What are libertarians?

[kaz]

If there is a conflict between the states and the federal government over the scope of powers, the courts are available to them

That is the way it works

And what do the courts rule based on since you are arguing the government has no limits? How can they limit that which is unlimited?

I favor government at the level that makes sense

If you can do it yourself.......Do it
If it can be done efficiently at the local level.......Do it at the local level
If it is more cost effective at the state level....Do it at the state level
If the federal government is best suited to do a function....Do it at the federal level

Governments are not the enemy

So it's the job of the courts to decide what level of government has particular powers based on what makes sense? To who, to them?

 

[Pogo]

Which is why you are allied with people you claim to fundamentally disagree with, liberals, and you deeply oppose those of us who you completely agree with, small government libertarians.

This ... is how you just chose fun. Commence whining, empty pants.

What's that quote about flinging the same ipse dixit over and over and over and expecting different results again?

​

Wassamatta dress-boy? Can't think of an argument again?

I'm making no argument, I'm just mocking you because you are so inane. Here's a hint how you know that, I keep telling you. Like when you say your views and they are bang on small government libertarian while you support authoritarian leftists because they call themselves liberals. There's no rational debate in that, and you keep proving that. How many times can I tell you that? How stupid are you?

And how many times have you demonstrated that? Almost... one!

Who, pray, are these "authoritarian leftists" I "support"? I'm not sure I've ever supported any pol on this board other than Jon Huntsman... so show me. Show us all. Show da world.

Whatcha got dress-boy? You must have sumpin' --- right?

Ipse dixit -- it's not just an ice cream flavor.

Cue crickets, fade to black....

 

[kaz]

Whatcha got dress-boy? You must have sumpin --- right?

Yes ... I have sumpin ... where you got nothin ...

 

[rightwinger]

If there is a conflict between the states and the federal government over the scope of powers, the courts are available to them

That is the way it works

And what do the courts rule based on since you are arguing the government has no limits? How can they limit that which is unlimited?

I favor government at the level that makes sense

If you can do it yourself.......Do it
If it can be done efficiently at the local level.......Do it at the local level
If it is more cost effective at the state level....Do it at the state level
If the federal government is best suited to do a function....Do it at the federal level

Governments are not the enemy

So it's the job of the courts to decide what level of government has particular powers based on what makes sense? To who, to them?

No, it is the responsibility of each level of Government to work it out

If they can't....we have the courts.
But most issues are resolved between levels of government

My town used to have a small police force. They decided it was more cost effective to use the State Police. We didn't need the courts

 

[Rikurzhen]

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??

Let's snap this discussion back to reality, shall we. It's hard for me to grasp why you favor taxing the poor in order to send the benefits to the rich.

So you premise is elderly are self sufficient? How much earning potential does someone 65 have?

Consider these two graphs in unison.

Now tell me how it is fair for poor young people to have to subsidize rich old people, people who've had an entire life to plan for their retirement while these young people are paying a higher share of their income in taxes than did the old people when they were at the same age.

You do understand that when poor young people are taxed at high rates, the money that goes to taxes delays their ability to start a family, buy a house, etc.

This eating of the seed corn, this plundering of the young in order to make the lives of the rich elderly even more comfortable is immoral. Look at those subsidies that go to retired people who didn't "save" enough to PREPAY their own retirement/medical bills. And the burden is falling onto strangers rather than family. I'm young and I find this utterly detestable. I have to sacrifice the wellbeing of my family in order to keep old people I don't even know comfortable because they consume more in benefits than they prepaid via taxes.

I have a duty to care for my parents, not your parents.

A comment about your graph. SS contributions are accumulated over decades. After interest and inflation, the amount of benefit payments is probably pretty much in line with the amount of contributions.

Kudos for a thoughtful observation.

Actually no, otherwise Medicare would not be facing a funding shortfall of $40+ trillion. In other words the funding would be balanced and no one would be worried, graphs like the above wouldn't be generated.

Also, the researchers here are NOT making such an elementary error and producing deceiving graphs and reports:

These tables update to 2013 previous estimates of the lifetime value of Social Security and Medicare benefits and taxes for typical workers in different generations at various earning levels based on new estimates of the Social Security Actuary. The "lifetime value of taxes" is based upon the value of accumulated taxes, as if those taxes were put into an account that earned a 2 percent real rate of return (that is, 2 percent plus inflation). The "lifetime value of benefits" represents the amount needed in an account (also earning a 2 percent real interest rate) to pay for those benefits. All amounts are presented in constant 2013 dollars.​

 

[Pogo]

And how many times have you demonstrated that? Almost... one!

