Libertarian Party ACTUAL position on Immigration. .

[flacaltenn]

Lots of confusion about Libertarians being totally "open border" people,. In the IDEAL -- one of us will leap to statements that rightfully concern people. But 2 things stand out..

1) While the Lib Party supports generous immigration policies --- at the SAME time -- we are adamantly AGAINST providing govt incentives that ENCOURAGE mass migration. Like no guarantees of subsidized Health Care, Welfare, Fast track citizenship for minors, Reduced College fees, etc for non-citizens. That's an important point often left out. Since the INCENTIVES to cross the border have astronomically increased since the last "amnesty".

2) Similar to that important missed point is the fact that we respect ALL of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights -- not the parts we like. So in our platform -- when immigration is discussed -- we INCLUDE the appropriate Constitutional duties of the Fed Govt..

Platform

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

At no time during his 8 years as a border state governor -- did Gary Johnson go out of his way to make illegal immigrants "comfortable and secure" with the funds of his state. No sanctuary doctrines. No attempts to "open the border".

The majority of tactical libertarian thought on amnesty/deportation is not that far from a moderate from either DEM/REP sides.

Immigration

For those workers already in the United States illegally, we can avoid "amnesty" and still offer a pathway out of the underground economy. Newly legalized workers can be assessed fines and back taxes and serve probation befitting the misdemeanor they've committed. They can be required to take their place at the back of the line should they eventually apply for permanent residency.

In any party -- you will have the purists that only approve of the "end goal ideals".. (especially in the Bernie camp). So you will hear a lot of ideals coming from Libertarians. But the party is prepared to govern as a moderate instrument of change without dogmatically trying to instantly make-over everything in the "ideal". These purists will probably show up angry about this thread.

Do not let "ideals" scare you...

More BETTER Lib Party info as the shit approaches the fan in November.

Open Borders as they existed prior to 1965.


The concept merely means that an immigrant is free to enter an exit.

It does NOT means that the government will provide any benefits.


Now under the bracero program employers were free to offer any incentives to recruit workers.

The problem is --- I don't think most Americans think of pre-1965 as "open border" -- because their image is of Ellis Island and processing immigrants. But what you're referring to is largely the micro-manipulatation of quotas and immigration levels that came about after the 1960s. Right?

 

[Contumacious]

That’s what’s great about USMB: one can encounter actual libertarians, providing further confirmation of the fact that libertarian dogma is naïve, sophomoric, reactionary, inane, and wrong.

That’s what’s great about USMB: one can encounter actual socialists/fascists, providing further confirmation of the fact that government supremacists dogma is naïve, sophomoric, reactionary, inane, and wrong.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Libertarianism where they ignore the link between economics and social politics.

'I'm not a racist but why is it the governments responsibility to defend those people at the Woolworth's lunch counter, let the markets tell us what to do."

That isn't appeasing to the far right or normal Americans.

The thread wasn't intended to open the entire can of worms at once. Instead, over time, I wanted to address SPECIFIC misconceptions that have propagated without clarifications. But what the heck --

First -- RAND Paul is not a Libertarian. He is greatly influenced by small "l" libertarian ideas. But has never flirted with the Party or claimed so...

Furthermore -- had the Lib party existed at that time, I doubt they would have strongly stood in the way of the Civil Rights act because there is a general recognition that LIBERTY applies to all and is not OBSESSED with divisions by class or otherwise. HOWEVER -- many or most MIGHT have preferred a true SOCIAL approach to the problem rather than using FORCE to get compliance. In other words -- they would have worked to get those integration effects by changing hearts and minds. Maybe marched in Selma -- boycotted establishments, promoted racial parity in jobs and such.

Libertarians might have suggested alternatives to the use of military and police to integrate the schools for instance. Because minimum amounts of force and coercion is important to us. A lot of violence surrounding that era -- including the hell that the "freedom riders" went thru -- is a result of OVER utilization of govt force too fast and in too great an amount. Patience might have gotten a more thorough and lasting solution. When the groundwork was prepared -- no one would object to placing it into law.

TODAY -- The Libertarian party is CLEAR about support for gay parity and issues. In a similar way -- we fully support changing the situation thru the legal system without a major campaign involving brute govt edict and force.

Awesome. You are a libertarian who thinks government mandating that private business have to serve certain segments (all really) of our population. I'm glad you as a libertarian agrees with that.

Secondly, I don't consider Rand Paul a libertarian, he's more of a joke that competes for the punchline of libertarianism.

If you work for social change WITHOUT the mindless force of the govt --- than there's no mandate required. Just a lawful confirmation after the fact. My point was not that I like mandates and snapping of the fingers and National Guards at schools. It was that it's better to work for hearts and minds and social parity FIRST -- so that minimal "force" is required.

I think your point as a Libertarian is that the 1964 civil rights act was unnecessary, minorities should have just waited for state governments to grow a heart. Would that have taken 10, 20, 30 years?

Mind you, this is core as to why the Libertarian party will never be a national force, Americans disagree with you.

Um, no…

There are state governments today which have no heart, it could be another 50 years before they do.

This also raises an important point: that a civil right delayed is a civil right denied; indeed, to tell Americans they must ‘wait’ for their civil rights, or that they must attempt to secure through the political process that which is already theirs as a consequence of our rights being inalienable, is just as repugnant to the Constitution as seeking to deny citizens their rights through force of law.

Libertarian opposition to the CRA and other such necessary, proper, and Constitutional legislation is further evidence of the clueless naiveté that is the hallmark of their dogma.

And to be fair to libertarians, conservatives are just as wrong and ridiculous to believe that citizens must attempt to secure their inalienable rights through the political process, and if unable to realize their rights through the political process, simply ‘do without.’

 

[HappyJoy]

Libertarianism where they ignore the link between economics and social politics.

'I'm not a racist but why is it the governments responsibility to defend those people at the Woolworth's lunch counter, let the markets tell us what to do."

That isn't appeasing to the far right or normal Americans.

The thread wasn't intended to open the entire can of worms at once. Instead, over time, I wanted to address SPECIFIC misconceptions that have propagated without clarifications. But what the heck --

First -- RAND Paul is not a Libertarian. He is greatly influenced by small "l" libertarian ideas. But has never flirted with the Party or claimed so...

Furthermore -- had the Lib party existed at that time, I doubt they would have strongly stood in the way of the Civil Rights act because there is a general recognition that LIBERTY applies to all and is not OBSESSED with divisions by class or otherwise. HOWEVER -- many or most MIGHT have preferred a true SOCIAL approach to the problem rather than using FORCE to get compliance. In other words -- they would have worked to get those integration effects by changing hearts and minds. Maybe marched in Selma -- boycotted establishments, promoted racial parity in jobs and such.

