Why 'Libertarian' = 'Losertarian'

[whitehall]

Every sane voice in the libertarian party moved into the Tea Party when libertarians were hijacked by the pot heads. The current libertarian presidential candidate is the former CEO of Cannibas Sativa.

 

[flacaltenn]

someone who isn't a libertarian tries to define what the libertarians believe... doesn't go well, does it? .

Actually it perfectly well. Your silly response exemplifies what I am talking about.

People are not going to spontaneously group up and build a road which is why roads have been built by governments since the Persians.

People are not going to just group up and protect the public against criminals, which is why the government has police officers.

You dude like in Lala Land.

You're way off the deep end. You must be confusing Libertarians with Anarchists. WAIT -- maybe I can get AnCaptnAmerica to demonstrate what "anarchos" are about.

No POLICE OFFICERS? Are you high? We love the civil/criminal justice system. Just want it to avoid treating citizens as subjects and to reform it so that it isn't used as the ONLY tool to affect societal changes.

The southern border problem is totally a GOVT created problem. There is already law to prevent the employment of undocumented workers. You could END that problem tomorrow by ENFORCING it and simultaneously embarking on an aggressive DOCUMENTATION program of the workers you REALLY want to retain. No need to Granny and Grandpa Imendez on a trail of tears. They are NOT a threat to jobs. No wall required. Libertarians WOULD end the "magnets" caused by promises of handouts, higher education, free healthcare and the like tho. No magnets, no jobs, ---- problem solved. Why haven't YOUR GUYS fix this??????

These whiny threads are worth about about a nickel.. If you can FIND a nickel anymore.

There is a shitload of difference between governing --- FROM WHERE WE ARE -- to debating "ideals". And we don't have time to be idealists anymore --- NONE of us do.....

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Every sane voice in the libertarian party moved into the Tea Party when libertarians were hijacked by the pot heads. The current libertarian presidential candidate is the former CEO of Cannibas Sativa.

That explains plenty.

 

[flacaltenn]

Every sane voice in the libertarian party moved into the Tea Party when libertarians were hijacked by the pot heads. The current libertarian presidential candidate is the former CEO of Cannibas Sativa.

He took that position for $1/year to apply his govt expertise to the very REAL problems of getting ahead of public policy on the subject. NOT to enhance the business or benefit financially. He did it to ASSURE that when the people decide to decriminalize weed, that the processes and regulations are fair and workable. So that it doesn't become an embarrassing disaster.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Every sane voice in the libertarian party moved into the Tea Party when libertarians were hijacked by the pot heads. The current libertarian presidential candidate is the former CEO of Cannibas Sativa.

He took that position for $1/year to apply his govt expertise to the very REAL problems of getting ahead of public policy on the subject. NOT to enhance the business or benefit financially. He did it to ASSURE that when the people decide to decriminalize weed, that the processes and regulations are fair and workable. So that it doesn't become an embarrassing disaster.

He's in line to recoup money in investment. The $1 was a token gesture. He expects to make money.
Pot should be recriminalized or at least careless potheads should be jailed for life if they smoke their dope in any public setting.

 

[flacaltenn]

Every sane voice in the libertarian party moved into the Tea Party when libertarians were hijacked by the pot heads. The current libertarian presidential candidate is the former CEO of Cannibas Sativa.

He took that position for $1/year to apply his govt expertise to the very REAL problems of getting ahead of public policy on the subject. NOT to enhance the business or benefit financially. He did it to ASSURE that when the people decide to decriminalize weed, that the processes and regulations are fair and workable. So that it doesn't become an embarrassing disaster.

He's in line to recoup money in investment. The $1 was a token gesture. He expects to make money.
Pot should be recriminalized or at least careless potheads should be jailed for life if they smoke their dope in any public setting.

You wanna run by the fine folks in Colorado or wait and see what problems ACTUALLY crop up?

And what is "a careless pothead"? Is that as dangerous as someone who intends to reward the Dem/Rep losers by voting for them in this election?

 

[JimBowie1958]

someone who isn't a libertarian tries to define what the libertarians believe... doesn't go well, does it? .

Actually it perfectly well. Your silly response exemplifies what I am talking about.

People are not going to spontaneously group up and build a road which is why roads have been built by governments since the Persians.

People are not going to just group up and protect the public against criminals, which is why the government has police officers.

You dude like in Lala Land.

You're way off the deep end. You must be confusing Libertarians with Anarchists. WAIT -- maybe I can get AnCaptnAmerica to demonstrate what "anarchos" are about.

No POLICE OFFICERS? Are you high? We love the civil/criminal justice system. Just want it to avoid treating citizens as subjects and to reform it so that it isn't used as the ONLY tool to affect societal changes.

