What is a small government libertarian?

[Dad2three]

Yeah.. you keep falling back on the mob rule thing. Kinda sad.

Yeah, Kinda how OUR Gov't works. You can try other nations you know?

I have to double check here... is mob rule really how you think our government is supposed to work?

IF by mob rule you mean the majority of those voting, YES

 

[dblack]

Yeah, Kinda how OUR Gov't works. You can try other nations you know?

I have to double check here... is mob rule really how you think our government is supposed to work?

IF by mob rule you mean the majority of those voting, YES

That explains a lot.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, Kinda how OUR Gov't works. You can try other nations you know?

"Our" government works for parasites like you who hate the work ethic, and vote early and often.

.

You think everyone that works for the public sector is a parasite. Wow...

Aside from the military, yes.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, Kinda how OUR Gov't works. You can try other nations you know?

I have to double check here... is mob rule really how you think our government is supposed to work?

IF by mob rule you mean the majority of those voting, YES

So if the mob voted to legalize slavery, you would support it?

 

[Dad2three]

Are you seriously bringing up China as a small government example?

Are you seriously disputing it isn't 'Free Market Nirvana'? No worker safety regs, no environmental restrictions, no pesky 'labor problems', no restrictions on a company's ability to rob the paychecks of workers for things like taking a leak, 'company store' policies that are straight from the 19th century, barbed wire around factories turned inward to keep workers from escaping those 'voluntary contracts' so beloved by 'libertarianism', workers marched to 15 minute lunches and dinners concentration camp style, etc.? Of course it's 'small government' as defined by 'libertarians' and 'free market capitalists', a very small government indeed for those who aren't from cadre families. It's very much an absolute Paradise of 'small government' from Wall Street and 'private enterprise' perspectives. It's even better than slavery, since when they die or starve to death they can simply be replaced by a virtually unlimited supply of replacements.

Sorry, but I don't have any evidence that all the things you say about China are true. Their environmental regulations are obviously lax, but the rest of the stuff you listed could be leftwing horseshit. The claim about the barbed wire is hysterical. You mean they don't allow any employees off the premises? If you believe that, you're the forum's biggest fool, and that's saying something.

Reports early Monday from China suggest that a mass disturbance or riots may have broken out at a Foxconn factory in the city of Taiyuan.



Romney stated:

When I was back in my private equity days, we went to China to buy a factory there. It employed about 20,000 people. And they were almost all young women between the ages of about 18 and 22 or 23. They were saving for potentially becoming married. And they work in these huge factories, they made various small appliances. And as we were walking through this facility, seeing them work, the number of hours they worked per day, the pittance they earned, living in dormitories with little bathrooms at the end of maybe 10 rooms. And the rooms, they had 12 girls per room, three bunk beds on top of each other. You’ve seen, you’ve seen them? And around this factory was a fence, a huge fence with barbed wire and guard towers. And we said gosh, I can’t believe that you, you know, keep these girls in. And they said, no, no, no. This is to keep other people from coming in. Because people want so badly to work in this factory that we have to keep them out.

Although Romney stated that those measures were in place in order to protect the workers from outsiders, it now appears they were meant to keep them in.

According to WantChinaTimes in January, Terry Gou, the head of Hon Hai (Foxconn), the largest contract manufacturer in the world, had this to say at a recent meeting with his senior managers:

"Hon Hai has a workforce of over one million worldwide and as human beings are also animals, to manage one million animals gives me a headache," said Hon Hai chairman Terry Gou at a recent year-end party, adding that he wants to learn from Chin Shih-chien, director of the Taipei Zoo, regarding how animals should be managed.

Foxconn has been under the microscope for years for its brutal and inhumane working conditions, including long hours, low wages and strict rules on representation. The company has also dealt with a string of suicides at its plants across China, which led in 2010 to the company installing anti-jump nets to prevent more suicide attempts.

Workers Refuse to be ?Bained? - Riots break out at Foxconn factory in China - PolitiScoop.com


Over the weekend, a riot broke out at Foxconn's Taiyuan plant, reportedly over guards beating up a worker. Initial reports via social media said 2,000 people were rioting at a factory after a guard hit a worker.

Riot breaks out at Foxconn's Taiyuan plant, reportedly over guards beating up a worker (update: confirmed)

 

[Dad2three]

I have to double check here... is mob rule really how you think our government is supposed to work?