Who, pray, are these "authoritarian leftists" I "support"? I'm not sure I've ever supported any pol on this board other than Jon Huntsman... so show me. Show us all. Show da world.

Whatcha got dress-boy? You must have sumpin' --- right?

Yes ... I have sumpin ... where you got nothin ...

::click::

::click::

::click::

::click::

Must be sumpin' wrong with the site. Links don't work.

Oh wait, here we go....

​

 

[Foxfyre]

We the people limit their power through the vote. Been working for hundreds of years

We lost that power long ago however when the permanent political class achieved total power in Washington and retains it by keeping at least half the electorate dependent on that same permanent political class, and the President discovered he could legislate without restriction via executive order from the Oval Office and the Supreme Court decided they would rather make law rather than interpret existing law.

I have seen thousands of politicians voted out of office for not satisfying their constituents

Remember Eric Cantor?

But the constituents almost invariably vote another of the permanent political class into office to replace those they vote out. It permeates the entire process from most of what happens in Washington to the state political headquarters and election machines right down to the smallest villages. Powerful forces are at work to ensure that the 'right people' are placed on the ballot and put in a position to win.

Actually I think the people might have won one when Romney was the last GOP presidential candidate--I don't believe he is a member of the permanent political class and would not have been so easily bullied or manipulated. But alas, the political machine was able to sufficiently demonize him that he could not win even against the most inexperienced, incompetent, ineffective, and destructive President this country has ever known.

Interesting spin...

Romney was born to the permanent political class, his father was a Governor and Presidential candidate. He was born with both a silver spoon and limitless political connections

Meanwhile, you consider Obama to be "permanent political class" while he rose from obscurity to become president

Strange world that Conservative Bizarro World

The Permanent Political Class are those, elected, appointed, or hired into the bureaucracy, who serve in public office for mostly no other reason than to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth. Everything they do is calculated toward that end. It has nothing to do with their background, education, heritage, or personal circumstances prior to them being elected to office. Once there, they play ball with the machine in place, whether Democrat or Republican, or they are ostracized, marginalized, and refused any rank or privileges. They will either quit or the machine will see to it that they are voted out at the next election. Some are better at it than others and rise to prominent positions of leadership where they rule with almost unchallenged power. If they stray off the reservation, there will be hell to pay and they will be punished in some way.

Detailed description and discussion on that here:
BOOK REVIEW EXTORTION How Politicians Extract Your Money Buy Votes and Line The US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Libertarians (little "L") either allow themselves to be 'reformed' by the machine or they have a pretty tough time of it both in the halls of government and in the media.

 

[kaz]

So it's the job of the courts to decide what level of government has particular powers based on what makes sense? To who, to them?

No, it is the responsibility of each level of Government to work it out

If they can't....we have the courts.
But most issues are resolved between levels of government

My town used to have a small police force. They decided it was more cost effective to use the State Police. We didn't need the courts

Look big guy. Focus on the question. If it goes to the courts, what do the courts rule on?

You said the congress can do anything, so how can the courts overturn that? In fact your side runs to the courts do do that all the time. So based on what is the courts overturning laws if you say the laws congress can enact are unlimited. How can the courts overturn them? Based on what?

And how can the State governments go to the courts when you say the 9th and 10th amendments say the Feds get to do whatever they want and the States can only do what the Feds can't?

I'm not even evaluating what you say based on reality, history, or knowledge. I'm just trying to understand what you are saying, and all you are showing is you don't know what you are saying. You don't know what you are arguing at all. You are just arguing it.

 

[Pogo]

You are a very confused old man.

That was one of the three questions, what about the others? I hope your answer is just as entertaining.

Oh, another question I keep asking, what grade did you drop out of school? As you know, I have sixth in the pool.

Hey, why not just call him a "tool, idiot, brain dead little acne faced teenager limp dicked little teen age faggot" who "fights alongside Nazis" and "never puts the toilet seat up"?

I mean you recycle, right?

Just a suggestion...

 

[kaz]

You are a very confused old man.

That was one of the three questions, what about the others? I hope your answer is just as entertaining.

Oh, another question I keep asking, what grade did you drop out of school? As you know, I have sixth in the pool.