The southern border problem is totally a GOVT created problem. There is already law to prevent the employment of undocumented workers. You could END that problem tomorrow by ENFORCING it and simultaneously embarking on an aggressive DOCUMENTATION program of the workers you REALLY want to retain. No need to Granny and Grandpa Imendez on a trail of tears. They are NOT a threat to jobs. No wall required. Libertarians WOULD end the "magnets" caused by promises of handouts, higher education, free healthcare and the like tho. No magnets, no jobs, ---- problem solved. Why haven't YOUR GUYS fix this??????

These whiny threads are worth about about a nickel.. If you can FIND a nickel anymore.

There is a shitload of difference between governing --- FROM WHERE WE ARE -- to debating "ideals". And we don't have time to be idealists anymore --- NONE of us do.....

So you are a libertarian in favor of government run police forces, secure borders, controlled immigration, and opposed to anarchy?

lol, so you want to actually win an election now by backing Johnson, or what?

roflmao

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Every sane voice in the libertarian party moved into the Tea Party when libertarians were hijacked by the pot heads. The current libertarian presidential candidate is the former CEO of Cannibas Sativa.

He took that position for $1/year to apply his govt expertise to the very REAL problems of getting ahead of public policy on the subject. NOT to enhance the business or benefit financially. He did it to ASSURE that when the people decide to decriminalize weed, that the processes and regulations are fair and workable. So that it doesn't become an embarrassing disaster.

He's in line to recoup money in investment. The $1 was a token gesture. He expects to make money.
Pot should be recriminalized or at least careless potheads should be jailed for life if they smoke their dope in any public setting.

You wanna run by the fine folks in Colorado or wait and see what problems ACTUALLY crop up?

And what is "a careless pothead"? Is that as dangerous as someone who intends to reward the Dem/Rep losers by voting for them in this election?

If a person in Colorado blows their pot smoke in my direction I might shoot them in self defense. Their funeral, my safety. I won't be held hostage by ignorant arrogance.
Nothing libertarian about blowing pot smoke on other people. That would be just the opposite of libertarian.

 

[flacaltenn]

someone who isn't a libertarian tries to define what the libertarians believe... doesn't go well, does it? .

Actually it perfectly well. Your silly response exemplifies what I am talking about.

People are not going to spontaneously group up and build a road which is why roads have been built by governments since the Persians.

People are not going to just group up and protect the public against criminals, which is why the government has police officers.

You dude like in Lala Land.

You're way off the deep end. You must be confusing Libertarians with Anarchists. WAIT -- maybe I can get AnCaptnAmerica to demonstrate what "anarchos" are about.

No POLICE OFFICERS? Are you high? We love the civil/criminal justice system. Just want it to avoid treating citizens as subjects and to reform it so that it isn't used as the ONLY tool to affect societal changes.

The southern border problem is totally a GOVT created problem. There is already law to prevent the employment of undocumented workers. You could END that problem tomorrow by ENFORCING it and simultaneously embarking on an aggressive DOCUMENTATION program of the workers you REALLY want to retain. No need to Granny and Grandpa Imendez on a trail of tears. They are NOT a threat to jobs. No wall required. Libertarians WOULD end the "magnets" caused by promises of handouts, higher education, free healthcare and the like tho. No magnets, no jobs, ---- problem solved. Why haven't YOUR GUYS fix this??????

These whiny threads are worth about about a nickel.. If you can FIND a nickel anymore.

There is a shitload of difference between governing --- FROM WHERE WE ARE -- to debating "ideals". And we don't have time to be idealists anymore --- NONE of us do.....

So you are a libertarian in favor of government run police forces, secure borders, controlled immigration, and opposed to anarchy?

lol, so you want to actually win an election now by backing Johnson, or what?

roflmao

Is the Federal control of borders and immigration in the Constitution or not? Let's start there. We don;'t tend to IGNORE problems for political expediency. And you really didn't answer my question about why YOUR FOLKS haven't figured that there are already laws to STOP undocumented migrants TOMORROW. WHY???

And WhereTF did you get the connection to anarchists in the first place? We are truer to the Constitution and EVERY ONE of the Bill of Rights than either major party.

What I WANT -- is an intervention. I want the constant downward spiral of govt honesty and lawfulness to end. I want the screaming memeys to GO INTO TIME-OUT for 4 years.

I want political appointees that are chosen for their expertise and neutrality, rather than patronage jobs for UNDERqualified political hacks of either side of the war.

As a practical matter, we are talking about working with WHERE WE ARE TODAY. Rather than any academic exercise of waving wands -- HogWarts style.