Libertarians might have suggested alternatives to the use of military and police to integrate the schools for instance. Because minimum amounts of force and coercion is important to us. A lot of violence surrounding that era -- including the hell that the "freedom riders" went thru -- is a result of OVER utilization of govt force too fast and in too great an amount. Patience might have gotten a more thorough and lasting solution. When the groundwork was prepared -- no one would object to placing it into law.

TODAY -- The Libertarian party is CLEAR about support for gay parity and issues. In a similar way -- we fully support changing the situation thru the legal system without a major campaign involving brute govt edict and force.

Awesome. You are a libertarian who thinks government mandating that private business have to serve certain segments (all really) of our population. I'm glad you as a libertarian agrees with that.

Secondly, I don't consider Rand Paul a libertarian, he's more of a joke that competes for the punchline of libertarianism.

If you work for social change WITHOUT the mindless force of the govt --- than there's no mandate required. Just a lawful confirmation after the fact. My point was not that I like mandates and snapping of the fingers and National Guards at schools. It was that it's better to work for hearts and minds and social parity FIRST -- so that minimal "force" is required.

I think your point as a Libertarian is that the 1964 civil rights act was unnecessary, minorities should have just waited for state governments to grow a heart. Would that have taken 10, 20, 30 years?

Mind you, this is core as to why the Libertarian party will never be a national force, Americans disagree with you.

Actually no -- we would have stated a POSITION 30 years PRIOR to the confrontation and reach the goal before it happened. Like we did with school choice, or MSavingsAccts, or marijuana, or Mid-East policy -- we were right on those things 30 years ahead of the curve. Politicians don't HAVE a long term plan or philosophy. They think in 4 or 8 year timeframes or ONLY THINK in terms of getting re-elected.

School choice and marijuana? Where were you when citizens rights were actually being infringed upon in the 60s? You were either playing along with the status quo pretending the civil rights act was an affront to a civilized society and letting racists hide behind your skirts (thankfully there wasn't much skirt for them to hide behind) or just flat out racist. We had a dire situation happening and the only thing I can find out about Libertarians is that the fucking markets will figure it out. Libertarians never had a solution, their solution was the status quo at the time, live and let live.

Then, in 2016 you have the balls to point out that some gays (I'd bet very few) are libertarians. Ignoring the fact that without liberalism they would have no rights to marry, live where they want to or keep their jobs. Where the fuck were you guys? Liberals have accomplished so much while Libertarians are still trying to convince the nation that they aren't a college cult designed to fuck with Republican parents.

Libertarians have accomplished nothing for this country, not a fucking thing.

 

[HappyJoy]

Libertarianism where they ignore the link between economics and social politics.

'I'm not a racist but why is it the governments responsibility to defend those people at the Woolworth's lunch counter, let the markets tell us what to do."

That isn't appeasing to the far right or normal Americans.

The thread wasn't intended to open the entire can of worms at once. Instead, over time, I wanted to address SPECIFIC misconceptions that have propagated without clarifications. But what the heck --

First -- RAND Paul is not a Libertarian. He is greatly influenced by small "l" libertarian ideas. But has never flirted with the Party or claimed so...

Furthermore -- had the Lib party existed at that time, I doubt they would have strongly stood in the way of the Civil Rights act because there is a general recognition that LIBERTY applies to all and is not OBSESSED with divisions by class or otherwise. HOWEVER -- many or most MIGHT have preferred a true SOCIAL approach to the problem rather than using FORCE to get compliance. In other words -- they would have worked to get those integration effects by changing hearts and minds. Maybe marched in Selma -- boycotted establishments, promoted racial parity in jobs and such.

Libertarians might have suggested alternatives to the use of military and police to integrate the schools for instance. Because minimum amounts of force and coercion is important to us. A lot of violence surrounding that era -- including the hell that the "freedom riders" went thru -- is a result of OVER utilization of govt force too fast and in too great an amount. Patience might have gotten a more thorough and lasting solution. When the groundwork was prepared -- no one would object to placing it into law.

TODAY -- The Libertarian party is CLEAR about support for gay parity and issues. In a similar way -- we fully support changing the situation thru the legal system without a major campaign involving brute govt edict and force.

Awesome. You are a libertarian who thinks government mandating that private business have to serve certain segments (all really) of our population. I'm glad you as a libertarian agrees with that.

Secondly, I don't consider Rand Paul a libertarian, he's more of a joke that competes for the punchline of libertarianism.

If you work for social change WITHOUT the mindless force of the govt --- than there's no mandate required. Just a lawful confirmation after the fact. My point was not that I like mandates and snapping of the fingers and National Guards at schools. It was that it's better to work for hearts and minds and social parity FIRST -- so that minimal "force" is required.

I think your point as a Libertarian is that the 1964 civil rights act was unnecessary, minorities should have just waited for state governments to grow a heart. Would that have taken 10, 20, 30 years?

Mind you, this is core as to why the Libertarian party will never be a national force, Americans disagree with you.

Um, no…

There are state governments today which have no heart, it could be another 50 years before they do.

This also raises an important point: that a civil right delayed is a civil right denied; indeed, to tell Americans they must ‘wait’ for their civil rights, or that they must attempt to secure through the political process that which is already theirs as a consequence of our rights being inalienable, is just as repugnant to the Constitution as seeking to deny citizens their rights through force of law.

Libertarian opposition to the CRA and other such necessary, proper, and Constitutional legislation is further evidence of the clueless naiveté that is the hallmark of their dogma.

And to be fair to libertarians, conservatives are just as wrong and ridiculous to believe that citizens must attempt to secure their inalienable rights through the political process, and if unable to realize their rights through the political process, simply ‘do without.’

It's 2016 there is no difference between ineffectual libertarianism and conservatism.

 

[Contumacious]

Lots of confusion about Libertarians being totally "open border" people,. In the IDEAL -- one of us will leap to statements that rightfully concern people. But 2 things stand out..

1) While the Lib Party supports generous immigration policies --- at the SAME time -- we are adamantly AGAINST providing govt incentives that ENCOURAGE mass migration. Like no guarantees of subsidized Health Care, Welfare, Fast track citizenship for minors, Reduced College fees, etc for non-citizens. That's an important point often left out. Since the INCENTIVES to cross the border have astronomically increased since the last "amnesty".

2) Similar to that important missed point is the fact that we respect ALL of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights -- not the parts we like. So in our platform -- when immigration is discussed -- we INCLUDE the appropriate Constitutional duties of the Fed Govt..

Platform

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

At no time during his 8 years as a border state governor -- did Gary Johnson go out of his way to make illegal immigrants "comfortable and secure" with the funds of his state. No sanctuary doctrines. No attempts to "open the border".

