Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's notwithstanding your general -and completely nonsensical- attitude that we need to be lorded over because of our lack of honesty objectivity and maturity, yet you seem to exempt those doing the lording from the same lack of honesty objectivity and maturity.As a heart attack!
You have proven my point , in your follow up question thanks,we are not nor are those in DC.
We're not smart enough to do things for ourselves, so we need to let other ... people (you do know government is comprised of people, right?) ... do things for us. Because that is the smart thing to do and we want to be smart. They'd never do anything to abuse that power and clearly looking at government there is no reason to believe they are.
If that's smart, I'll pass on being smart....
OMG, you did that your SELF! Government would have done it for you! Better! What were you thinking!!!! Ooops....
Why has the gov.local on up grown so much over the years?
We move daily away from liberty in so many ways,dependence on others is just one.
Markets are the construct of human action. That is, voluntary exchange of goods and services. Markets are not the construct of any other authority. All authoritarians do, is attempt to control human action by dictating rules through the use of force for compliance.
A free market means just that. People are allowed to enter into exchange with one another without interference or coercion from a thrid party.
Your giant post full of strawmen shows you dont understand this and believe that not only are thrid party interference and coercion good, but necessary.
A VERY, VERY immature view. The theory of a free market can work very well without a 3rd party or rules (what you call authority) under ideal (Utopian) circumstances. How? Where everyone is an equal 'stakeholder'. What does that mean? It means that your stakes serve as the 'authority'.
In voluntary exchange, that is exactly how it works. My ability to enter into exchange or not enter is the authority and the only authority needed. This also translates further regarding who and in what way competition can come to a market. The State makes sure in several sectors that competition is squashed by serving special favors. You obviously dont understand economics at all.
An example... a small community with a self sustaining local economy. Every member of that community is a stakeholder. They all contribute something to the economy and they all rely on others for what they don't produce. So, the blacksmith will not pollute the river, even though it would increase his profits to dump waste in the river instead of properly disposing of it. WHY? Because HE drinks from that river and he doesn't want to be ostracized and blackballed by other 'stakeholders' who he relies on for milk, meat, dry goods etc.
This has nothing to do with regulation. If anything, you just advocated for free markets by saying that the network of producers and consumers is balanced by human nature. And where it isn't one of the two, supply or demand, will make the proper correction. No one person has the omniscience to make that call for everyone. It's absolutely the most IMMATURE and ridiculous claim ever.
What is the malfeasance created by absenteeism?
Irrelevant, Cork.
Joe outsider builds a factory on that river. He doesn't drink from that river and he doesn't relies on 'stakeholders for milk, meat, dry goods etc.
He lives in another state, or another country. He is not a full stakeholder.
And Joe is also committing an act of aggression against the people around him for polluting their waters. In which case they have the right to take action against Joe. Be it direct defense or through marketing his fraudulent practice. Ultimately Joe would be run out of business in todays world of information.
You have no idea about what you speak, Cork. I suggest a lot more reading and a lot less typing and gum flapping from you on this subjkect.
A VERY, VERY immature view. The theory of a free market can work very well without a 3rd party or rules (what you call authority) under ideal (Utopian) circumstances. How? Where everyone is an equal 'stakeholder'. What does that mean? It means that your stakes serve as the 'authority'.
In voluntary exchange, that is exactly how it works. My ability to enter into exchange or not enter is the authority and the only authority needed. This also translates further regarding who and in what way competition can come to a market. The State makes sure in several sectors that competition is squashed by serving special favors. You obviously dont understand economics at all.
An example... a small community with a self sustaining local economy. Every member of that community is a stakeholder. They all contribute something to the economy and they all rely on others for what they don't produce. So, the blacksmith will not pollute the river, even though it would increase his profits to dump waste in the river instead of properly disposing of it. WHY? Because HE drinks from that river and he doesn't want to be ostracized and blackballed by other 'stakeholders' who he relies on for milk, meat, dry goods etc.
This has nothing to do with regulation. If anything, you just advocated for free markets by saying that the network of producers and consumers is balanced by human nature. And where it isn't one of the two, supply or demand, will make the proper correction. No one person has the omniscience to make that call for everyone. It's absolutely the most IMMATURE and ridiculous claim ever.
What is the malfeasance created by absenteeism?
Irrelevant, Cork.
Joe outsider builds a factory on that river. He doesn't drink from that river and he doesn't relies on 'stakeholders for milk, meat, dry goods etc.
He lives in another state, or another country. He is not a full stakeholder.
And Joe is also committing an act of aggression against the people around him for polluting their waters. In which case they have the right to take action against Joe. Be it direct defense or through marketing his fraudulent practice. Ultimately Joe would be run out of business in todays world of information.
You have no idea about what you speak, Cork. I suggest a lot more reading and a lot less typing and gum flapping from you on this subjkect.