 

[flacaltenn]

Every sane voice in the libertarian party moved into the Tea Party when libertarians were hijacked by the pot heads. The current libertarian presidential candidate is the former CEO of Cannibas Sativa.

He took that position for $1/year to apply his govt expertise to the very REAL problems of getting ahead of public policy on the subject. NOT to enhance the business or benefit financially. He did it to ASSURE that when the people decide to decriminalize weed, that the processes and regulations are fair and workable. So that it doesn't become an embarrassing disaster.

He's in line to recoup money in investment. The $1 was a token gesture. He expects to make money.
Pot should be recriminalized or at least careless potheads should be jailed for life if they smoke their dope in any public setting.

You wanna run by the fine folks in Colorado or wait and see what problems ACTUALLY crop up?

And what is "a careless pothead"? Is that as dangerous as someone who intends to reward the Dem/Rep losers by voting for them in this election?

If a person in Colorado blows their pot smoke in my direction I might shoot them in self defense. Their funeral, my safety. I won't be held hostage by ignorant arrogance.
Nothing libertarian about blowing pot smoke on other people. That would be just the opposite of libertarian.

Then you simply have no concept of how to preserve maximum Liberty without resorting to force and violence. We don't want you.. There's a little thing called TOLERANCE. Even if I personally think potheads are stupid and damaged, to me that's a medical issue. Not a call for guys with guns. Or a need to fill up our jails with them.

You're not likely to be part of any solutions to the current political down spiral...

 

[Rustic]

Any public works project will be abused six ways from Sunday…

 

[eflatminor]

I have been friends with and used to consider myself a small case 'l'ibertarian, but not an ideological 'L'ibertarian.

Doubt it, but okay.

I have always felt that there are limits to what a system of ideology can do for you. Ideology is nothing more than a tool that if you use too much to express your own thought, the tool ends up doing all your thinking for you.

Nobody cares what a "system of ideology" can do for you. Only you can decide what you can do for you. That's the point.

While most conservatives have a healthy regard for limited government and individual rights, Libertarians take it to an extreme, opposing a draft in time of war, .

If you have to force people into a war, perhaps you should reexamine the validity of that war? Possible? Hmm???

Anyway, just more collectivist nonsense. Ideas so good, they have to be mandatory.

opposing emergency powers for the government during disasters,

Private charity does it better every time. Even with all the existing federal funds, who shows up first to every disaster? The frickin' Mormons.

Charity should be voluntary. We are a charitable people.

objecting to any use of government funding to improve our infrastructure despite the FACT that the US government has been doing this since 1806 when they funded the construction of the National Road

State issue. Nothing the in Constitution about roads.

And I guarantee you, central planner wannabes have been around a lot longer than 1806.

Free minds and free markets win. Every time.

So much confusion in the first paragraphs, I couldn't continue.

 

[flacaltenn]

Any public works project will be abused six ways from Sunday…

Our broke-ass govt ignores EVERYTHING until it gets to crisis proportions. Candidates shouldn't be talking about 100s of $Bill for infrastructure -- until they figure out how to keep the Fed HiWay Trust Fund from being chronically bankrupt.


CBO: Federal Highway Trust Fund bankrupt in 2015

The Highway Trust Fund won't be able to meet its obligations come 2015, according to a statement by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to the House Budget Committee.
Federal lawmakers, the report says, would have to cut transportation spending by 92 percent or raise the gas tax by more than 50 percent in order to bring revenue and spending in line.

The Highway Trust Fund, which gets its money from taxes on gasoline and motor fuels, is the source of money for federal spending on highways, bridges, roads and transit. The fund has struggled for years to remain in the black -- ever since federal transportation spending started exceeding the dedicated taxes used to pay for it.

As Americans continue to drive less, and fuel efficiency continues to improve, the gas tax -- currently at 18.4 cents per gallon -- will be a financially unsustainable way of paying for transportation infrastructure going forward, many academics say.

Since it hasn't been raised in 20 years, the gas tax's purchasing power has dramatically declined. (It would be about 29 cents per gallon today if it had been indexed to inflation, according to the CBO.)
"There is no painless way out of the dilemma facing the [Highway Trust Fund] in coming years," Bob Poole, director of transportation policy at the Reason Foundation, said in a statement. "There seems to be very little political support for increasing federal fuel taxes, and no other source of new revenue is on the horizon."

Indeed, since 2008, Congress has transferred $41 billion to the trust to keep it afloat, with another $12.6 billion authorized for 2014. Another $14 billion transfer would be needed to prevent the projected shortfall in 2015, the CBO writes.