Hey, why not just call him a "tool, idiot, brain dead little acne faced teenager limp dicked little teen age faggot" who "fights alongside Nazis"?

I mean you recycle, right?

Just a suggestion...

Actually, no, I don't. Everyone has a choice. You made yours, leave others to theirs.

 

[Foxfyre]

Thanks for that example from the echo chamber of Conflationism. It amply describes what the Conflationists wish us to redefine to. I on the other hand laid out WHY they're doing that and what the purpose of that redefinition is.

Language changes when We the People change it -- not when political demagogues fling ad copy at us. And we don't morph words in half a century. Again, there is no reason to merge three (six) different words into one (two) except to dumb down the dialogue in an attempt to control the proletariat in a grand game of dichotomous Angels and Devils.

When I find out better info than I previously had, I adopt and incorporate it. What do you do? Ignore it as inconvenient?

And Foxy if I were you I'd be circumspect about invoking "ignoring posts" considering what you've been ignoring im this thread when I proved you wrong.

Nomsayin'?

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. . . .

Indeed.

I rest my case. You are absolutely incapable of reading and understanding a concept or argument. But you are in good company as few modern day American liberals can. Oh well. I love you anyway.

(I suspect though that you chose not to quote my rebuttal to your statement that there is no such thing as a classical liberal because your statement was blown to hell by my rebuttal. Speaking of who proved who wrong.)

 

[rightwinger]

We the people limit their power through the vote. Been working for hundreds of years

We lost that power long ago however when the permanent political class achieved total power in Washington and retains it by keeping at least half the electorate dependent on that same permanent political class, and the President discovered he could legislate without restriction via executive order from the Oval Office and the Supreme Court decided they would rather make law rather than interpret existing law.

I have seen thousands of politicians voted out of office for not satisfying their constituents

Remember Eric Cantor?

But the constituents almost invariably vote another of the permanent political class into office to replace those they vote out. It permeates the entire process from most of what happens in Washington to the state political headquarters and election machines right down to the smallest villages. Powerful forces are at work to ensure that the 'right people' are placed on the ballot and put in a position to win.

Actually I think the people might have won one when Romney was the last GOP presidential candidate--I don't believe he is a member of the permanent political class and would not have been so easily bullied or manipulated. But alas, the political machine was able to sufficiently demonize him that he could not win even against the most inexperienced, incompetent, ineffective, and destructive President this country has ever known.

Interesting spin...

Romney was born to the permanent political class, his father was a Governor and Presidential candidate. He was born with both a silver spoon and limitless political connections

Meanwhile, you consider Obama to be "permanent political class" while he rose from obscurity to become president

Strange world that Conservative Bizarro World

The Permanent Political Class are those, elected, appointed, or hired into the bureaucracy, who serve in public office for mostly no other reason than to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth. Everything they do is calculated toward that end. It has nothing to do with their background, education, heritage, or personal circumstances prior to them being elected to office. Once there, they play ball with the machine in place, whether Democrat or Republican, or they are ostracized, marginalized, and refused any rank or privileges. They will either quit or the machine will see to it that they are voted out at the next election. Some are better at it than others and rise to prominent positions of leadership where they rule with almost unchallenged power. If they stray off the reservation, there will be hell to pay and they will be punished in some way.

Detailed description and discussion on that here:
BOOK REVIEW EXTORTION How Politicians Extract Your Money Buy Votes and Line The US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Libertarians (little "L") either allow themselves to be 'reformed' by the machine or they have a pretty tough time of it both in the halls of government and in the media.

Good God

And you think that doesn't apply to Romney?

He was born to it

 

[Gary Anderson]

I wrote an ebook, Libertarianism, the UK Big Bang, and How They ruined America. Libertarianism is evil in the underside of its assumptions. Its god is self. And its liberty is dark and exclusive.

I'm not sure I'm clear exactly what you are arguing, but the highlighted point is what liberals say that is just a yawn to me because it's inane. My choices are that I am God, or the Government is? If my making my own choices means I think I am God, clearly then if they think government should make our choices, by that logic, government is God. That's just stupid. It's not an argument and it's not satire, it's a strawman.

God instituted government to rule over people who think they are god.

But the ... men ... in Government when they make our choices for us are not being Gods, but we are when we make our own choices over our own lives and our own wallets. Was that supposed to make sense?

