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.
Here is the link to Pogo's plagiarism. Everyone is free to review the evidence.
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.
I ask a logical questions. HOW would this 'charity only' society work?
The real irony is that I am being accused of being a creationist, while I am arguing evolution. Attitudes and beliefs EVOLVE over time. Though Lincoln was a man of his time, he evoled a little ahead of that curve. And he was a thinking man who questioned his own beliefs and changed.
Your mea culpa doesn't make sense. You're arguing, in essence, that people who thought Fred Flintstone had a pet dinosaur given to him by God are not creationists because they recognize that cultures evolve over time.
You're a creationist because you reject the science of evolution, so your embrace of cultural change has nothing whatsoever to do with genetic mutation, selection effects as a response to environment and genetic drift.
I don't deny evolution. I reject that evolution should be the basis of a civil society.
Then why not pop back into the education thread, retract your statements and we can proceed afresh?
There is nothing to retract. When you examine education, race is not the determining factor. Poverty is.
That's already been dealt with in that thread. Look, the entire basis of Fisher vs. The University of Texas affirmative action case was that UT had to give preference to the children of upper class blacks and Hispanics over the BETTER QUALIFIED white children from more modest families. The University of Texas went to court to defend giving preferences to rich black kids. Race is the big factor that you don't want to acknowledge and I'm going to keep swatting away your feeble attempts to ignore it.
The Washington Post:
Texas needed to provide a preference to wealthy minority students such as “the African American or Hispanic child of successful professionals in Dallas” who would defy stereotypes.
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.
I ask a logical questions. HOW would this 'charity only' society work?
A TV show based on an agrarian society? So you have a plan to take back farming from huge corporations? Looks like the evolution of society and the industrial revolution are not to be considered...
Social Security is not exclusive to America. It has been endorsed as a basic right of human beings by the international community. And all other industrialized nations go beyond just Medicare. They cover ALL citizens.
Social Security is not an American concept. It is an international one.
Social Security is based upon a concept set forth in Article 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states, Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. In simple terms, the signatories agree that society in which a person lives should help them to develop and to make the most of all the advantages (culture, work, social welfare) which are offered to them in the country.[1]
The real irony is that I am being accused of being a creationist, while I am arguing evolution. Attitudes and beliefs EVOLVE over time. Though Lincoln was a man of his time, he evoled a little ahead of that curve. And he was a thinking man who questioned his own beliefs and changed.
Your mea culpa doesn't make sense. You're arguing, in essence, that people who thought Fred Flintstone had a pet dinosaur given to him by God are not creationists because they recognize that cultures evolve over time.
You're a creationist because you reject the science of evolution, so your embrace of cultural change has nothing whatsoever to do with genetic mutation, selection effects as a response to environment and genetic drift.
I don't deny evolution. I reject that evolution should be the basis of a civil society.
Then why not pop back into the education thread, retract your statements and we can proceed afresh?
There is nothing to retract. When you examine education, race is not the determining factor. Poverty is.
That's already been dealt with in that thread. Look, the entire basis of Fisher vs. The University of Texas affirmative action case was that UT had to give preference to the children of upper class blacks and Hispanics over the BETTER QUALIFIED white children from more modest families. The University of Texas went to court to defend giving preferences to rich black kids. Race is the big factor that you don't want to acknowledge and I'm going to keep swatting away your feeble attempts to ignore it.
The Washington Post:
Texas needed to provide a preference to wealthy minority students such as “the African American or Hispanic child of successful professionals in Dallas” who would defy stereotypes.
So you will continue to stand by your white supremacy.
Just correcting the record - because the word "honest" has never belonged in any sentence describing Fingerboy. Simply from a standpoint of rhetorical ability, divorced from any particular ideology, that kid is irretrievably minor league. He's never presented an "honest" discussion in his life. Certainly not here.
LOL, a lecture on honesty from the guy who denies what you post even when given the post you said it...
The offer doesn't close; you're still free to demonstrate where it is. But you do by now owe an explanation of what took so long.
But you won't do it because you don't have the backbone. You'll just continue the meme as if it's real.
Burden of proof: you.
No, that's not cancellation, that's escalation. There's a critical (and, I thought, obvious) difference between one bullet this way answered by another bullet that way, and no bullets at all.People shooting back at criminals certainly does a lot to cancel it out. You shoot back at a criminal, that's additive, you are as bad as they are. That's your argument.
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.
What is that prediction based on as the more clear the brutality of the State gets, the more the majority are falling in love with it now? They are going in the exact opposite direction. And the left worship the State more and more as it gives us less and less freedom.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
The FFs were liberals? Just because they didn't like George the Third?
Well there are anarchist libertarians, but there are also minarchist libertarians.Now, back to the main topic of the thread. Libertarians aren't anarchists, the are minarchists. Not all of them prefer the Laissez-Faire type of governance. Individual freedom is key, and personal choices should not be dictated by a government. A person should be allowed to follow their own path, and shouldn't be told that they must accept one person or another when doing business with the general public. They believe that government should adhere to the Constitution. That's my take on the subject.