IF by mob rule you mean the majority of those voting, YES

So if the mob voted to legalize slavery, you would support it?

Progress isn't spelled using conservative policies!

 

[Dad2three]

I have to double check here... is mob rule really how you think our government is supposed to work?

IF by mob rule you mean the majority of those voting, YES

That explains a lot.

That I support representative Gov't? YES

 

[Picaro]

No what proved you wrong was your 'belief' that the rail system was created without Gov't subsidies this was more of a question you blew off!

Dingleberry Sir:


Crony Capitalism and the Transcontinental Railroads


"the first transcontinentals were all creatures, not of capitalism or the private markets, but of government. There simply were not enough people, capital, manufactured goods, or crops between Missouri and the West coast to support a private-sector railroad."

AND? Yes, like I SAID, Gov't created the rail system in the US...

They were being subsidized before the Civil War. The Illinois Central was given a massive amount of land in the early 1850's, for one. The Camden and Amboy was most certainly a government monopoly, and was hugely profitable even when saddled with the Delaware Canal. All the short lines that eventually made up the New York Central, all the Massachusetts lines, etc., all subsidized. The Pennsy too. I think the Maunch Chunk, I probably spelled it wrong, may have been private, but it only served a coal mine company and wasn't a public carrier, and was originally a gravity road anyway. Can't recall a single private road of any kind; they all depended on 'eminent domain' confiscations by government fiat for their routes.

In contrast, the British railroads were all private, IIRC, the land purchased piece by piece from individual landowners, at much higher upfront expense, and yet they were steadily profitable for the most part, while the American speculators and financiers looted and bankrupted and cheated their shareholders routinely, as if they were entitled to.

 

[Dad2three]

AND all those created by the government failed, miuserably.

The ONLY one which survived did not ask , nor accept, federal funds. James J. Hill's Great Northern Railroad "

.

I WAS HOPING SOME DUMBASS WOULD COME UP WITH THAT (MINOR IN HISTORY REMEMBER?)


Government Intervention, James J. Hill and the Great Northern Railway

James J. Hill is often invoked as a hero by apologists for extreme laissez faire, because his railway was allegedly built completely privately, without any government subsidies or land grants. Unfortunately, there some inconvenient facts the free market ideologues leave out when they discuss Hill and the Great Northern Railway:

(1) Hill acquired a pre-existing railway called the Saint Paul and Pacific Railroad (which was originally charted as the “Minnesota and Pacific Railroad” in 1857) as the starting basis for his Great Northern Railway. The Saint Paul and Pacific Railroad existed because of massive government support:

Mr Dingle Berry Sir

1- The Saint Paul and Pacific Railroad (also known as the St. Paul & Pacific Railroad and the SP&P) was a shortline railroad in the state of Minnesota in the United States which existed from 1857 to 1879. Founded as the Minnesota and Pacific Railroad, it was the state's first active railroad.[1][2

James J. Hill, who ran steamboats on the Red River, knew that the SP&P owned very valuable land grants and saw the potential of the railroad.[14] Hill convinced John S. Kennedy (a New York City banker who had represented the Dutch bondholders), Norman Kittson (Hill's friend and a wealthy fur trader), Donald Smith (a Montreal banker and executive with the Hudson's Bay Company), and George Stephen (Smith's cousin and a wealthy railroad executive) to invest $5.5 million in purchasing the railroad.[1

Show me where the federal government gave Hill's investment group one single penny to buy the bankrupt RR.

.

Like I said, THEY BENEFITED FROM GOV'T SUBSIDIES FROM THE RR'S THEY TOOK OVER. True or false?

 

[Dad2three]

Dingleberry Sir:


Crony Capitalism and the Transcontinental Railroads


"the first transcontinentals were all creatures, not of capitalism or the private markets, but of government. There simply were not enough people, capital, manufactured goods, or crops between Missouri and the West coast to support a private-sector railroad."

AND? Yes, like I SAID, Gov't created the rail system in the US...

They were being subsidized before the Civil War. The Illinois Central was given a massive amount of land in the early 1850's, for one. The Camden and Amboy was most certainly a government monopoly, and was hugely profitable even when saddled with the Delaware Canal. All the short lines that eventually made up the New York Central, all the Massachusetts lines, etc., all subsidized. The Pennsy too. I think the Maunch Chunk, I probably spelled it wrong, may have been private, but it only served a coal mine company and wasn't a public carrier, and was originally a gravity road anyway. Can't recall a single private road of any kind; they all depended on 'eminent domain' confiscations by government fiat for their routes.