Representative government is better than what we have now, but has that really ever been common?

 

[Gary Anderson]

I wrote an ebook, Libertarianism, the UK Big Bang, and How They ruined America. Libertarianism is evil in the underside of its assumptions. Its god is self. And its liberty is dark and exclusive.

I'm not sure I'm clear exactly what you are arguing, but the highlighted point is what liberals say that is just a yawn to me because it's inane. My choices are that I am God, or the Government is? If my making my own choices means I think I am God, clearly then if they think government should make our choices, by that logic, government is God. That's just stupid. It's not an argument and it's not satire, it's a strawman.

God instituted government to rule over people who think they are god.

The devil instituted government for evil people who think they are god to make other people's choices for them.

What about those of us who don't think we are God and don't want other people making our choices for us? We're just screwed? Or do we need to pick, we think we are God, or we want other people to make our choices for us, those are our only options?

I'm glad you clarified it, it makes sense now...

The Devil can influence government to be sure. That is why it will all come to an end at Christi's Second Coming. There is plenty of evil in government.

 

[Mindful]

Thanks for that example from the echo chamber of Conflationism. It amply describes what the Conflationists wish us to redefine to. I on the other hand laid out WHY they're doing that and what the purpose of that redefinition is.

Language changes when We the People change it -- not when political demagogues fling ad copy at us. And we don't morph words in half a century. Again, there is no reason to merge three (six) different words into one (two) except to dumb down the dialogue in an attempt to control the proletariat in a grand game of dichotomous Angels and Devils.

When I find out better info than I previously had, I adopt and incorporate it. What do you do? Ignore it as inconvenient?

And Foxy if I were you I'd be circumspect about invoking "ignoring posts" considering what you've been ignoring im this thread when I proved you wrong.

Nomsayin'?

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. . . .

Indeed.

I rest my case. You are absolutely incapable of reading and understanding a concept or argument. But you are in good company as few modern day American liberals can. Oh well. I love you anyway.

(I suspect though that you chose not to quote my rebuttal to your statement that there is no such thing as a classical liberal because your statement was blown to hell by my rebuttal. Speaking of who proved who wrong.)

Is anyone here a, what would be considered, classical liberal?

 

[Foxfyre]

We the people limit their power through the vote. Been working for hundreds of years

We lost that power long ago however when the permanent political class achieved total power in Washington and retains it by keeping at least half the electorate dependent on that same permanent political class, and the President discovered he could legislate without restriction via executive order from the Oval Office and the Supreme Court decided they would rather make law rather than interpret existing law.

I have seen thousands of politicians voted out of office for not satisfying their constituents

Remember Eric Cantor?

But the constituents almost invariably vote another of the permanent political class into office to replace those they vote out. It permeates the entire process from most of what happens in Washington to the state political headquarters and election machines right down to the smallest villages. Powerful forces are at work to ensure that the 'right people' are placed on the ballot and put in a position to win.

Actually I think the people might have won one when Romney was the last GOP presidential candidate--I don't believe he is a member of the permanent political class and would not have been so easily bullied or manipulated. But alas, the political machine was able to sufficiently demonize him that he could not win even against the most inexperienced, incompetent, ineffective, and destructive President this country has ever known.

Interesting spin...

Romney was born to the permanent political class, his father was a Governor and Presidential candidate. He was born with both a silver spoon and limitless political connections

Meanwhile, you consider Obama to be "permanent political class" while he rose from obscurity to become president

Strange world that Conservative Bizarro World

The Permanent Political Class are those, elected, appointed, or hired into the bureaucracy, who serve in public office for mostly no other reason than to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth. Everything they do is calculated toward that end. It has nothing to do with their background, education, heritage, or personal circumstances prior to them being elected to office. Once there, they play ball with the machine in place, whether Democrat or Republican, or they are ostracized, marginalized, and refused any rank or privileges. They will either quit or the machine will see to it that they are voted out at the next election. Some are better at it than others and rise to prominent positions of leadership where they rule with almost unchallenged power. If they stray off the reservation, there will be hell to pay and they will be punished in some way.

Detailed description and discussion on that here:
BOOK REVIEW EXTORTION How Politicians Extract Your Money Buy Votes and Line The US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Libertarians (little "L") either allow themselves to be 'reformed' by the machine or they have a pretty tough time of it both in the halls of government and in the media.

Good God

And you think that doesn't apply to Romney?

