The question libertarians just can’t answer

[LoneLaugher]

Attention nutters!

Liberals did not like the Patriot Act when it was passed and we do not like it now.
You think that we are supporting it because we are not screaming for Obama's impeachment over it. Wrong.

The law was, after all, passed by our Congress and signed into law by our President. It is how shit works. it is a very LIBERAL system. We did all we could to get more liberals elected who would repeal it. We will keep trying for you. Now that you are suddenly against it, that is.

 

[kaz]

Seat belts anyone?

Another libertarian failure

Please show how seat belt laws are applied on private property?

Before you strain your brain, I'll answer the question.

They are not.

Seat belt laws are only applied on roads that are build in common with others.

Ask Jeff Gordon or any Farmer you know if they were ever ticketed for not wearing a seat belt on PRIVATE PROPERTY.

You are welcome to try again

Never said they were Pops

Yet Libertarians whined about seat belt laws infringing on their LIBERTY

I bow to your wisdom on this as whining is your area of expertise. I've actually hardly ever heard that come up from libertarians in political conversations. Interesting you ignore the incessant whining of your liberal friends and clutch to this like a kid who found a quarter.

Actually, most libertarians recognize that as we've ceded the power to government to create roads, and with that comes regulating road usage. I have no interest in a 10 year old being allowed to drive. Or someone who drives drunk. Those are direct threats to my liberty. Now if government requires me to wear a seat belt on my own property, that would be an abuse of power.

Now there are extreme libertarians, really anarchists, who oppose government roads entirely. I have a hard time taking anything they say seriously. However, libertarians opposing seat belts while being OK with roads is something I haven't personally come across. Can you provide a link?

 

[LoneLaugher]

1) They're Ponzi schemes that would be illegal to operate in the private sector.

2) It's not the business of the feds to be running insurance Ponzi schemes or any other redistributionist social welfare programs.

3) The premise that people are incapable of taking care of themselves.

4) The premise that if people didn't look after their own retirement and medical care later in life, that they would just be thrown into the streets.

5) They've become little more than big political slush funds and polarizing points of argumentation for petty demagogues.

Those are just off the top of my head.

Rather than address you list of total propaganda and lies, answer one question as a 'libertarian' who is ALL about LIBERTY. How would ending Social Security and Medicare make the lives of senior citizens better? How would it increase THEIR liberty and freedom?

When government confiscates money from one person by force and gives it to another, we need to explain to you why the person getting the confiscated money is better off if the government stops giving them confiscated money. And you think you're libertarian and we're not. Got it. That's funny. As I said, drugs my friend, just say yes...

As to the answer to your question, no man is free unless all men are free. As long as government confiscates money and gives it to other people by force, sure, the people getting money they didn't earn like it. Wow, very clever of you to notice that. However, we are all under the threat that government has that power whether we happen to be on the losing or winning end. But why am I explaining this to you? You're the libertarian...

Holy shit! You are required to pay taxes if you want to be an American and enjoy the freedoms, conveniences and opportunities that it affords you, dude. Quit your fucking whining.

 

[kaz]

Attention nutters!

Liberals did not like the Patriot Act when it was passed and we do not like it now

From the Kazmanian dictionary.

Liberal: Someone who can vote for something (Patriot act, Iraq war, ...) while still being against it. Liberals are not to be taken seriously by a critical mind. You might want to give them a cookie and a hug as they cry a lot.

 

[Pop23]

Seat belts anyone?

Another libertarian failure

Please show how seat belt laws are applied on private property?

Before you strain your brain, I'll answer the question.

They are not.

Seat belt laws are only applied on roads that are build in common with others.

Ask Jeff Gordon or any Farmer you know if they were ever ticketed for not wearing a seat belt on PRIVATE PROPERTY.

You are welcome to try again

Never said they were Pops

Yet Libertarians whined about seat belt laws infringing on their LIBERTY

There are radical liberatarians as well as radical rightists and radical leftists

On the subject of Property rights, I think the liberatarians are correct

 

[Oddball]

1) They're Ponzi schemes that would be illegal to operate in the private sector.

