What are libertarians?

[Pogo]

You have me confused with someone else. I've never quoted anything from any Nazi website. The fact that Lincoln was a white supremacist is well documented. Even liberal state historians admit he made racist statements. Of course, they make excuses for it, like claiming he was just being folksy so the dumb masses would vote for him. The libturd historians like to pretend they have some kind of special insight that allows them to know what Lincoln really thought despite what he said. However, Lincoln's statements regarding black equality remained consistent over his lifetime.

Lincoln was a racist, by any measure of the term.

Pogo is referring to when I caught her plagiarizing. Here is the post she plagiarized. Follow the events as they unfold and I link to a Nazi website where she cribbed her commentary.

See what I mean? Liars abound.
That post isn't "plagiariazed", dumbass. It's copied from my own previous post elsewhere. And I said so right at the start of it, which to the illiterate must look like Sanskrit.

 

[Rikurzhen]

You have me confused with someone else. I've never quoted anything from any Nazi website. The fact that Lincoln was a white supremacist is well documented. Even liberal state historians admit he made racist statements. Of course, they make excuses for it, like claiming he was just being folksy so the dumb masses would vote for him. The libturd historians like to pretend they have some kind of special insight that allows them to know what Lincoln really thought despite what he said. However, Lincoln's statements regarding black equality remained consistent over his lifetime.

Lincoln was a racist, by any measure of the term.

Pogo is referring to when I caught her plagiarizing. Here is the post she plagiarized. Follow the events as they unfold and I link to a Nazi website where she cribbed her commentary.

See what I mean? Liars abound.
That post isn't "plagiariazed", dumbass. It's copied from my own previous post elsewhere. And I said so right at the start of it, which to the illiterate must look like Sanskrit.

Give it a rest you old crone. The first post was plagiarized. You DIDN'T WRITE IT. You stole it from the Nazi website.

 

[Pogo]

Consider the source. He tried to pull the same shit on me. When that flopped he went to some Nazi website, or claimed to, to find a common citation of the some books I linked (unrelated to Naziism) and is now trying to sell me as a "plagiarist". Just put him on ignore. Racist troll.

Don't change the story. Are you actually now believing your lies? Have you told them so frequently that you've forgotten how you plagiarized a Nazi website, not the two books, and you didn't lint the plagiarized text you passed as your own? Is that why you're so stubbornly resisting admitting your plagiarism, because you've now come to believe the lies you've told to defend yourself?

Po-po is a lying despicable asshole. He will stop at nothing in his campaign to smear the political opposition.

He's the perfect liberal, on other words!

We're still waiting for you to back up your own bullshit from last Wednesday, lying hack. About which you've already declared you "don't give a shit". Fine if that's your choice but it gives you absolutely no room to whine about "lying". Which I see you've done three posts in a row.

Hackitude.

 

[Pogo]

You have me confused with someone else. I've never quoted anything from any Nazi website. The fact that Lincoln was a white supremacist is well documented. Even liberal state historians admit he made racist statements. Of course, they make excuses for it, like claiming he was just being folksy so the dumb masses would vote for him. The libturd historians like to pretend they have some kind of special insight that allows them to know what Lincoln really thought despite what he said. However, Lincoln's statements regarding black equality remained consistent over his lifetime.

Lincoln was a racist, by any measure of the term.

Pogo is referring to when I caught her plagiarizing. Here is the post she plagiarized. Follow the events as they unfold and I link to a Nazi website where she cribbed her commentary.

See what I mean? Liars abound.
That post isn't "plagiariazed", dumbass. It's copied from my own previous post elsewhere. And I said so right at the start of it, which to the illiterate must look like Sanskrit.

Give it a rest old lady. The first post was plagiarized. You DIDN'T WRITE IT. You stole it from the Nazi website.

I don't know who the fuck "old lady" is but I've never even been to a Nazi website. Obviously you have.
I "stole" it from myself. I had posted it before elsewhere. And I already told you this.

