government gives those companies either favored status or direct cash giveaways. Take that away and companies will no longer try to buy politicians.