2) It's not the business of the feds to be running insurance Ponzi schemes or any other redistributionist social welfare programs.

3) The premise that people are incapable of taking care of themselves.

4) The premise that if people didn't look after their own retirement and medical care later in life, that they would just be thrown into the streets.

5) They've become little more than big political slush funds and polarizing points of argumentation for petty demagogues.

Those are just off the top of my head.

Rather than address you list of total propaganda and lies, answer one question as a 'libertarian' who is ALL about LIBERTY. How would ending Social Security and Medicare make the lives of senior citizens better? How would it increase THEIR liberty and freedom?

When government confiscates money from one person by force and gives it to another, we need to explain to you why the person getting the confiscated money is better off if the government stops giving them confiscated money. And you think you're libertarian and we're not. Got it. That's funny. As I said, drugs my friend, just say yes...

As to the answer to your question, no man is free unless all men are free. As long as government confiscates money and gives it to other people by force, sure, the people getting money they didn't earn like it. Wow, very clever of you to notice that. However, we are all under the threat that government has that power whether we happen to be on the losing or winning end. But why am I explaining this to you? You're the libertarian...

If it's one thing the do-gooder authoritarian central planner loves above all, it's visible beneficiaries and invisible casualties.

 

[kaz]

Rather than address you list of total propaganda and lies, answer one question as a 'libertarian' who is ALL about LIBERTY. How would ending Social Security and Medicare make the lives of senior citizens better? How would it increase THEIR liberty and freedom?

When government confiscates money from one person by force and gives it to another, we need to explain to you why the person getting the confiscated money is better off if the government stops giving them confiscated money. And you think you're libertarian and we're not. Got it. That's funny. As I said, drugs my friend, just say yes...

As to the answer to your question, no man is free unless all men are free. As long as government confiscates money and gives it to other people by force, sure, the people getting money they didn't earn like it. Wow, very clever of you to notice that. However, we are all under the threat that government has that power whether we happen to be on the losing or winning end. But why am I explaining this to you? You're the libertarian...

Holy shit! You are required to pay taxes if you want to be an American and enjoy the freedoms, conveniences and opportunities that it affords you, dude. Quit your fucking whining.

Actually I was responding to his post. You know, the one I quoted. Pull your dress down little girl, your lady parts are showing.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Attention nutters!

Liberals did not like the Patriot Act when it was passed and we do not like it now

From the Kazmanian dictionary.

Liberal: Someone who can vote for something (Patriot act, Iraq war, ...) while still being against it. Liberals are not to be taken seriously by a critical mind. You might want to give them a cookie and a hug as they cry a lot.

You obviously think there are lots of Democrats in Congress who are liberal. Funny

 

[Oddball]

Rather than address you list of total propaganda and lies, answer one question as a 'libertarian' who is ALL about LIBERTY. How would ending Social Security and Medicare make the lives of senior citizens better? How would it increase THEIR liberty and freedom?

When government confiscates money from one person by force and gives it to another, we need to explain to you why the person getting the confiscated money is better off if the government stops giving them confiscated money. And you think you're libertarian and we're not. Got it. That's funny. As I said, drugs my friend, just say yes...

As to the answer to your question, no man is free unless all men are free. As long as government confiscates money and gives it to other people by force, sure, the people getting money they didn't earn like it. Wow, very clever of you to notice that. However, we are all under the threat that government has that power whether we happen to be on the losing or winning end. But why am I explaining this to you? You're the libertarian...

Holy shit! You are required to pay taxes if you want to be an American and enjoy the freedoms, conveniences and opportunities that it affords you, dude. Quit your fucking whining.

Oh, so having over 15% of the national income confiscated for politicians to buy votes and otherwise squander is freedom, convenience and opportunity.

Gotcha.