 

[Rikurzhen]

You have me confused with someone else. I've never quoted anything from any Nazi website. The fact that Lincoln was a white supremacist is well documented. Even liberal state historians admit he made racist statements. Of course, they make excuses for it, like claiming he was just being folksy so the dumb masses would vote for him. The libturd historians like to pretend they have some kind of special insight that allows them to know what Lincoln really thought despite what he said. However, Lincoln's statements regarding black equality remained consistent over his lifetime.

Lincoln was a racist, by any measure of the term.

Pogo is referring to when I caught her plagiarizing. Here is the post she plagiarized. Follow the events as they unfold and I link to a Nazi website where she cribbed her commentary.

See what I mean? Liars abound.
That post isn't "plagiariazed", dumbass. It's copied from my own previous post elsewhere. And I said so right at the start of it, which to the illiterate must look like Sanskrit.

Give it a rest old lady. The first post was plagiarized. You DIDN'T WRITE IT. You stole it from the Nazi website.

Wrong. I've never even been to a Nazi website. Obviously you have.

If the text of your comment matches the text on the Nazi website, then maybe you wrote the text for the Nazi website. The text you claim is yours, by your writing, is word for word identical on the Nazi website and I'm not talking about the translated text, I'm talking about the commentary surrounding the translated text. Stolen. Plagiarized.

 

[Pogo]

I believe capitalism is the best economic model, but there is no "magic", "invisible hand", "religion of laissez-faire" that makes ANY sense, UNLESS you totally ignore some key parts of civil libertarian beliefs. I will highlight them for you.

What is really funny here is that YOU are the one that actually belies in the fairytale hand guiding the market - you like to call it government.

What is really not funny is you edited out my qualifiers. So tell me, should the market operate without any rules or laws? Should it be a free for all? Many corporations could maximize their profits by dumping their waste into nearby rivers, or into the air. Is THAT acceptable?

Since in the free market that would violate private property rights, no.

Oh, so THAT would stop a polluter. Nice to know. I can't decide if you folks are stupid or naive.

Let the record show that you commenced with hostility for no reason.

Regardless, how are laws enforced now?

Ad hominems are his stock in trade. You didn't really expect logic, did you? If libturds were capable of logic, they wouldn't be libturds. A logical libturd is as unthinkable as an honest politician.

Want me to post your list too, FingerBoy Coward?

It'll be easy....

What "list" are you referring to?

I was forced to list all the ad homs tossed at me by the OP after being accused of starting it. You'll notice the OP has made him/herself scarce since then and Foxy's pretending it's not there rather than admit she accused me wrongly.

So what I'm saying here is that I'll be happy to document the point where YOU came in and did the same thing, which in turn will blow your point above (now bold) to smithereens. Not that your wording above doesn't already carry its own suicide gene right there in the word "libturds".

You're another assclown with no clue what "Liberal" means, and no desire for honest discussion. You're a hack.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So you have nothing and cannot back it up.

I already know that because I not only went back and read them all, I was there when it went down.

Truth will out. No matter what.

I have plenty. The truth was outed, the only thing you outed was your version of events. I just went back and read them all. What do you take me for, a fool? I have a partially eidetic and photographic memory, Pogo. I don't care if you were in Zimbabwe when it happened, you simply cannot admit your failure to address the topic, instead attacking the author. Don't bother, you aren't fooling anyone.

Now, if you will excuse me.

Quick exit huh? Wonder why.
It's really really really really really really simple. If you have a claim that I did something -- DOCUMENT IT.
If you can't ---- it does not exist.

You lose. Pick your battles next time.

I got tired of your self flagellation. I proved it. You react to losing by calling people names and lying through your teeth. Instead of arguing the point you deride the author and the content of the post as "crazy" or the like. The only thing you did was prove my point by consistently taunting me and denying reality. To borrow a phrase, you would argue the sky wasn't blue. When you say it's purple, and get called on it, you would say "I never said it was purple! You're wrong and you lose!"