In contrast, the British railroads were all private, IIRC, the land purchased piece by piece from individual landowners, at much higher upfront expense, and yet they were steadily profitable for the most part, while the American speculators and financiers looted and bankrupted and cheated their shareholders routinely, as if they were entitled to.

"while the American speculators and financiers looted and bankrupted and cheated their shareholders routinely, as if they were entitled to."

Good old AmeriKan style 'capitalism' conservatives LOVE

 

[dblack]

IF by mob rule you mean the majority of those voting, YES

That explains a lot.

That I support representative Gov't? YES

That you don't understand the difference between representative government - in particular constitutionally limited representative government - and mob rule. Your history profs must been asleep.

 

[bripat9643]

AND? Yes, like I SAID, Gov't created the rail system in the US...

They were being subsidized before the Civil War. The Illinois Central was given a massive amount of land in the early 1850's, for one. The Camden and Amboy was most certainly a government monopoly, and was hugely profitable even when saddled with the Delaware Canal. All the short lines that eventually made up the New York Central, all the Massachusetts lines, etc., all subsidized. The Pennsy too. I think the Maunch Chunk, I probably spelled it wrong, may have been private, but it only served a coal mine company and wasn't a public carrier, and was originally a gravity road anyway. Can't recall a single private road of any kind; they all depended on 'eminent domain' confiscations by government fiat for their routes.

In contrast, the British railroads were all private, IIRC, the land purchased piece by piece from individual landowners, at much higher upfront expense, and yet they were steadily profitable for the most part, while the American speculators and financiers looted and bankrupted and cheated their shareholders routinely, as if they were entitled to.

"while the American speculators and financiers looted and bankrupted and cheated their shareholders routinely, as if they were entitled to."

Good old AmeriKan style 'capitalism' conservatives LOVE

No, that's communist propaganda about American style capitalism. The only American railroads that "looted and cheated" where the ones subsidized by the government.

 

[bripat9643]

I WAS HOPING SOME DUMBASS WOULD COME UP WITH THAT (MINOR IN HISTORY REMEMBER?)


Government Intervention, James J. Hill and the Great Northern Railway

James J. Hill is often invoked as a hero by apologists for extreme laissez faire, because his railway was allegedly built completely privately, without any government subsidies or land grants. Unfortunately, there some inconvenient facts the free market ideologues leave out when they discuss Hill and the Great Northern Railway:

(1) Hill acquired a pre-existing railway called the Saint Paul and Pacific Railroad (which was originally charted as the “Minnesota and Pacific Railroad” in 1857) as the starting basis for his Great Northern Railway. The Saint Paul and Pacific Railroad existed because of massive government support:

Mr Dingle Berry Sir

1- The Saint Paul and Pacific Railroad (also known as the St. Paul & Pacific Railroad and the SP&P) was a shortline railroad in the state of Minnesota in the United States which existed from 1857 to 1879. Founded as the Minnesota and Pacific Railroad, it was the state's first active railroad.[1][2

James J. Hill, who ran steamboats on the Red River, knew that the SP&P owned very valuable land grants and saw the potential of the railroad.[14] Hill convinced John S. Kennedy (a New York City banker who had represented the Dutch bondholders), Norman Kittson (Hill's friend and a wealthy fur trader), Donald Smith (a Montreal banker and executive with the Hudson's Bay Company), and George Stephen (Smith's cousin and a wealthy railroad executive) to invest $5.5 million in purchasing the railroad.[1

Show me where the federal government gave Hill's investment group one single penny to buy the bankrupt RR.

.

Like I said, THEY BENEFITED FROM GOV'T SUBSIDIES FROM THE RR'S THEY TOOK OVER. True or false?

That's like saying if the army closes some of it's bases and then sells the property to private investors that those investors "benefited" from government subsidies. It's a meaningless claim. If the government thought it could get more money for the property, it has only itself to blaim. The purchases paid the market price.

 

[Dad2three]

That explains a lot.

That I support representative Gov't? YES

That you don't understand the difference between representative government - in particular constitutionally limited representative government - and mob rule. Your history profs must been asleep.