The majority of tactical libertarian thought on amnesty/deportation is not that far from a moderate from either DEM/REP sides.

Immigration

For those workers already in the United States illegally, we can avoid "amnesty" and still offer a pathway out of the underground economy. Newly legalized workers can be assessed fines and back taxes and serve probation befitting the misdemeanor they've committed. They can be required to take their place at the back of the line should they eventually apply for permanent residency.

In any party -- you will have the purists that only approve of the "end goal ideals".. (especially in the Bernie camp). So you will hear a lot of ideals coming from Libertarians. But the party is prepared to govern as a moderate instrument of change without dogmatically trying to instantly make-over everything in the "ideal". These purists will probably show up angry about this thread.

Do not let "ideals" scare you...

More BETTER Lib Party info as the shit approaches the fan in November.

Open Borders as they existed prior to 1965.


The concept merely means that an immigrant is free to enter an exit.

It does NOT means that the government will provide any benefits.


Now under the bracero program employers were free to offer any incentives to recruit workers.

The problem is --- I don't think most Americans think of pre-1965 as "open border" -- because their image is of Ellis Island and processing immigrants. But what you're referring to is largely the micro-manipulatation of quotas and immigration levels that came about after the 1960s. Right?

I am old as dirt so I remember the events of 1965 and before very clearly. The millennials don't


Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965


For Latinos, by contrast, Hart-Celler made the U.S. less accessible. Before 1965, immigration from Mexico and other Latin American countries was largely unrestricted. It was Hart-Celler that brought Latino immigration from the Western Hemisphere under numerical limit for the first time.

 

[flacaltenn]

The thread wasn't intended to open the entire can of worms at once. Instead, over time, I wanted to address SPECIFIC misconceptions that have propagated without clarifications. But what the heck --

First -- RAND Paul is not a Libertarian. He is greatly influenced by small "l" libertarian ideas. But has never flirted with the Party or claimed so...

Furthermore -- had the Lib party existed at that time, I doubt they would have strongly stood in the way of the Civil Rights act because there is a general recognition that LIBERTY applies to all and is not OBSESSED with divisions by class or otherwise. HOWEVER -- many or most MIGHT have preferred a true SOCIAL approach to the problem rather than using FORCE to get compliance. In other words -- they would have worked to get those integration effects by changing hearts and minds. Maybe marched in Selma -- boycotted establishments, promoted racial parity in jobs and such.

Libertarians might have suggested alternatives to the use of military and police to integrate the schools for instance. Because minimum amounts of force and coercion is important to us. A lot of violence surrounding that era -- including the hell that the "freedom riders" went thru -- is a result of OVER utilization of govt force too fast and in too great an amount. Patience might have gotten a more thorough and lasting solution. When the groundwork was prepared -- no one would object to placing it into law.

TODAY -- The Libertarian party is CLEAR about support for gay parity and issues. In a similar way -- we fully support changing the situation thru the legal system without a major campaign involving brute govt edict and force.

Awesome. You are a libertarian who thinks government mandating that private business have to serve certain segments (all really) of our population. I'm glad you as a libertarian agrees with that.

Secondly, I don't consider Rand Paul a libertarian, he's more of a joke that competes for the punchline of libertarianism.

If you work for social change WITHOUT the mindless force of the govt --- than there's no mandate required. Just a lawful confirmation after the fact. My point was not that I like mandates and snapping of the fingers and National Guards at schools. It was that it's better to work for hearts and minds and social parity FIRST -- so that minimal "force" is required.

I think your point as a Libertarian is that the 1964 civil rights act was unnecessary, minorities should have just waited for state governments to grow a heart. Would that have taken 10, 20, 30 years?

Mind you, this is core as to why the Libertarian party will never be a national force, Americans disagree with you.

Um, no…

There are state governments today which have no heart, it could be another 50 years before they do.

This also raises an important point: that a civil right delayed is a civil right denied; indeed, to tell Americans they must ‘wait’ for their civil rights, or that they must attempt to secure through the political process that which is already theirs as a consequence of our rights being inalienable, is just as repugnant to the Constitution as seeking to deny citizens their rights through force of law.

Libertarian opposition to the CRA and other such necessary, proper, and Constitutional legislation is further evidence of the clueless naiveté that is the hallmark of their dogma.

And to be fair to libertarians, conservatives are just as wrong and ridiculous to believe that citizens must attempt to secure their inalienable rights through the political process, and if unable to realize their rights through the political process, simply ‘do without.’

It's 2016 there is no difference between ineffectual libertarianism and conservatism.

That's your personal opinion not BOLSTERED by fact. Worthless actually..

 

[Contumacious]

The thread wasn't intended to open the entire can of worms at once. Instead, over time, I wanted to address SPECIFIC misconceptions that have propagated without clarifications. But what the heck --

First -- RAND Paul is not a Libertarian. He is greatly influenced by small "l" libertarian ideas. But has never flirted with the Party or claimed so...

Furthermore -- had the Lib party existed at that time, I doubt they would have strongly stood in the way of the Civil Rights act because there is a general recognition that LIBERTY applies to all and is not OBSESSED with divisions by class or otherwise. HOWEVER -- many or most MIGHT have preferred a true SOCIAL approach to the problem rather than using FORCE to get compliance. In other words -- they would have worked to get those integration effects by changing hearts and minds. Maybe marched in Selma -- boycotted establishments, promoted racial parity in jobs and such.

Libertarians might have suggested alternatives to the use of military and police to integrate the schools for instance. Because minimum amounts of force and coercion is important to us. A lot of violence surrounding that era -- including the hell that the "freedom riders" went thru -- is a result of OVER utilization of govt force too fast and in too great an amount. Patience might have gotten a more thorough and lasting solution. When the groundwork was prepared -- no one would object to placing it into law.

TODAY -- The Libertarian party is CLEAR about support for gay parity and issues. In a similar way -- we fully support changing the situation thru the legal system without a major campaign involving brute govt edict and force.

Awesome. You are a libertarian who thinks government mandating that private business have to serve certain segments (all really) of our population. I'm glad you as a libertarian agrees with that.

Secondly, I don't consider Rand Paul a libertarian, he's more of a joke that competes for the punchline of libertarianism.

If you work for social change WITHOUT the mindless force of the govt --- than there's no mandate required. Just a lawful confirmation after the fact. My point was not that I like mandates and snapping of the fingers and National Guards at schools. It was that it's better to work for hearts and minds and social parity FIRST -- so that minimal "force" is required.

I think your point as a Libertarian is that the 1964 civil rights act was unnecessary, minorities should have just waited for state governments to grow a heart. Would that have taken 10, 20, 30 years?