 

[Pogo]

You have me confused with someone else. I've never quoted anything from any Nazi website. The fact that Lincoln was a white supremacist is well documented. Even liberal state historians admit he made racist statements. Of course, they make excuses for it, like claiming he was just being folksy so the dumb masses would vote for him. The libturd historians like to pretend they have some kind of special insight that allows them to know what Lincoln really thought despite what he said. However, Lincoln's statements regarding black equality remained consistent over his lifetime.

Lincoln was a racist, by any measure of the term.

Pogo is referring to when I caught her plagiarizing. Here is the post she plagiarized. Follow the events as they unfold and I link to a Nazi website where she cribbed her commentary.

See what I mean? Liars abound.
That post isn't "plagiariazed", dumbass. It's copied from my own previous post elsewhere. And I said so right at the start of it, which to the illiterate must look like Sanskrit.

Give it a rest old lady. The first post was plagiarized. You DIDN'T WRITE IT. You stole it from the Nazi website.

Wrong. I've never even been to a Nazi website. Obviously you have.

If the text of your comment matches the text on the Nazi website, then maybe you wrote the text for the Nazi website. The text you claim is yours, by your writing, is word for word identical on the Nazi website and I'm not talking about the translated text, I'm talking about the commentary surrounding the translated text. Stolen. Plagiarized.

Yammer yammer yammer plagiarized yammer yammer Nazi yammer yammer...

This is what I said in the first place -- you're a troll.
Everything was and still is duly linked. Everybody here knows I link meticulously and deride those who fail to, the only exception being other message boards, which we can't, but in this case the books were, and remain, duly linked. I don't know what the fuck you think you found somewhere else that matches but it doesn't matter; the citations are linked; the citations are fully credited, and the links work. So suck it.

 

[bripat9643]

I believe capitalism is the best economic model, but there is no "magic", "invisible hand", "religion of laissez-faire" that makes ANY sense, UNLESS you totally ignore some key parts of civil libertarian beliefs. I will highlight them for you.

What is really funny here is that YOU are the one that actually belies in the fairytale hand guiding the market - you like to call it government.

What is really not funny is you edited out my qualifiers. So tell me, should the market operate without any rules or laws? Should it be a free for all? Many corporations could maximize their profits by dumping their waste into nearby rivers, or into the air. Is THAT acceptable?

Since in the free market that would violate private property rights, no.

Oh, so THAT would stop a polluter. Nice to know. I can't decide if you folks are stupid or naive.

Let the record show that you commenced with hostility for no reason.

Regardless, how are laws enforced now?

Ad hominems are his stock in trade. You didn't really expect logic, did you? If libturds were capable of logic, they wouldn't be libturds. A logical libturd is as unthinkable as an honest politician.

Want me to post your list too, FingerBoy Coward?

It'll be easy....

What "list" are you referring to?

I was forced to list all the ad homs tossed at me by the OP after being accused of starting it. You'll notice the OP has made him/herself scarce since then and Foxy's pretending it's not there rather than admit she accused me wrongly.

So what I'm saying here is that I'll be happy to document the point where YOU came in and did the same thing, which in turn will blow your point above (now bold) to smithereens. Not that your wording above doesn't already carry its own suicide gene right there in the word "libturds".

You're another assclown with no clue what "Liberal" means, and no desire for honest discussion. You're a hack.

You have me confused with someone who gives a shit.

I don't spare the rod when it comes to libturds. They deserve everything I dish out.

 

[bripat9643]

Consider the source. He tried to pull the same shit on me. When that flopped he went to some Nazi website, or claimed to, to find a common citation of the some books I linked (unrelated to Naziism) and is now trying to sell me as a "plagiarist". Just put him on ignore. Racist troll.