 

[kaz]

There are radical liberatarians as well as radical rightists and radical leftists

On the subject of Property rights, I think the liberatarians are correct

There is actually only one kind of liberal. They have the same position on every issue. Note that for Obamacare, it was the "blue dog" so called conservatives who in the end voted for it and went down in droves in the ensuing election for it because they tended to live in moderate to conservative States. A blue dog turned out to be a hack far left liberal who wanted to "sound" more conservative than other liberals, but not only didn't deliver but took the bullet to get the far left objective.

 

[Pogo]

When government confiscates money from one person by force and gives it to another, we need to explain to you why the person getting the confiscated money is better off if the government stops giving them confiscated money. And you think you're libertarian and we're not. Got it. That's funny. As I said, drugs my friend, just say yes...

As to the answer to your question, no man is free unless all men are free. As long as government confiscates money and gives it to other people by force, sure, the people getting money they didn't earn like it. Wow, very clever of you to notice that. However, we are all under the threat that government has that power whether we happen to be on the losing or winning end. But why am I explaining this to you? You're the libertarian...

Holy shit! You are required to pay taxes if you want to be an American and enjoy the freedoms, conveniences and opportunities that it affords you, dude. Quit your fucking whining.

Oh, so having over 15% of the national income confiscated for politicians to buy votes and otherwise squander is freedom, convenience and opportunity.

Gotcha.

You're awfully concerned about this stuff for a Canadian, doncha think?

 

[Oddball]

WTF?...Wisconsin has been annexed by Canada and I didn't get the memo?

Who knew we even shared a common border?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

When you lose the cancer lady, wheel out the false premise or lie. There is no other choice except to try the cancer lady again.

 

[Bfgrn]

Rather than address you list of total propaganda and lies, answer one question as a 'libertarian' who is ALL about LIBERTY. How would ending Social Security and Medicare make the lives of senior citizens better? How would it increase THEIR liberty and freedom?

When government confiscates money from one person by force and gives it to another, we need to explain to you why the person getting the confiscated money is better off if the government stops giving them confiscated money. And you think you're libertarian and we're not. Got it. That's funny. As I said, drugs my friend, just say yes...

As to the answer to your question, no man is free unless all men are free. As long as government confiscates money and gives it to other people by force, sure, the people getting money they didn't earn like it. Wow, very clever of you to notice that. However, we are all under the threat that government has that power whether we happen to be on the losing or winning end. But why am I explaining this to you? You're the libertarian...

If it's one thing the do-gooder authoritarian central planner loves above all, it's visible beneficiaries and invisible casualties.

Wouldn't or couldn't answer my question eh Jethro?

How would ending Social Security and Medicare make the lives of senior citizens better? How would it increase THEIR liberty and freedom?

 

[LoneLaugher]

When government confiscates money from one person by force and gives it to another, we need to explain to you why the person getting the confiscated money is better off if the government stops giving them confiscated money. And you think you're libertarian and we're not. Got it. That's funny. As I said, drugs my friend, just say yes...

As to the answer to your question, no man is free unless all men are free. As long as government confiscates money and gives it to other people by force, sure, the people getting money they didn't earn like it. Wow, very clever of you to notice that. However, we are all under the threat that government has that power whether we happen to be on the losing or winning end. But why am I explaining this to you? You're the libertarian...

Holy shit! You are required to pay taxes if you want to be an American and enjoy the freedoms, conveniences and opportunities that it affords you, dude. Quit your fucking whining.

Actually I was responding to his post. You know, the one I quoted. Pull your dress down little girl, your lady parts are showing.

Who gives a shit who you were talking to. You are crying about the mean old government taking from you by force!!!

And...that comment about little girls dresses is a bit creepy, don't you think?

 

[kaz]

Holy shit! You are required to pay taxes if you want to be an American and enjoy the freedoms, conveniences and opportunities that it affords you, dude. Quit your fucking whining.

Actually I was responding to his post. You know, the one I quoted. Pull your dress down little girl, your lady parts are showing.

Who gives a shit who you were talking to. You are crying about the mean old government taking from you by force!!!

And...that comment about little girls dresses is a bit creepy, don't you think?

I was answering a question, and rather than reading it and grasping the point you got your panties in a bundle. Grow up. You aren't laughing alone because you're the only one who gets the joke, you're laughing alone because you are the only one who doesn't.