Mind you, this is core as to why the Libertarian party will never be a national force, Americans disagree with you.

Actually no -- we would have stated a POSITION 30 years PRIOR to the confrontation and reach the goal before it happened. Like we did with school choice, or MSavingsAccts, or marijuana, or Mid-East policy -- we were right on those things 30 years ahead of the curve. Politicians don't HAVE a long term plan or philosophy. They think in 4 or 8 year timeframes or ONLY THINK in terms of getting re-elected.

School choice and marijuana? Where were you when citizens rights were actually being infringed upon in the 60s? You were either playing along with the status quo pretending the civil rights act was an affront to a civilized society and letting racists hide behind your skirts (thankfully there wasn't much skirt for them to hide behind) or just flat out racist. We had a dire situation happening and the only thing I can find out about Libertarians is that the fucking markets will figure it out. Libertarians never had a solution, their solution was the status quo at the time, live and let live.

Then, in 2016 you have the balls to point out that some gays (I'd bet very few) are libertarians. Ignoring the fact that without liberalism they would have no rights to marry, live where they want to or keep their jobs. Where the fuck were you guys? Liberals have accomplished so much while Libertarians are still trying to convince the nation that they aren't a college cult designed to fuck with Republican parents.

Libertarians have accomplished nothing for this country, not a fucking thing.

You are 1000% correct .


You can NOT blame us for the gargantuan bankrupt welfare/warfare police state.


.

 

[Contumacious]

The thread wasn't intended to open the entire can of worms at once. Instead, over time, I wanted to address SPECIFIC misconceptions that have propagated without clarifications. But what the heck --

First -- RAND Paul is not a Libertarian. He is greatly influenced by small "l" libertarian ideas. But has never flirted with the Party or claimed so...

Furthermore -- had the Lib party existed at that time, I doubt they would have strongly stood in the way of the Civil Rights act because there is a general recognition that LIBERTY applies to all and is not OBSESSED with divisions by class or otherwise. HOWEVER -- many or most MIGHT have preferred a true SOCIAL approach to the problem rather than using FORCE to get compliance. In other words -- they would have worked to get those integration effects by changing hearts and minds. Maybe marched in Selma -- boycotted establishments, promoted racial parity in jobs and such.

Libertarians might have suggested alternatives to the use of military and police to integrate the schools for instance. Because minimum amounts of force and coercion is important to us. A lot of violence surrounding that era -- including the hell that the "freedom riders" went thru -- is a result of OVER utilization of govt force too fast and in too great an amount. Patience might have gotten a more thorough and lasting solution. When the groundwork was prepared -- no one would object to placing it into law.

TODAY -- The Libertarian party is CLEAR about support for gay parity and issues. In a similar way -- we fully support changing the situation thru the legal system without a major campaign involving brute govt edict and force.

Awesome. You are a libertarian who thinks government mandating that private business have to serve certain segments (all really) of our population. I'm glad you as a libertarian agrees with that.

Secondly, I don't consider Rand Paul a libertarian, he's more of a joke that competes for the punchline of libertarianism.

If you work for social change WITHOUT the mindless force of the govt --- than there's no mandate required. Just a lawful confirmation after the fact. My point was not that I like mandates and snapping of the fingers and National Guards at schools. It was that it's better to work for hearts and minds and social parity FIRST -- so that minimal "force" is required.

I think your point as a Libertarian is that the 1964 civil rights act was unnecessary, minorities should have just waited for state governments to grow a heart. Would that have taken 10, 20, 30 years?

Mind you, this is core as to why the Libertarian party will never be a national force, Americans disagree with you.

Um, no…

There are state governments today which have no heart, it could be another 50 years before they do.

This also raises an important point: that a civil right delayed is a civil right denied; indeed, to tell Americans they must ‘wait’ for their civil rights, or that they must attempt to secure through the political process that which is already theirs as a consequence of our rights being inalienable, is just as repugnant to the Constitution as seeking to deny citizens their rights through force of law.

Libertarian opposition to the CRA and other such necessary, proper, and Constitutional legislation is further evidence of the clueless naiveté that is the hallmark of their dogma.

And to be fair to libertarians, conservatives are just as wrong and ridiculous to believe that citizens must attempt to secure their inalienable rights through the political process, and if unable to realize their rights through the political process, simply ‘do without.’

It's 2016 there is no difference between ineffectual libertarianism and conservatism.

You speak in Orwellian double talk , so let me translate

It's 2016 there is no difference between ineffectual liberalism and conservatism.

 

[HappyJoy]

Awesome. You are a libertarian who thinks government mandating that private business have to serve certain segments (all really) of our population. I'm glad you as a libertarian agrees with that.

Secondly, I don't consider Rand Paul a libertarian, he's more of a joke that competes for the punchline of libertarianism.

If you work for social change WITHOUT the mindless force of the govt --- than there's no mandate required. Just a lawful confirmation after the fact. My point was not that I like mandates and snapping of the fingers and National Guards at schools. It was that it's better to work for hearts and minds and social parity FIRST -- so that minimal "force" is required.

I think your point as a Libertarian is that the 1964 civil rights act was unnecessary, minorities should have just waited for state governments to grow a heart. Would that have taken 10, 20, 30 years?

Mind you, this is core as to why the Libertarian party will never be a national force, Americans disagree with you.

Um, no…

There are state governments today which have no heart, it could be another 50 years before they do.

This also raises an important point: that a civil right delayed is a civil right denied; indeed, to tell Americans they must ‘wait’ for their civil rights, or that they must attempt to secure through the political process that which is already theirs as a consequence of our rights being inalienable, is just as repugnant to the Constitution as seeking to deny citizens their rights through force of law.

Libertarian opposition to the CRA and other such necessary, proper, and Constitutional legislation is further evidence of the clueless naiveté that is the hallmark of their dogma.

And to be fair to libertarians, conservatives are just as wrong and ridiculous to believe that citizens must attempt to secure their inalienable rights through the political process, and if unable to realize their rights through the political process, simply ‘do without.’

It's 2016 there is no difference between ineffectual libertarianism and conservatism.

That's your personal opinion not BOLSTERED by fact. Worthless actually..

What is the fact? What have libertarians ever done for civil rights? I mean other than leaving to to private business to decide what our civil rights are through some perverse idea that money rules our morality? Please, I beg you, demonstrate something about libertarians where they actually see inequality and have a plan to combat it other than "well, a company will fold if they do anything inn appropriate" I don't think even John Galt himself would buy that shit.

 

[HappyJoy]

Awesome. You are a libertarian who thinks government mandating that private business have to serve certain segments (all really) of our population. I'm glad you as a libertarian agrees with that.