Don't change the story. Are you actually now believing your lies? Have you told them so frequently that you've forgotten how you plagiarized a Nazi website, not the two books, and you didn't lint the plagiarized text you passed as your own? Is that why you're so stubbornly resisting admitting your plagiarism, because you've now come to believe the lies you've told to defend yourself?

Po-po is a lying despicable asshole. He will stop at nothing in his campaign to smear the political opposition.

He's the perfect liberal, on other words!

We're still waiting for you to back up your own bullshit from last Wednesday, lying hack. About which you've already declared you "don't give a shit". Fine if that's your choice but it gives you absolutely no room to whine about "lying". Which I see you've done three posts in a row.

Hackitude.

I'll "whine" about whatever I feel like whining about. I don't recall anyone putting you in charge of who can criticize what.

 

[Pogo]

Consider the source. He tried to pull the same shit on me. When that flopped he went to some Nazi website, or claimed to, to find a common citation of the some books I linked (unrelated to Naziism) and is now trying to sell me as a "plagiarist". Just put him on ignore. Racist troll.

Don't change the story. Are you actually now believing your lies? Have you told them so frequently that you've forgotten how you plagiarized a Nazi website, not the two books, and you didn't lint the plagiarized text you passed as your own? Is that why you're so stubbornly resisting admitting your plagiarism, because you've now come to believe the lies you've told to defend yourself?

Po-po is a lying despicable asshole. He will stop at nothing in his campaign to smear the political opposition.

He's the perfect liberal, on other words!

We're still waiting for you to back up your own bullshit from last Wednesday, lying hack. About which you've already declared you "don't give a shit". Fine if that's your choice but it gives you absolutely no room to whine about "lying". Which I see you've done three posts in a row.

Hackitude.

I'll "whine" about whatever I feel like whining about. I don't recall anyone putting you in charge of who can criticize what.

I'm simply telling you -- and I know it has to be simple -- that when you come in here and spout lie after lie and then shrug "I don't give a shit" when you're called out on it --------- then you have no standing to complain that somebody else is lying.

You're an admitted liar yourself, so it doesn't mean anything. Doesn't matter "who's in charge". You put yourself in this position. Man up and own it.

That simple enough, Finger boy?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You have me confused with someone else. I've never quoted anything from any Nazi website. The fact that Lincoln was a white supremacist is well documented. Even liberal state historians admit he made racist statements. Of course, they make excuses for it, like claiming he was just being folksy so the dumb masses would vote for him. The libturd historians like to pretend they have some kind of special insight that allows them to know what Lincoln really thought despite what he said. However, Lincoln's statements regarding black equality remained consistent over his lifetime.

Lincoln was a racist, by any measure of the term.

Pogo is referring to when I caught her plagiarizing. Here is the post she plagiarized. Follow the events as they unfold and I link to a Nazi website where she cribbed her commentary.

See what I mean? Liars abound.
That post isn't "plagiariazed", dumbass. It's copied from my own previous post elsewhere. And I said so right at the start of it, which to the illiterate must look like Sanskrit.

Give it a rest old lady. The first post was plagiarized. You DIDN'T WRITE IT. You stole it from the Nazi website.

Wrong. I've never even been to a Nazi website. Obviously you have.

If the text of your comment matches the text on the Nazi website, then maybe you wrote the text for the Nazi website. The text you claim is yours, by your writing, is word for word identical on the Nazi website and I'm not talking about the translated text, I'm talking about the commentary surrounding the translated text. Stolen. Plagiarized.

Yammer yammer yammer plagiarized yammer yammer Nazi yammer yammer...

This is what I said in the first place -- you're a troll.
Everything was and still is duly linked. Everybody here knows I link meticulously and deride those who fail to, the only exception being other message boards, which we can't, but in this case the books were, and remain, duly linked. I don't know what the fuck you think you found somewhere else that matches but it doesn't matter; the citations are linked; the citations are fully credited, and the links work. So suck it.