Seriously, when someone believes 'supply and demand' is all that's needed to regulate the market, immature needs to be replaced with different words, like stupid, idiotic, moronic, etc.
HOW do you address product safety, how do you protect the food supply? Have manufacturers cross their hearts and hope to die?
The people who we elected to office were put there as per the laws stipulated in the Constitution and they must adhere to those laws while in office
Actually, they exempt themselves from laws while they are in office and those laws are far more often then not Unconstitutional, most frequently by the 10th Amendment. Not sure what you're even thinking here.
That's notwithstanding your general -and completely nonsensical- attitude that we need to be lorded over because of our lack of honesty objectivity and maturity, yet you seem to exempt those doing the lording from the same lack of honesty objectivity and maturity.We're not smart enough to do things for ourselves, so we need to let other ... people (you do know government is comprised of people, right?) ... do things for us. Because that is the smart thing to do and we want to be smart. They'd never do anything to abuse that power and clearly looking at government there is no reason to believe they are.
If that's smart, I'll pass on being smart....
OMG, you did that your SELF! Government would have done it for you! Better! What were you thinking!!!! Ooops....
Why has the gov.local on up grown so much over the years?
We move daily away from liberty in so many ways,dependence on others is just one.
Make sense of that.
Michael Lind is back again, this time calling libertarians "childish."
Grow up, Libertarians! - Salon.com
Unfortunately, I've grown tired of responding to him.
Fortunately, Tom Woods hasn't.
Grow Up, Libertarians | Tom Woods
The people who we elected to office were put there as per the laws stipulated in the Constitution and they must adhere to those laws while in office
Actually, they exempt themselves from laws while they are in office and those laws are far more often then not Unconstitutional, most frequently by the 10th Amendment. Not sure what you're even thinking here.
You also stated that we, as Americans, lack lack the honesty objectivity and maturity need for a libertarian society.That's notwithstanding your general -and completely nonsensical- attitude that we need to be lorded over because of our lack of honesty objectivity and maturity, yet you seem to exempt those doing the lording from the same lack of honesty objectivity and maturity.Why has the gov.local on up grown so much over the years?
We move daily away from liberty in so many ways,dependence on others is just one.
Make sense of that.
You must have me confused with someone else,when it comes to Gov.I am a minimalist.
I just stated why we have big gov and not small gov
I suspect there are as many versions of LIBERTARIANISM as there are self proclaiming libertarians.
In that respect Libertarianism is much like socialism..as that social philosophy, too, has as many variations of meaning as it has adherents.
If someone could DEFINE LIBERTARIANISM once and for all, then we could discuss this philosophical approach to society rationally.
MOST people are libertarians in the sense that they LIKE liberty and hate oppression.
Sadly there is no overarching canon of beliefs that defines LIBERTARIANISM.
There does not appear to be any single defining characteristic of libertarianism to help us define it like there is for socialism, or facism, or republicanism, or democracy.
So what IS libertarianism? Nobody really knows..or perhaps everybody is the world's leading authority of what the word means TO THEM.
BAsically if you query a self proclaiMing libertarian, they seem to definte libertarianism as
THE STUFF I PERSONALLY APPROVE OF.
Better yet, it isn't nearly as amusing as watching "conservatives" define Americans. Or is that as libertarians defining Americans?I do love it when liberals start defining LIbertarianism. It's almost as much fun as watching atheists define God.
Libertarians.....a small group of people who ultimately vote Republican. As evidenced by the Pauls.
Better yet, it isn't nearly as amusing as watching "conservatives" define Americans. Or is that as libertarians defining Americans?I do love it when liberals start defining LIbertarianism. It's almost as much fun as watching atheists define God.
Whatever, they both equally hate differing views.
Better yet, it isn't nearly as amusing as watching "conservatives" define Americans. Or is that as libertarians defining Americans?I do love it when liberals start defining LIbertarianism. It's almost as much fun as watching atheists define God.
Whatever, they both equally hate differing views.
Name any two Democrats who disagree on any issue.
Better yet, it isn't nearly as amusing as watching "conservatives" define Americans. Or is that as libertarians defining Americans?
Whatever, they both equally hate differing views.
Name any two Democrats who disagree on any issue.
Clinton and Obama. Do you have a point?
Libertarians.....a small group of people who ultimately vote Republican. As evidenced by the Pauls.
Republicans want to end most of our rights and Democrats want to end all of them. So in a sense they are "better." If less bad means better. But your statement is still wrong. I did not vote for Republicans since 1988 until Obama delivered on his Marxist pledges in the last election, and even in that I got resistance from most libertarians. There's a point that less bad is worth voting for. Obama is that point.
.
"MY party is big tent and open minded. YOUR party isn't."
.
Obama has been a center right POTUS.......