Secondly, I don't consider Rand Paul a libertarian, he's more of a joke that competes for the punchline of libertarianism.

If you work for social change WITHOUT the mindless force of the govt --- than there's no mandate required. Just a lawful confirmation after the fact. My point was not that I like mandates and snapping of the fingers and National Guards at schools. It was that it's better to work for hearts and minds and social parity FIRST -- so that minimal "force" is required.

I think your point as a Libertarian is that the 1964 civil rights act was unnecessary, minorities should have just waited for state governments to grow a heart. Would that have taken 10, 20, 30 years?

Mind you, this is core as to why the Libertarian party will never be a national force, Americans disagree with you.

Actually no -- we would have stated a POSITION 30 years PRIOR to the confrontation and reach the goal before it happened. Like we did with school choice, or MSavingsAccts, or marijuana, or Mid-East policy -- we were right on those things 30 years ahead of the curve. Politicians don't HAVE a long term plan or philosophy. They think in 4 or 8 year timeframes or ONLY THINK in terms of getting re-elected.

School choice and marijuana? Where were you when citizens rights were actually being infringed upon in the 60s? You were either playing along with the status quo pretending the civil rights act was an affront to a civilized society and letting racists hide behind your skirts (thankfully there wasn't much skirt for them to hide behind) or just flat out racist. We had a dire situation happening and the only thing I can find out about Libertarians is that the fucking markets will figure it out. Libertarians never had a solution, their solution was the status quo at the time, live and let live.

Then, in 2016 you have the balls to point out that some gays (I'd bet very few) are libertarians. Ignoring the fact that without liberalism they would have no rights to marry, live where they want to or keep their jobs. Where the fuck were you guys? Liberals have accomplished so much while Libertarians are still trying to convince the nation that they aren't a college cult designed to fuck with Republican parents.

Libertarians have accomplished nothing for this country, not a fucking thing.

You are 1000% correct .


You can NOT blame us for the gargantuan bankrupt welfare/warfare police state.


.

You'd have to garner support and actually be in charge of something before you can earn anyone's blame. Might convenient of you.

 

[HappyJoy]

Awesome. You are a libertarian who thinks government mandating that private business have to serve certain segments (all really) of our population. I'm glad you as a libertarian agrees with that.

Secondly, I don't consider Rand Paul a libertarian, he's more of a joke that competes for the punchline of libertarianism.

If you work for social change WITHOUT the mindless force of the govt --- than there's no mandate required. Just a lawful confirmation after the fact. My point was not that I like mandates and snapping of the fingers and National Guards at schools. It was that it's better to work for hearts and minds and social parity FIRST -- so that minimal "force" is required.

I think your point as a Libertarian is that the 1964 civil rights act was unnecessary, minorities should have just waited for state governments to grow a heart. Would that have taken 10, 20, 30 years?

Mind you, this is core as to why the Libertarian party will never be a national force, Americans disagree with you.

Um, no…

There are state governments today which have no heart, it could be another 50 years before they do.

This also raises an important point: that a civil right delayed is a civil right denied; indeed, to tell Americans they must ‘wait’ for their civil rights, or that they must attempt to secure through the political process that which is already theirs as a consequence of our rights being inalienable, is just as repugnant to the Constitution as seeking to deny citizens their rights through force of law.

Libertarian opposition to the CRA and other such necessary, proper, and Constitutional legislation is further evidence of the clueless naiveté that is the hallmark of their dogma.

And to be fair to libertarians, conservatives are just as wrong and ridiculous to believe that citizens must attempt to secure their inalienable rights through the political process, and if unable to realize their rights through the political process, simply ‘do without.’

It's 2016 there is no difference between ineffectual libertarianism and conservatism.

You speak in Orwellian double talk , so let me translate

It's 2016 there is no difference between ineffectual liberalism and conservatism.

Please go into detail about my 'Orwellian double talk'. Sounds serious.

 

[flacaltenn]

Libertarianism where they ignore the link between economics and social politics.

'I'm not a racist but why is it the governments responsibility to defend those people at the Woolworth's lunch counter, let the markets tell us what to do."

That isn't appeasing to the far right or normal Americans.

The thread wasn't intended to open the entire can of worms at once. Instead, over time, I wanted to address SPECIFIC misconceptions that have propagated without clarifications. But what the heck --

First -- RAND Paul is not a Libertarian. He is greatly influenced by small "l" libertarian ideas. But has never flirted with the Party or claimed so...

Furthermore -- had the Lib party existed at that time, I doubt they would have strongly stood in the way of the Civil Rights act because there is a general recognition that LIBERTY applies to all and is not OBSESSED with divisions by class or otherwise. HOWEVER -- many or most MIGHT have preferred a true SOCIAL approach to the problem rather than using FORCE to get compliance. In other words -- they would have worked to get those integration effects by changing hearts and minds. Maybe marched in Selma -- boycotted establishments, promoted racial parity in jobs and such.

Libertarians might have suggested alternatives to the use of military and police to integrate the schools for instance. Because minimum amounts of force and coercion is important to us. A lot of violence surrounding that era -- including the hell that the "freedom riders" went thru -- is a result of OVER utilization of govt force too fast and in too great an amount. Patience might have gotten a more thorough and lasting solution. When the groundwork was prepared -- no one would object to placing it into law.

TODAY -- The Libertarian party is CLEAR about support for gay parity and issues. In a similar way -- we fully support changing the situation thru the legal system without a major campaign involving brute govt edict and force.

Awesome. You are a libertarian who thinks government mandating that private business have to serve certain segments (all really) of our population. I'm glad you as a libertarian agrees with that.

Secondly, I don't consider Rand Paul a libertarian, he's more of a joke that competes for the punchline of libertarianism.

If you work for social change WITHOUT the mindless force of the govt --- than there's no mandate required. Just a lawful confirmation after the fact. My point was not that I like mandates and snapping of the fingers and National Guards at schools. It was that it's better to work for hearts and minds and social parity FIRST -- so that minimal "force" is required.

I think your point as a Libertarian is that the 1964 civil rights act was unnecessary, minorities should have just waited for state governments to grow a heart. Would that have taken 10, 20, 30 years?

Mind you, this is core as to why the Libertarian party will never be a national force, Americans disagree with you.

Um, no…

There are state governments today which have no heart, it could be another 50 years before they do.

This also raises an important point: that a civil right delayed is a civil right denied; indeed, to tell Americans they must ‘wait’ for their civil rights, or that they must attempt to secure through the political process that which is already theirs as a consequence of our rights being inalienable, is just as repugnant to the Constitution as seeking to deny citizens their rights through force of law.