Do you ever debate honestly? You got nailed in that thread and once again you're lying. You willfully plagiarized the Nazi website. I reviewed the entire discussion in that thread myself. Your post matched word for word the text on that site and not any post heretofore in said thread. I trust you can link to the post where you allegedly took that from, and don't give me the "it's already been posted" routine, if it's posted, I'm sure you can post it again. Your ivory tower is not made from ivory, but from straw.

 

[Rikurzhen]

You have me confused with someone else. I've never quoted anything from any Nazi website. The fact that Lincoln was a white supremacist is well documented. Even liberal state historians admit he made racist statements. Of course, they make excuses for it, like claiming he was just being folksy so the dumb masses would vote for him. The libturd historians like to pretend they have some kind of special insight that allows them to know what Lincoln really thought despite what he said. However, Lincoln's statements regarding black equality remained consistent over his lifetime.

Lincoln was a racist, by any measure of the term.

Pogo is referring to when I caught her plagiarizing. Here is the post she plagiarized. Follow the events as they unfold and I link to a Nazi website where she cribbed her commentary.

See what I mean? Liars abound.
That post isn't "plagiariazed", dumbass. It's copied from my own previous post elsewhere. And I said so right at the start of it, which to the illiterate must look like Sanskrit.

Give it a rest old lady. The first post was plagiarized. You DIDN'T WRITE IT. You stole it from the Nazi website.

Wrong. I've never even been to a Nazi website. Obviously you have.

If the text of your comment matches the text on the Nazi website, then maybe you wrote the text for the Nazi website. The text you claim is yours, by your writing, is word for word identical on the Nazi website and I'm not talking about the translated text, I'm talking about the commentary surrounding the translated text. Stolen. Plagiarized.

Yammer yammer yammer plagiarized yammer yammer Nazi yammer yammer...

This is what I said in the first place -- you're a troll.
Everything was and still is duly linked. Everybody here knows I link meticulously and deride those who fail to, the only exception being other message boards, which we can't, but in this case the books were, and remain, duly linked. I don't know what the fuck you think you found somewhere else that matches but it doesn't matter; the citations are linked; the citations are fully credited, and the links work. So suck it.

Lying by misdirection is still lying. All your commentary is plagiarized and not one link you supplied had the commentary text. Keep spinning your stories. I've given the link and people go there and read about your unmasking as it played out, comment by comment.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Finger boy? Migosh, how civilized.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I myself am no longer a minarchist because I do not believe that any government can be restrained in such a way for any sustained period of time.

I laways found this stance of yours interesting because, while it is factually correct, it makes no sense whatsoever.

Sure, government does not remain caged as it loves nothing more than to increase its own power BUT neither does anarchism. That, ALSO, does not remain as it naturally degrades into some form of government. The real question is NOT what permanent form of government (or lack thereof) can be established but rather what is the best form to try and hold onto for as long as possible.

In that I believe government is a clear necessity. Nothing is permanent. A good government or anarchy is not exempt from that simple natural fact.

Well your question rests on the assumption that that is my only reason for no longer being a minarchist, which is not unreasonable since that's the only reason I gave in the post you quoted. Regardless, I also reject the initiation of force in even a limited sense. The simple fact of the matter is that even a minarchist libertarian's dream government must still rest on the use of violence against their own citizens, and others should that government ever go to war. So even if we had the U.S. government explicitly outlined in the Articles of Confederation, the U.S. government would still tax Americans to fund itself. In other words, it would steal the property of Americans.

In response to your concerns, however, I would merely say that the argument that anarchism will inevitably lead to the creation of a state, so we might as well just create the state now isn't all that inspiring. However, my view is that society will inevitably evolve in their thought towards anarchism as the brutality of the state, even the much touted democratic state, perhaps the most blood-soaked form of government in history, becomes clearer and clearer. I don't see so much a violent revolution finally and permanently overthrowing the state, because I think if that's what was attempted it would simply fail, but assuming it did succeed I think your concerns would ultimately be validated. Using force to overthrow the state will inevitably lead to a new state, in my opinion. If, however, the state is simply allowed to die out as people stop supporting it then I see that as the ultimate good for society.