I doubt that, but then again I don't listen to him, so I'll take your word for it. Regardless, I think you're incorrectly using the Big L and little l designations. Big L Libertarians are members of the Libertarian Party, whereas small l libertarians, like myself, are ideological libertarians who are not members of the Libertarian Party.Since in the free market that would violate private property rights, no.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.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 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?
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.
He would be the first to describe himself as a libertarian (little L) aka classical liberal in the spirit of the Founding Fathers. He does have a lot of problems with Libertarians (capital L) who would force us all to live by their particular political and ethical code.
Right, the government is "the people." That's why the government overclassifies its actions so that "the people" don't know what they're doing and can't do anything about it. Nice try.Among the many fundamental mistakes libertarians make is to incorrectly perceive 'the government' as something separate and apart from the people – when in fact nothing could be further from the truth, as the government and the people are one in the same. The government acts at the behest of the people, representing the people, where the people are solely responsible for the government's actions.
Indeed, that the people have elected to abdicate their Constitutional responsibility to keep their government in check – either through the political process, or failing that, the legal process – is not the 'fault' of government, it is the fault of the people, where the people are wrong to perceive themselves as 'hapless victims' of government 'overreach' and 'excess' that they alone created.
I'd say it goes in waves. Right now the trend is towards more government, but it'll eventually reach a critical point that it becomes unbearable. Though I would say if it's as hopeless as you're painting it then your minarchism is as valid as my anarchism.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.
Yeah, it is because the first thing that will drive us back to a state is defending ourselves from bad guys.
What is that prediction based on as the more clear the brutality of the State gets, the more the majority are falling in love with it now? They are going in the exact opposite direction. And the left worship the State more and more as it gives us less and less freedom.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
Don't tell Mark Levin you think he's a libertarian. He may get violent.
He would be the first to describe himself as a libertarian (little L) aka classical liberal in the spirit of the Founding Fathers. He does have a lot of problems with Libertarians (capital L) who would force us all to live by their particular political and ethical code.
I doubt that, but then again I don't listen to him, so I'll take your word for it. Regardless, I think you're incorrectly using the Big L and little l designations. Big L Libertarians are members of the Libertarian Party, whereas small l libertarians, like myself, are ideological libertarians who are not members of the Libertarian Party.
[QUOTE="Foxfyre, post: 9768686, member: 6847
Don't tell Mark Levin you think he's a libertarian. He may get violent.
He would be the first to describe himself as a libertarian (little L) aka classical liberal in the spirit of the Founding Fathers. He does have a lot of problems with Libertarians (capital L) who would force us all to live by their particular political and ethical code.
I doubt that, but then again I don't listen to him, so I'll take your word for it. Regardless, I think you're incorrectly using the Big L and little l designations. Big L Libertarians are members of the Libertarian Party, whereas small l libertarians, like myself, are ideological libertarians who are not members of the Libertarian Party.
Well you're incorrectly using them because "Big L Libertarian" refers specifically to a member of the Libertarian Party, and you just said that they may or may not be members. That's incorrect. "Little l libertarians" may be minarchists like you describe, though I think Beck, Palin, and Levin are disqualified outright for their big government views, but they may also be anarchists.So how am I incorrectly using the Big L and little L designations since I am using them pretty much as you describe? Big L Libertarians may or may not be members of the Libertarian Party, but they are the authoritarian Libertarians who would require the law to enforce their version of Libertarianism everywhere.
Little "L" libertarians are the classical liberals in the spirit of the Founders view of what government, society, and concepts of liberty should be.
Just correcting the record - because the word "honest" has never belonged in any sentence describing Fingerboy. Simply from a standpoint of rhetorical ability, divorced from any particular ideology, that kid is irretrievably minor league. He's never presented an "honest" discussion in his life. Certainly not here.
LOL, a lecture on honesty from the guy who denies what you post even when given the post you said it...
The offer doesn't close; you're still free to demonstrate where it is. But you do by now owe an explanation of what took so long.
But you won't do it because you don't have the backbone. You'll just continue the meme as if it's real.
Burden of proof: you.
For like the dozenth time, here you go, liar. You said honest citizens having guns is dangerous. Note dangerous is not in quotes. That means I am paraphrasing. And it was a good one. But you will need reading comprehension. Just a little, the ability to read the obvious.
No, that's not cancellation, that's escalation. There's a critical (and, I thought, obvious) difference between one bullet this way answered by another bullet that way, and no bullets at all.People shooting back at criminals certainly does a lot to cancel it out. You shoot back at a criminal, that's additive, you are as bad as they are. That's your argument.
You said honest citizens shooting back at criminals is "escalation." So to not be a liar, you have to show now how escalation is not dangerous.
This is why I just insult you at this point, Pogo. You are a lying sack of shit who can't read and won't man up to your own posts. You deny them over and over and keep asking for posts that have been presented to you over and over.
You want to be treated like an adult? Act like one. Stop being such a douche and then whining about it. I gave up long ago on discourse with you, so I'm just trying to have fun with you. But God, whine whine whine, you're a whole kindergarten class.