 

[Bfgrn]

Let's start her:

What part of 'the health care regulation' say(s) it harms others if I (you) contract the services of a quack?

Not sure what you mean. I'll rephrase my question. Why should it be illegal for me to contract the services of an unlicensed doctor? If we're agreeing it shouldn't be illegal unless it harms others, then how is it harming others?

Curious if you want to follow up on this?

When you say 'contract the services' it involves commerce, which is a monetary business transaction. Are you claiming there should be no local, state or federal laws that regulate 'contract the services'?

If your aunt comes over and gives you castor oil, mustard packs or some other 'home' remedy it would be different.

You really need to think this through and consider all the ramifications.

 

[Oddball]

When government confiscates money from one person by force and gives it to another, we need to explain to you why the person getting the confiscated money is better off if the government stops giving them confiscated money. And you think you're libertarian and we're not. Got it. That's funny. As I said, drugs my friend, just say yes...

As to the answer to your question, no man is free unless all men are free. As long as government confiscates money and gives it to other people by force, sure, the people getting money they didn't earn like it. Wow, very clever of you to notice that. However, we are all under the threat that government has that power whether we happen to be on the losing or winning end. But why am I explaining this to you? You're the libertarian...

If it's one thing the do-gooder authoritarian central planner loves above all, it's visible beneficiaries and invisible casualties.

Wouldn't or couldn't answer my question eh Jethro?

How would ending Social Security and Medicare make the lives of senior citizens better? How would it increase THEIR liberty and freedom?

Kaz already answered your epically insipid and nonsensical question.

Having trouble following the thread?

 

[Oddball]

Why would you end them in the first place?

1) They're Ponzi schemes that would be illegal to operate in the private sector.

2) It's not the business of the feds to be running insurance Ponzi schemes or any other redistributionist social welfare programs.

3) The premise that people are incapable of taking care of themselves.

4) The premise that if people didn't look after their own retirement and medical care later in life, that they would just be thrown into the streets.

5) They've become little more than big political slush funds and polarizing points of argumentation for petty demagogues.

Those are just off the top of my head.

Rather than address you list of total propaganda and lies....

Harry Browne -y'know the guy you claim to admire so much?- said all those things, and much more, about SS and Medicare/Medicaid.

Now Harry Browne is a propagandist and liar?

Dude, we're going to need a GPS and Indian guide to try and follow your contorted and convoluted story line.

 

[Bfgrn]

How is consumer protection and environmental protection working out? Not as well as it should. WHY? Because corporations, monied interests and their lobbyists have achieved what is called 'regulatory capture'. What is regulatory capture?

Regulatory capture occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating.

And we face trying to stop REALLY ignorant regressive teabaggers that have infested Washington and have created The Most Anti-Environment House In History. House Republican leaders have pushed through an astonishing 191 votes to weaken environmental protections.

In other words, regulation agencies stemming from government are FAILURES. Yet you want to pursue even more of it and defend it as a realistic, efficient and workable concept.

You clearly are way more confused than previous assumed. You sit right there and show the failures of the State and then turn around and tell us that without this failure we'd all be poisoned by Joe the food guy because this failed regulatory agency wasn't there to fail.

The government is the problem in "regulatory capture", not the corp. that lobbied them. If the reg agency didnt exist, and the government wasn't in the business of dishing out favoritism in economic sectors, the only legs these corps would have to stand on is their own merit against competition.

It's clear that you have got your wires not only crossed, but not thoroughly tightened down either.

Such as this. He points to the failure of the state as evidence that we need it. Then just runs away from it completely. He's trying to sound as though he wants people to not be forced into regulation, whether in business or personally (such as a licensed doctor question) and at the same time telling us the State should in fact, intervene and knows better for us.

it's complete confusion on his part.

I am not at all confused. you are. I am not calling for MORE government, I am calling for more EFFECTIVE government. The agencies that are created to 'police' the environment, or the food supply need to work to ensure We, the People's security and safety, not the interests of polluters and swindlers.