Libertarian opposition to the CRA and other such necessary, proper, and Constitutional legislation is further evidence of the clueless naiveté that is the hallmark of their dogma.

And to be fair to libertarians, conservatives are just as wrong and ridiculous to believe that citizens must attempt to secure their inalienable rights through the political process, and if unable to realize their rights through the political process, simply ‘do without.’

Actually lawman -- history proves you wrong. Since the CRA EVOLVED into a very obnoxious, obstructive entity once the bureaucracy got it;s minions of morons involved. All the "quota interpretations" and the mis-steps in school integration led to ANOTHER 30 years of turmoil resulting in Supreme Ct. moderation and ANOTHER effort in 1990 to REVIVE the generally too broad scope of the act that faded into the background..

That's what I meant about using minimal force of implementation. PROVEN over time to be the less wreckless way of obtaining compliance and changing social issues.

 

[HappyJoy]

The thread wasn't intended to open the entire can of worms at once. Instead, over time, I wanted to address SPECIFIC misconceptions that have propagated without clarifications. But what the heck --

First -- RAND Paul is not a Libertarian. He is greatly influenced by small "l" libertarian ideas. But has never flirted with the Party or claimed so...

Furthermore -- had the Lib party existed at that time, I doubt they would have strongly stood in the way of the Civil Rights act because there is a general recognition that LIBERTY applies to all and is not OBSESSED with divisions by class or otherwise. HOWEVER -- many or most MIGHT have preferred a true SOCIAL approach to the problem rather than using FORCE to get compliance. In other words -- they would have worked to get those integration effects by changing hearts and minds. Maybe marched in Selma -- boycotted establishments, promoted racial parity in jobs and such.

Libertarians might have suggested alternatives to the use of military and police to integrate the schools for instance. Because minimum amounts of force and coercion is important to us. A lot of violence surrounding that era -- including the hell that the "freedom riders" went thru -- is a result of OVER utilization of govt force too fast and in too great an amount. Patience might have gotten a more thorough and lasting solution. When the groundwork was prepared -- no one would object to placing it into law.

TODAY -- The Libertarian party is CLEAR about support for gay parity and issues. In a similar way -- we fully support changing the situation thru the legal system without a major campaign involving brute govt edict and force.

Awesome. You are a libertarian who thinks government mandating that private business have to serve certain segments (all really) of our population. I'm glad you as a libertarian agrees with that.

Secondly, I don't consider Rand Paul a libertarian, he's more of a joke that competes for the punchline of libertarianism.

If you work for social change WITHOUT the mindless force of the govt --- than there's no mandate required. Just a lawful confirmation after the fact. My point was not that I like mandates and snapping of the fingers and National Guards at schools. It was that it's better to work for hearts and minds and social parity FIRST -- so that minimal "force" is required.

I think your point as a Libertarian is that the 1964 civil rights act was unnecessary, minorities should have just waited for state governments to grow a heart. Would that have taken 10, 20, 30 years?

Mind you, this is core as to why the Libertarian party will never be a national force, Americans disagree with you.

Um, no…

There are state governments today which have no heart, it could be another 50 years before they do.

This also raises an important point: that a civil right delayed is a civil right denied; indeed, to tell Americans they must ‘wait’ for their civil rights, or that they must attempt to secure through the political process that which is already theirs as a consequence of our rights being inalienable, is just as repugnant to the Constitution as seeking to deny citizens their rights through force of law.

Libertarian opposition to the CRA and other such necessary, proper, and Constitutional legislation is further evidence of the clueless naiveté that is the hallmark of their dogma.

And to be fair to libertarians, conservatives are just as wrong and ridiculous to believe that citizens must attempt to secure their inalienable rights through the political process, and if unable to realize their rights through the political process, simply ‘do without.’

Actually lawman -- history proves you wrong. Since the CRA EVOLVED into a very obnoxious, obstructive entity once the bureaucracy got it;s minions of morons involved. All the "quota interpretations" and the mis-steps in school integration led to ANOTHER 30 years of turmoil resulting in Supreme Ct. moderation and ANOTHER effort in 1990 to REVIVE the generally too broad scope of the act that faded into the background..

That's what I meant about using minimal force of implementation. PROVEN over time to be the less wreckless way of obtaining compliance and changing social issues.

I see so your example of civil rights not working is civil rights working through the legal system. Liberals pushed the issue of civil rights and today it's illegal to discriminate based on race, sex and other variables. Libertarians such as you choose to ignore this fact and pretend the involvement of the legal system somehow cancels out civil rights achievements.

I'm still waiting to see what impact libertarians had on civil rights other than Barry Goldwater's ignorance on the subject still being the poster child of libertarianism college prank ignorance.

What does it matter though? Half you retards are going to vote for a guy who promotes suing the free press and throwing political enemies into jail.

 

[Contumacious]

Libertarianism where they ignore the link between economics and social politics.

'I'm not a racist but why is it the governments responsibility to defend those people at the Woolworth's lunch counter, let the markets tell us what to do."

That isn't appeasing to the far right or normal Americans.

The thread wasn't intended to open the entire can of worms at once. Instead, over time, I wanted to address SPECIFIC misconceptions that have propagated without clarifications. But what the heck --

First -- RAND Paul is not a Libertarian. He is greatly influenced by small "l" libertarian ideas. But has never flirted with the Party or claimed so...

Furthermore -- had the Lib party existed at that time, I doubt they would have strongly stood in the way of the Civil Rights act because there is a general recognition that LIBERTY applies to all and is not OBSESSED with divisions by class or otherwise. HOWEVER -- many or most MIGHT have preferred a true SOCIAL approach to the problem rather than using FORCE to get compliance. In other words -- they would have worked to get those integration effects by changing hearts and minds. Maybe marched in Selma -- boycotted establishments, promoted racial parity in jobs and such.

Libertarians might have suggested alternatives to the use of military and police to integrate the schools for instance. Because minimum amounts of force and coercion is important to us. A lot of violence surrounding that era -- including the hell that the "freedom riders" went thru -- is a result of OVER utilization of govt force too fast and in too great an amount. Patience might have gotten a more thorough and lasting solution. When the groundwork was prepared -- no one would object to placing it into law.

TODAY -- The Libertarian party is CLEAR about support for gay parity and issues. In a similar way -- we fully support changing the situation thru the legal system without a major campaign involving brute govt edict and force.

Awesome. You are a libertarian who thinks government mandating that private business have to serve certain segments (all really) of our population. I'm glad you as a libertarian agrees with that.

Secondly, I don't consider Rand Paul a libertarian, he's more of a joke that competes for the punchline of libertarianism.