He was born to it

No. I don't believe he was born to it at all, and I believe he is less susceptible to buying into it than most we see running for high office. His record shows that he has used his blessings mostly unselfishly for the common good and his track record is one of genuine public service instead of being self serving. And I say that as one who doesn't agree with him on every issue and who did not support him in the primaries.

 

[Pogo]

Thanks for that example from the echo chamber of Conflationism. It amply describes what the Conflationists wish us to redefine to. I on the other hand laid out WHY they're doing that and what the purpose of that redefinition is.

Language changes when We the People change it -- not when political demagogues fling ad copy at us. And we don't morph words in half a century. Again, there is no reason to merge three (six) different words into one (two) except to dumb down the dialogue in an attempt to control the proletariat in a grand game of dichotomous Angels and Devils.

When I find out better info than I previously had, I adopt and incorporate it. What do you do? Ignore it as inconvenient?

And Foxy if I were you I'd be circumspect about invoking "ignoring posts" considering what you've been ignoring im this thread when I proved you wrong.

Nomsayin'?

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. . . .

Indeed.

I rest my case. You are absolutely incapable of reading and understanding a concept or argument. But you are in good company as few modern day American liberals can. Oh well. I love you anyway.

Love you too Foxy
But you know what they used to tell me in grade school about lemmingthink?
"If everybody else jumped in the lake, would you jump in too? "

Need a towel?

(I suspect though that you chose not to quote my rebuttal to your statement that there is no such thing as a classical liberal because your statement was blown to hell by my rebuttal. Speaking of who proved who wrong.)

No, that was opinion by the Conflationists. Which was the first thing I noted.
I also noted I provided a history of that conflation and its specific motivations and manifestations. Where's yours?

Hey, give me a Google page and a few minutes and I can "prove" that Barack O'bama was born in Kenya as Hitler's love child.

 

[Pogo]

Thanks for that example from the echo chamber of Conflationism. It amply describes what the Conflationists wish us to redefine to. I on the other hand laid out WHY they're doing that and what the purpose of that redefinition is.

Language changes when We the People change it -- not when political demagogues fling ad copy at us. And we don't morph words in half a century. Again, there is no reason to merge three (six) different words into one (two) except to dumb down the dialogue in an attempt to control the proletariat in a grand game of dichotomous Angels and Devils.

When I find out better info than I previously had, I adopt and incorporate it. What do you do? Ignore it as inconvenient?

And Foxy if I were you I'd be circumspect about invoking "ignoring posts" considering what you've been ignoring im this thread when I proved you wrong.

Nomsayin'?

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. . . .

Indeed.

I rest my case. You are absolutely incapable of reading and understanding a concept or argument. But you are in good company as few modern day American liberals can. Oh well. I love you anyway.

(I suspect though that you chose not to quote my rebuttal to your statement that there is no such thing as a classical liberal because your statement was blown to hell by my rebuttal. Speaking of who proved who wrong.)

Is anyone here a, what would be considered, classical liberal?

That depends on what you mean by that term. I say it's a redundancy.

 

[Mindful]

Thanks for that example from the echo chamber of Conflationism. It amply describes what the Conflationists wish us to redefine to. I on the other hand laid out WHY they're doing that and what the purpose of that redefinition is.

Language changes when We the People change it -- not when political demagogues fling ad copy at us. And we don't morph words in half a century. Again, there is no reason to merge three (six) different words into one (two) except to dumb down the dialogue in an attempt to control the proletariat in a grand game of dichotomous Angels and Devils.

When I find out better info than I previously had, I adopt and incorporate it. What do you do? Ignore it as inconvenient?

And Foxy if I were you I'd be circumspect about invoking "ignoring posts" considering what you've been ignoring im this thread when I proved you wrong.

Nomsayin'?

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. . . .

Indeed.

I rest my case. You are absolutely incapable of reading and understanding a concept or argument. But you are in good company as few modern day American liberals can. Oh well. I love you anyway.

(I suspect though that you chose not to quote my rebuttal to your statement that there is no such thing as a classical liberal because your statement was blown to hell by my rebuttal. Speaking of who proved who wrong.)

Is anyone here a, what would be considered, classical liberal?

That depends on what you mean by that term. I say it's a redundancy.

 

[Mindful]

I'm inclined to say that too. Though I've seen the term bandied about a lot.
It belongs to a bygone era