"in particular constitutionally limited representative government"


SUBJECTIVE. Guess what, you klowns LOST that fight, over and over and over!

 

[bripat9643]

Dingleberry Sir:


Crony Capitalism and the Transcontinental Railroads


"the first transcontinentals were all creatures, not of capitalism or the private markets, but of government. There simply were not enough people, capital, manufactured goods, or crops between Missouri and the West coast to support a private-sector railroad."

AND? Yes, like I SAID, Gov't created the rail system in the US...

They were being subsidized before the Civil War. The Illinois Central was given a massive amount of land in the early 1850's, for one. The Camden and Amboy was most certainly a government monopoly, and was hugely profitable even when saddled with the Delaware Canal. All the short lines that eventually made up the New York Central, all the Massachusetts lines, etc., all subsidized. The Pennsy too. I think the Maunch Chunk, I probably spelled it wrong, may have been private, but it only served a coal mine company and wasn't a public carrier, and was originally a gravity road anyway. Can't recall a single private road of any kind; they all depended on 'eminent domain' confiscations by government fiat for their routes.

In contrast, the British railroads were all private, IIRC, the land purchased piece by piece from individual landowners, at much higher upfront expense, and yet they were steadily profitable for the most part, while the American speculators and financiers looted and bankrupted and cheated their shareholders routinely, as if they were entitled to.

Throttling the Railroads: 2. Aiding the Railroads: 1830-1871 : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education

In any case, the state aid to rail*roads proved to be the wrong way to get them built. One historian sums up the results to the mid*point of the nineteenth century: "The experience of… states with government-sponsored internal im*provements—the Erie being the sole exception—had ended disas*trously."9 Another writer notes that "there was a good deal of fraud and corruption in connec*tion with state aid to railroads, and in later years a number of states repudiated some of their ob*ligations made in connection with railroad construction. Because of the corruption involved and be*cause of the heavy tax burden the people were asked to bear to meet the states’ promises, it later be*came common for state constitu*tions to prohibit the investment of state money in any private enter*prise."¹º

It often turned out that what was not a good investment for pri*vate investors was not a good one for governments. But that is not the whole story. Government in*vestment made such railroad build*ing politically determined rather than economic, turned over the funds to the cleverest lobbyists on occasion rather than to those likely to provide sound manage*ment, led to building at times and to places that would not then be justified, and sometimes saddled these premature undertakings with large debts. By reserving the right to regulate in charters, and by giving aid, states set the stage for intervention and made the status of the railroads before the law am*biguous.

 

[Dad2three]

They were being subsidized before the Civil War. The Illinois Central was given a massive amount of land in the early 1850's, for one. The Camden and Amboy was most certainly a government monopoly, and was hugely profitable even when saddled with the Delaware Canal. All the short lines that eventually made up the New York Central, all the Massachusetts lines, etc., all subsidized. The Pennsy too. I think the Maunch Chunk, I probably spelled it wrong, may have been private, but it only served a coal mine company and wasn't a public carrier, and was originally a gravity road anyway. Can't recall a single private road of any kind; they all depended on 'eminent domain' confiscations by government fiat for their routes.

In contrast, the British railroads were all private, IIRC, the land purchased piece by piece from individual landowners, at much higher upfront expense, and yet they were steadily profitable for the most part, while the American speculators and financiers looted and bankrupted and cheated their shareholders routinely, as if they were entitled to.

"while the American speculators and financiers looted and bankrupted and cheated their shareholders routinely, as if they were entitled to."

Good old AmeriKan style 'capitalism' conservatives LOVE

No, that's communist propaganda about American style capitalism. The only American railroads that "looted and cheated" where the ones subsidized by the government.

You do realize they got GOV'T SUBSIDIES RIGHT? By buying the BK rails?


The Northern Pacific and the "short squeeze" of 1901

With 1901 and the start of the new century, James Hill now had control of both the Great Northern Railway, and the Northern Pacific (which he had obtained with the help of his friend J. P. Morgan, when that railroad went bankrupt in the depression of the mid-1890s). Hill also wanted control of the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy railroad because of its Midwestern lines and access to Chicago. The Union Pacific Railroad was the biggest competitor of Great Northern and Northern Pacific Railroads. Although Great Northern and Northern Pacific were backed by J. P. Morgan and James J. Hill, the Union Pacific was backed not only by its president, Edward H. Harriman, but by the extremely powerful William Rockefeller and Jacob Schiff.