If you work for social change WITHOUT the mindless force of the govt --- than there's no mandate required. Just a lawful confirmation after the fact. My point was not that I like mandates and snapping of the fingers and National Guards at schools. It was that it's better to work for hearts and minds and social parity FIRST -- so that minimal "force" is required.

I think your point as a Libertarian is that the 1964 civil rights act was unnecessary, minorities should have just waited for state governments to grow a heart. Would that have taken 10, 20, 30 years?

Mind you, this is core as to why the Libertarian party will never be a national force, Americans disagree with you.

Um, no…

There are state governments today which have no heart, it could be another 50 years before they do.

This also raises an important point: that a civil right delayed is a civil right denied; indeed, to tell Americans they must ‘wait’ for their civil rights, or that they must attempt to secure through the political process that which is already theirs as a consequence of our rights being inalienable, is just as repugnant to the Constitution as seeking to deny citizens their rights through force of law.

Libertarian opposition to the CRA and other such necessary, proper, and Constitutional legislation is further evidence of the clueless naiveté that is the hallmark of their dogma.

And to be fair to libertarians, conservatives are just as wrong and ridiculous to believe that citizens must attempt to secure their inalienable rights through the political process, and if unable to realize their rights through the political process, simply ‘do without.’

That problem is/was NOT the Constitution.

Read Bennett Patterson's 1995 book, The Forgotten Ninth Amendment,.

The problem is the low life motherfuckers who have populated SCOTUS beginning with Roger B Taney.

 

[flacaltenn]

The thread wasn't intended to open the entire can of worms at once. Instead, over time, I wanted to address SPECIFIC misconceptions that have propagated without clarifications. But what the heck --

First -- RAND Paul is not a Libertarian. He is greatly influenced by small "l" libertarian ideas. But has never flirted with the Party or claimed so...

Furthermore -- had the Lib party existed at that time, I doubt they would have strongly stood in the way of the Civil Rights act because there is a general recognition that LIBERTY applies to all and is not OBSESSED with divisions by class or otherwise. HOWEVER -- many or most MIGHT have preferred a true SOCIAL approach to the problem rather than using FORCE to get compliance. In other words -- they would have worked to get those integration effects by changing hearts and minds. Maybe marched in Selma -- boycotted establishments, promoted racial parity in jobs and such.

Libertarians might have suggested alternatives to the use of military and police to integrate the schools for instance. Because minimum amounts of force and coercion is important to us. A lot of violence surrounding that era -- including the hell that the "freedom riders" went thru -- is a result of OVER utilization of govt force too fast and in too great an amount. Patience might have gotten a more thorough and lasting solution. When the groundwork was prepared -- no one would object to placing it into law.

TODAY -- The Libertarian party is CLEAR about support for gay parity and issues. In a similar way -- we fully support changing the situation thru the legal system without a major campaign involving brute govt edict and force.

Awesome. You are a libertarian who thinks government mandating that private business have to serve certain segments (all really) of our population. I'm glad you as a libertarian agrees with that.

Secondly, I don't consider Rand Paul a libertarian, he's more of a joke that competes for the punchline of libertarianism.

If you work for social change WITHOUT the mindless force of the govt --- than there's no mandate required. Just a lawful confirmation after the fact. My point was not that I like mandates and snapping of the fingers and National Guards at schools. It was that it's better to work for hearts and minds and social parity FIRST -- so that minimal "force" is required.

I think your point as a Libertarian is that the 1964 civil rights act was unnecessary, minorities should have just waited for state governments to grow a heart. Would that have taken 10, 20, 30 years?

Mind you, this is core as to why the Libertarian party will never be a national force, Americans disagree with you.

Actually no -- we would have stated a POSITION 30 years PRIOR to the confrontation and reach the goal before it happened. Like we did with school choice, or MSavingsAccts, or marijuana, or Mid-East policy -- we were right on those things 30 years ahead of the curve. Politicians don't HAVE a long term plan or philosophy. They think in 4 or 8 year timeframes or ONLY THINK in terms of getting re-elected.

Then, in 2016 you have the balls to point out that some gays (I'd bet very few) are libertarians. Ignoring the fact that without liberalism they would have no rights to marry, live where they want to or keep their jobs. Where the fuck were you guys? Liberals have accomplished so much while Libertarians are still trying to convince the nation that they aren't a college cult designed to fuck with Republican parents.

Libertarians have accomplished nothing for this country, not a fucking thing.

You really don't shit,, but are full of wild accusations. Look up John Hospers.. As it applies to Libertarian Party LGBT support.

Then apologize for being a total ass.. And we can continue...

 

[HappyJoy]

The thread wasn't intended to open the entire can of worms at once. Instead, over time, I wanted to address SPECIFIC misconceptions that have propagated without clarifications. But what the heck --

First -- RAND Paul is not a Libertarian. He is greatly influenced by small "l" libertarian ideas. But has never flirted with the Party or claimed so...

Furthermore -- had the Lib party existed at that time, I doubt they would have strongly stood in the way of the Civil Rights act because there is a general recognition that LIBERTY applies to all and is not OBSESSED with divisions by class or otherwise. HOWEVER -- many or most MIGHT have preferred a true SOCIAL approach to the problem rather than using FORCE to get compliance. In other words -- they would have worked to get those integration effects by changing hearts and minds. Maybe marched in Selma -- boycotted establishments, promoted racial parity in jobs and such.

Libertarians might have suggested alternatives to the use of military and police to integrate the schools for instance. Because minimum amounts of force and coercion is important to us. A lot of violence surrounding that era -- including the hell that the "freedom riders" went thru -- is a result of OVER utilization of govt force too fast and in too great an amount. Patience might have gotten a more thorough and lasting solution. When the groundwork was prepared -- no one would object to placing it into law.

TODAY -- The Libertarian party is CLEAR about support for gay parity and issues. In a similar way -- we fully support changing the situation thru the legal system without a major campaign involving brute govt edict and force.

Awesome. You are a libertarian who thinks government mandating that private business have to serve certain segments (all really) of our population. I'm glad you as a libertarian agrees with that.

Secondly, I don't consider Rand Paul a libertarian, he's more of a joke that competes for the punchline of libertarianism.

If you work for social change WITHOUT the mindless force of the govt --- than there's no mandate required. Just a lawful confirmation after the fact. My point was not that I like mandates and snapping of the fingers and National Guards at schools. It was that it's better to work for hearts and minds and social parity FIRST -- so that minimal "force" is required.

I think your point as a Libertarian is that the 1964 civil rights act was unnecessary, minorities should have just waited for state governments to grow a heart. Would that have taken 10, 20, 30 years?

Mind you, this is core as to why the Libertarian party will never be a national force, Americans disagree with you.