I actually agree with what you are saying in premise - that anarchy would be best WHEN mankind evolves society to a point where we no longer need it. BUT, and it is a huge but, we are not there yet. RIGHT now I think such is simply not tennable and good government (or the best that we can do) is what we need to be working on. I doubt that man will ever get to the point where we can cast off the yoke of government but I do believe that right now such a vacuum of power only leads to one thing - the strong taking up that space.


A good government takes up that hole with as little infringement in rights as possible while preventing others from entirely removing those rights. IOW, a MUCH better outcome IMHO.

Is it ideal? No. Ideal does not exist. Avoiding trying to set up proper government for now is certainly better than allowing current situations run roughshod all over our freedom because anarchy is an ideal that people and society simply is not ready for yet.

Of course you likely disagree with my premise, that people are not ready yet, but I think that history shows this to be the case. Anarchy does not last long and is usually hallmarked with the ever present threat of local warlords running things - aka the strong removing the rights of the weak.

Well I think the fact that society isn't ready is self-evident, as the state has yet to fall of its own accord. Regardless, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't point out that this is the best possible outcome for society. In the meantime we can absolutely be pragmatists, but we shouldn't lose sight of the real goal.

If you're expecting the dumb masses to see ever the light, then society will never be ready. Once it's a fait accompli, then it will be self perpetuating. It has to be accomplished piecemeal, by secession. only a functioning anarchist society that can demonstrate the advantages of abolishing the monopoly on compulsion will ever convince the dolts that it's feasible and desirable.

This sounds like an argument of chicken and egg. You say it has to be accomplished by secession, but I say that secession will be a natural result of what I'm talking about.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Here is the link to Pogo's plagiarism. Everyone is free to review the evidence.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I believe capitalism is the best economic model, but there is no "magic", "invisible hand", "religion of laissez-faire" that makes ANY sense, UNLESS you totally ignore some key parts of civil libertarian beliefs. I will highlight them for you.

What is really funny here is that YOU are the one that actually belies in the fairytale hand guiding the market - you like to call it government.

What is really not funny is you edited out my qualifiers. So tell me, should the market operate without any rules or laws? Should it be a free for all? Many corporations could maximize their profits by dumping their waste into nearby rivers, or into the air. Is THAT acceptable?

Since in the free market that would violate private property rights, no.

Oh, so THAT would stop a polluter. Nice to know. I can't decide if you folks are stupid or naive.

Let the record show that you commenced with hostility for no reason.

Regardless, how are laws enforced now?

Hostility?

How are laws enforced now? Very poorly. People's property rights are violated every day along with their basic rights to life, liberty and happiness.

Yes, hostility. Unless you meant "stupid" as a compliment of some sort.

Regardless, when one has to deal with a monopoly on law enforcement then one can expect poor quality law enforcement. Fortunately the free market provides competition.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So Pogo, do you see any of your responses here? It wasn't until page six that you replied. Do you deny this? Or will you assail me on my lack of evidence? Here's the evidence.

What are libertarians US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
What are libertarians Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
What are libertarians Page 3 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
What are libertarians Page 4 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
What are libertarians Page 5 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
What are libertarians Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I've explained to you before, page numbers are user-set here. What is "page 2" for you is not "page 2" for me. Your links take me to pages that have no relevance to anything. The first one goes to the OP. I already know where that is.

Again if you have a specific post (or posts) -- link to those posts or better yet quote them. "Page numbers" are meaningless.

Not an excuse. You can no less review the events that took place. Whatever page it is does not change the fact you started this pissing contest. I trust you have the ability to read? Then go through the posts and look at them yourself. Deflecting is doing you no favors.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I believe capitalism is the best economic model, but there is no "magic", "invisible hand", "religion of laissez-faire" that makes ANY sense, UNLESS you totally ignore some key parts of civil libertarian beliefs. I will highlight them for you.