Quietly, Harriman began buying stock in Northern Pacific with the intention of gaining control of Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy. He was within 40,000 shares of control when Hill learned of Harriman's activities and quickly contacted J. P. Morgan, who ordered his men to buy everything they could get their hands on.


The result was chaos on Wall Street. Northern Pacific stock was forced up to $1,000 per share. Many speculators, who had sold Northern Pacific "short" in the anticipation of a drop in the railroad's price, faced ruin. The threat of a real economic panic loomed. Neither side could win a distinct advantage, and the parties soon realized that a truce would have to be called. The winners of that truce were Hill and Morgan, who immediately formed the Northern Securities Company with the aim of tying together their three major rail lines As the Hill-Morgan alliance formed the Northern Securities Company, Theodore Roosevelt became president and turned his energies against the great trusts that were monopolizing trade.


James J. Hill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dad2three]

They were being subsidized before the Civil War. The Illinois Central was given a massive amount of land in the early 1850's, for one. The Camden and Amboy was most certainly a government monopoly, and was hugely profitable even when saddled with the Delaware Canal. All the short lines that eventually made up the New York Central, all the Massachusetts lines, etc., all subsidized. The Pennsy too. I think the Maunch Chunk, I probably spelled it wrong, may have been private, but it only served a coal mine company and wasn't a public carrier, and was originally a gravity road anyway. Can't recall a single private road of any kind; they all depended on 'eminent domain' confiscations by government fiat for their routes.

In contrast, the British railroads were all private, IIRC, the land purchased piece by piece from individual landowners, at much higher upfront expense, and yet they were steadily profitable for the most part, while the American speculators and financiers looted and bankrupted and cheated their shareholders routinely, as if they were entitled to.

"while the American speculators and financiers looted and bankrupted and cheated their shareholders routinely, as if they were entitled to."

Good old AmeriKan style 'capitalism' conservatives LOVE

No, that's communist propaganda about American style capitalism. The only American railroads that "looted and cheated" where the ones subsidized by the government.

The St. Paul and Pacific was bankrupt and its ownership was in the control of Dutch bond holders. It reached out into the Red River country toward Winnipeg and had valuable land grants in Minnesota. It was a broken road not able to operate at times and places and had incurred the enmity of the people and the legislature of Minnesota. Hill secured the financial backing of the Bank of Montreal and its president, George Stephen (later Lord Mount Stephen). Through the efforts of Smith, later to become Lord Strathcona and the head of the Canadian Pacific Railway, a deal was made. Hill and his associates secured the St. Paul and Pacific and took it over with the newly organized St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Railroad Company. Certain land grants required construction or they would be cancelled. Hill's energy and resourcefulness brought about favorable action by the legislature of Minnesota, the courts and the receiver and even the competing bankrupt Northern Pacific Railway.

John P. Farley, who had been the receiver, later brought suit against Hill and his associates claiming a secret agreement with Hill by which he, the receiver, was to have one-fifth interest in the newly organized railroad which took over the bankrupt St. Paul and Pacific. The United States Circuit Court remarked, "Courts will not and ought not to be made the agencies whereby frauds are ordered or recognized. They will not unravel a tangled web of fraud for the benefit of anyone enmeshed therein through whose agency the web was woven."


...In 1895, Hill gained control of the bankrupt Northern Pacific with the Great Northern, guaranteeing payment of $100 million of Northern Pacific bonds. Hill was to receive one half of the Northern Pacific common stock. A suit was brought by Thomas W. Pearson, a Great Northern stockholder, citing a Minnesota law prohibiting the unification of parallel and competing lines. He secured an injunction and the United States Supreme Court sustained the law. Hill and his associates individually bought into the Northern Pacific and in 1896 were in control of it. Hill at the age of 58 controlled and dominated the two great systems. He was a driving, powerful man with an unlimited dominating character. Both roads prospered and they practically ceased to be competitors.