Um, no…

There are state governments today which have no heart, it could be another 50 years before they do.

This also raises an important point: that a civil right delayed is a civil right denied; indeed, to tell Americans they must ‘wait’ for their civil rights, or that they must attempt to secure through the political process that which is already theirs as a consequence of our rights being inalienable, is just as repugnant to the Constitution as seeking to deny citizens their rights through force of law.

Libertarian opposition to the CRA and other such necessary, proper, and Constitutional legislation is further evidence of the clueless naiveté that is the hallmark of their dogma.

And to be fair to libertarians, conservatives are just as wrong and ridiculous to believe that citizens must attempt to secure their inalienable rights through the political process, and if unable to realize their rights through the political process, simply ‘do without.’

That problem is/was NOT the Constitution.

Read Bennett Patterson's 1995 book, The Forgotten Ninth Amendment,.

The problem is the low life motherfuckers who have populated SCOTUS beginning with Roger B Taney.

I'm not reading an entire book to understand your personal fetishist and unpopular views on government.

 

[Contumacious]

If you work for social change WITHOUT the mindless force of the govt --- than there's no mandate required. Just a lawful confirmation after the fact. My point was not that I like mandates and snapping of the fingers and National Guards at schools. It was that it's better to work for hearts and minds and social parity FIRST -- so that minimal "force" is required.

I think your point as a Libertarian is that the 1964 civil rights act was unnecessary, minorities should have just waited for state governments to grow a heart. Would that have taken 10, 20, 30 years?

Mind you, this is core as to why the Libertarian party will never be a national force, Americans disagree with you.

Um, no…

There are state governments today which have no heart, it could be another 50 years before they do.

This also raises an important point: that a civil right delayed is a civil right denied; indeed, to tell Americans they must ‘wait’ for their civil rights, or that they must attempt to secure through the political process that which is already theirs as a consequence of our rights being inalienable, is just as repugnant to the Constitution as seeking to deny citizens their rights through force of law.

Libertarian opposition to the CRA and other such necessary, proper, and Constitutional legislation is further evidence of the clueless naiveté that is the hallmark of their dogma.

And to be fair to libertarians, conservatives are just as wrong and ridiculous to believe that citizens must attempt to secure their inalienable rights through the political process, and if unable to realize their rights through the political process, simply ‘do without.’

It's 2016 there is no difference between ineffectual libertarianism and conservatism.

That's your personal opinion not BOLSTERED by fact. Worthless actually..

What is the fact? What have libertarians ever done for civil rights? I mean other than leaving to to private business to decide what our civil rights are through some perverse idea that money rules our morality? Please, I beg you, demonstrate something about libertarians where they actually see inequality and have a plan to combat it other than "well, a company will fold if they do anything inn appropriate" I don't think even John Galt himself would buy that shit.

Yo Vern, what are civil rights?

How do we force a PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL to recognize the same without destroying the concept of private property?


.

 

[Contumacious]

Awesome. You are a libertarian who thinks government mandating that private business have to serve certain segments (all really) of our population. I'm glad you as a libertarian agrees with that.

Secondly, I don't consider Rand Paul a libertarian, he's more of a joke that competes for the punchline of libertarianism.

If you work for social change WITHOUT the mindless force of the govt --- than there's no mandate required. Just a lawful confirmation after the fact. My point was not that I like mandates and snapping of the fingers and National Guards at schools. It was that it's better to work for hearts and minds and social parity FIRST -- so that minimal "force" is required.

I think your point as a Libertarian is that the 1964 civil rights act was unnecessary, minorities should have just waited for state governments to grow a heart. Would that have taken 10, 20, 30 years?

Mind you, this is core as to why the Libertarian party will never be a national force, Americans disagree with you.

Um, no…

There are state governments today which have no heart, it could be another 50 years before they do.

This also raises an important point: that a civil right delayed is a civil right denied; indeed, to tell Americans they must ‘wait’ for their civil rights, or that they must attempt to secure through the political process that which is already theirs as a consequence of our rights being inalienable, is just as repugnant to the Constitution as seeking to deny citizens their rights through force of law.

Libertarian opposition to the CRA and other such necessary, proper, and Constitutional legislation is further evidence of the clueless naiveté that is the hallmark of their dogma.

And to be fair to libertarians, conservatives are just as wrong and ridiculous to believe that citizens must attempt to secure their inalienable rights through the political process, and if unable to realize their rights through the political process, simply ‘do without.’

That problem is/was NOT the Constitution.

Read Bennett Patterson's 1995 book, The Forgotten Ninth Amendment,.

The problem is the low life motherfuckers who have populated SCOTUS beginning with Roger B Taney.

I'm not reading an entire book to understand your personal fetishist and unpopular views on government.

Interesting


How is it that you know the Communist Manifesto inside out.?

 

[HappyJoy]

Awesome. You are a libertarian who thinks government mandating that private business have to serve certain segments (all really) of our population. I'm glad you as a libertarian agrees with that.

Secondly, I don't consider Rand Paul a libertarian, he's more of a joke that competes for the punchline of libertarianism.

If you work for social change WITHOUT the mindless force of the govt --- than there's no mandate required. Just a lawful confirmation after the fact. My point was not that I like mandates and snapping of the fingers and National Guards at schools. It was that it's better to work for hearts and minds and social parity FIRST -- so that minimal "force" is required.

I think your point as a Libertarian is that the 1964 civil rights act was unnecessary, minorities should have just waited for state governments to grow a heart. Would that have taken 10, 20, 30 years?

Mind you, this is core as to why the Libertarian party will never be a national force, Americans disagree with you.

Actually no -- we would have stated a POSITION 30 years PRIOR to the confrontation and reach the goal before it happened. Like we did with school choice, or MSavingsAccts, or marijuana, or Mid-East policy -- we were right on those things 30 years ahead of the curve. Politicians don't HAVE a long term plan or philosophy. They think in 4 or 8 year timeframes or ONLY THINK in terms of getting re-elected.

Then, in 2016 you have the balls to point out that some gays (I'd bet very few) are libertarians. Ignoring the fact that without liberalism they would have no rights to marry, live where they want to or keep their jobs. Where the fuck were you guys? Liberals have accomplished so much while Libertarians are still trying to convince the nation that they aren't a college cult designed to fuck with Republican parents.

Libertarians have accomplished nothing for this country, not a fucking thing.

You really don't shit,, but are full of wild accusations. Look up John Hospers.. As it applies to LGBT support.

Then apologize for being a total ass.. And we can continue...

You could just demonstrate what I have wrong. So far you haven't.

Instead you throw out a name, why do I care? Either prove your point or don't, it's not my responsibility.