What is really funny here is that YOU are the one that actually belies in the fairytale hand guiding the market - you like to call it government.

What is really not funny is you edited out my qualifiers. So tell me, should the market operate without any rules or laws? Should it be a free for all? Many corporations could maximize their profits by dumping their waste into nearby rivers, or into the air. Is THAT acceptable?

Since in the free market that would violate private property rights, no.

The problem with those who condemn the likes of Bachmann, Levin, Palin, Beck et al are that they buy into the idea that such people are extreme and a bit looney tunes--that certainly IS the drum beat mantra of the Left--but in fact, they have a difficult time coming up with any specifics to make that case. I don't know of any social or political views that any of those people hold that would disqualify them from being libertarian (little "L") Now do some have a different perspective of history or interpret things differently than other people do or have some ideas that might be considered fringe? Yes some do, but then pretty much everybody does. Sometimes I agree with them on the sociopolitical stuff and sometimes I don't. I have a tougher time catching Levin in a factual error though--in fact I'm not sure I ever have. And trust, me I try with everybody. But all of them qualify in every way as libertarian (little "L")

Ron Paul or Gary Johnson--Libertarians with a capital "L"? I am quite fond of both individuals--know Gary personally in fact--but I have a lot more problem with their point of view about several sociopolitical stances than I do Bachmann, Levin, Palin, or Beck. But all of them are good people.

But getting back to the point Kaz made in the OP, libertarians (little "L") are not opposed to government. Every single one, including those I've named here, know that some government is necessary to hold the 50 states together as one nation and that some laws and regulation are necessary to secure the unalienable rights of the individual and to prevent those in the 50 states from doing physical, economic, environmental, or cultural violence to each other.

Certainly the central government should do what has to be done and that the various states CANNOT do without assuming improper authority over each other.

But the central government should do nothing that the states, local communities, and/or private sector CAN do whether they do it or not.

Don't tell Mark Levin you think he's a libertarian. He may get violent.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Do you know ANY parent who would want to be a burden on their children???

So using your creationist logic, in order to avoid being a burden on one's children it's much better to be a burden on strangers and harm them and their families.

What is it with you magical thinkers, does this become a habit, appealing to magic in order to justify your beliefs?

Libertarianism is a philosophy that, among other things, subscribes to a doctrine that a free people, unencumbered by authoritarian restrictions, requirements and demands, will accomplish far more for their own benefit and for the general good than anything government will ever accomplish. And you nailed one of the basic rationales. When that authoritarian government makes requirements and demands re what the people are required to do for others, whatever the motives, the net result will include far more unintended negative consequences, and whatever good is accomplished will be inferior compared to what the private sector will accomplish if left free to do what they choose to do.

The pro-government crowd always assume that for whatever reason, even as those in government increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth, those elected or appointed to serve in government will be more wise, more noble, more compassionate, and more effective than will people acting of their own volition.

Why are you avoiding answering my question?

Critical thought? Seriously. Critical thought would include actually considering ALL the ramifications of actions proposed here. I know you have said on previous threads that you would end Social Security and Medicare.

Did you really use critical thought to consider how much pain, suffering and anxiety that would cause elderly folks? You said you would replace it with charity. Let's consider that for a moment...currently seniors receive a monthly SS check. These seniors know EXACTLY how much money they have coming in each month, so they can set up a budget. HOW would your 'charity only' society work? Would elderly Americans have to rise every morning not knowing if they can pay their bills, buy food and pay their utilities? Would you provide them a CUP so they could stand on a street corner and beg for money??

Why do you ask loaded questions? Did you think that would pass off as an argument? A Plurium Interrogationum fallacy, not to mention an ad baculum position with the elderly. She knows it, you know it.