HistoryLink.org- the Free Online Encyclopedia of Washington State History

 

[Dad2three]

Mr Dingle Berry Sir

1- The Saint Paul and Pacific Railroad (also known as the St. Paul & Pacific Railroad and the SP&P) was a shortline railroad in the state of Minnesota in the United States which existed from 1857 to 1879. Founded as the Minnesota and Pacific Railroad, it was the state's first active railroad.[1][2

James J. Hill, who ran steamboats on the Red River, knew that the SP&P owned very valuable land grants and saw the potential of the railroad.[14] Hill convinced John S. Kennedy (a New York City banker who had represented the Dutch bondholders), Norman Kittson (Hill's friend and a wealthy fur trader), Donald Smith (a Montreal banker and executive with the Hudson's Bay Company), and George Stephen (Smith's cousin and a wealthy railroad executive) to invest $5.5 million in purchasing the railroad.[1

Show me where the federal government gave Hill's investment group one single penny to buy the bankrupt RR.

.

Like I said, THEY BENEFITED FROM GOV'T SUBSIDIES FROM THE RR'S THEY TOOK OVER. True or false?

That's like saying if the army closes some of it's bases and then sells the property to private investors that those investors "benefited" from government subsidies. It's a meaningless claim. If the government thought it could get more money for the property, it has only itself to blaim. The purchases paid the market price.

Hill's energy and resourcefulness brought about favorable action by the legislature of Minnesota, the courts and the receiver and even the competing bankrupt Northern Pacific Railway.

John P. Farley, who had been the receiver, later brought suit against Hill and his associates claiming a secret agreement with Hill by which he, the receiver, was to have one-fifth interest in the newly organized railroad which took over the bankrupt St. Paul and Pacific.


HistoryLink.org- the Free Online Encyclopedia of Washington State History


YOU KLOWNS CREATED a MYTH ABOUT HILL. Trust me!

 

[Dad2three]

AND? Yes, like I SAID, Gov't created the rail system in the US...

They were being subsidized before the Civil War. The Illinois Central was given a massive amount of land in the early 1850's, for one. The Camden and Amboy was most certainly a government monopoly, and was hugely profitable even when saddled with the Delaware Canal. All the short lines that eventually made up the New York Central, all the Massachusetts lines, etc., all subsidized. The Pennsy too. I think the Maunch Chunk, I probably spelled it wrong, may have been private, but it only served a coal mine company and wasn't a public carrier, and was originally a gravity road anyway. Can't recall a single private road of any kind; they all depended on 'eminent domain' confiscations by government fiat for their routes.

In contrast, the British railroads were all private, IIRC, the land purchased piece by piece from individual landowners, at much higher upfront expense, and yet they were steadily profitable for the most part, while the American speculators and financiers looted and bankrupted and cheated their shareholders routinely, as if they were entitled to.

Throttling the Railroads: 2. Aiding the Railroads: 1830-1871 : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education

In any case, the state aid to rail*roads proved to be the wrong way to get them built. One historian sums up the results to the mid*point of the nineteenth century: "The experience of… states with government-sponsored internal im*provements—the Erie being the sole exception—had ended disas*trously."9 Another writer notes that "there was a good deal of fraud and corruption in connec*tion with state aid to railroads, and in later years a number of states repudiated some of their ob*ligations made in connection with railroad construction. Because of the corruption involved and be*cause of the heavy tax burden the people were asked to bear to meet the states’ promises, it later be*came common for state constitu*tions to prohibit the investment of state money in any private enter*prise."¹º

It often turned out that what was not a good investment for pri*vate investors was not a good one for governments. But that is not the whole story. Government in*vestment made such railroad build*ing politically determined rather than economic, turned over the funds to the cleverest lobbyists on occasion rather than to those likely to provide sound manage*ment, led to building at times and to places that would not then be justified, and sometimes saddled these premature undertakings with large debts. By reserving the right to regulate in charters, and by giving aid, states set the stage for intervention and made the status of the railroads before the law am*biguous.

Weird, you mean Gov't CREATING infrastructure BEFORE the 'free market' did was wrong? Even though it GREATLY expanded the opportunities for Americans AND the coming immigrants? lol

 

[dblack]

That I support representative Gov't? YES

That you don't understand the difference between representative government - in particular constitutionally limited representative government - and mob rule. Your history profs must been asleep.

"in particular constitutionally limited representative government"


SUBJECTIVE. Guess what, you klowns LOST that fight, over and over and over!

Back to gloating over mob rule again, eh? That seems to be your comfort zone.

The idea that government power should be constitutionally limited is fundamental to our system of government. That's first year civics stuff. If you don't accept that, it puts you on the radical fringe, far moreso than libertarians.