 

[ScienceRocks]

someone who isn't a libertarian tries to define what the libertarians believe... doesn't go well, does it? .

Actually it perfectly well. Your silly response exemplifies what I am talking about.

People are not going to spontaneously group up and build a road which is why roads have been built by governments since the Persians.

People are not going to just group up and protect the public against criminals, which is why the government has police officers.

You dude like in Lala Land.

You're way off the deep end. You must be confusing Libertarians with Anarchists. WAIT -- maybe I can get AnCaptnAmerica to demonstrate what "anarchos" are about.

No POLICE OFFICERS? Are you high? We love the civil/criminal justice system. Just want it to avoid treating citizens as subjects and to reform it so that it isn't used as the ONLY tool to affect societal changes.

The southern border problem is totally a GOVT created problem. There is already law to prevent the employment of undocumented workers. You could END that problem tomorrow by ENFORCING it and simultaneously embarking on an aggressive DOCUMENTATION program of the workers you REALLY want to retain. No need to Granny and Grandpa Imendez on a trail of tears. They are NOT a threat to jobs. No wall required. Libertarians WOULD end the "magnets" caused by promises of handouts, higher education, free healthcare and the like tho. No magnets, no jobs, ---- problem solved. Why haven't YOUR GUYS fix this??????

These whiny threads are worth about about a nickel.. If you can FIND a nickel anymore.

There is a shitload of difference between governing --- FROM WHERE WE ARE -- to debating "ideals". And we don't have time to be idealists anymore --- NONE of us do.....

So you are a libertarian in favor of government run police forces, secure borders, controlled immigration, and opposed to anarchy?

lol, so you want to actually win an election now by backing Johnson, or what?

roflmao

And on what basis do they oppose investment into our roads, science institutions and educational system when they support the above. Seriously, we're better off with these things as our gdp certainly wouldn't be but a friction of what it is today otherwise.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't want government to micromanage my life or to live in a police state, but throughout history government has always played a roll in these areas.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Every sane voice in the libertarian party moved into the Tea Party when libertarians were hijacked by the pot heads. The current libertarian presidential candidate is the former CEO of Cannibas Sativa.

He took that position for $1/year to apply his govt expertise to the very REAL problems of getting ahead of public policy on the subject. NOT to enhance the business or benefit financially. He did it to ASSURE that when the people decide to decriminalize weed, that the processes and regulations are fair and workable. So that it doesn't become an embarrassing disaster.

He's in line to recoup money in investment. The $1 was a token gesture. He expects to make money.
Pot should be recriminalized or at least careless potheads should be jailed for life if they smoke their dope in any public setting.

You wanna run by the fine folks in Colorado or wait and see what problems ACTUALLY crop up?

And what is "a careless pothead"? Is that as dangerous as someone who intends to reward the Dem/Rep losers by voting for them in this election?

If a person in Colorado blows their pot smoke in my direction I might shoot them in self defense. Their funeral, my safety. I won't be held hostage by ignorant arrogance.
Nothing libertarian about blowing pot smoke on other people. That would be just the opposite of libertarian.

Well, that is why we have police. Murder should be looked down on and discouraged as it is bad for civilization. On the otherhand, we shouldn't be locking people up for smoking that leaf.

 

[Holos]

What are you using the word Libertarian with an apostrophe for?

Eh. He's just separating big L and little l. There is a difference. Policy doesn't define Liberty. Principles do.

Gary Johnson, for instance, is not a libertarian. He openly rejects Individual Liberty's most fundamental supporting principal. Which is effectivelyan open rejection of Individual Liberty fully.

Anyway. I have to get off here. Later...

It wasn't clear to me. Thanks for pointing out the OP's intention.

I've been working on the various forms of capitalism, including literary capitalism, in which small and big letters modify and regulate the significance provided and taken within extended texts such as policy would be.

Nonetheless, I still am for contention that if we are to disband ideology as primary operative mode in politics, then there isn't really much difference between "this libertarian" or "that libertarian", but that there is an established and policed standard of any "useful libertarian" to be in the process of an appropriately orienting government.

I just said exactly that in one word; barometer.

Where I come from a barometer is a tool to measure the amount of rain that occurs throughout a determined period of time.

How is "that" (whatever you may be referring to) to do with any of what I mentioned in the previous post?

Barometers measure pressure. Rain gauges measure rainfall.
Libertarianism should be used as a measuring device (happy?). Absolute libertarianism requires a utopia which would render libertarianism moot.
'What would a libertarian do' should be the standard device motto to resolve conflict.

Here is my question then.

Should it really be a measuring device or should it be a regular standard through which multiple measuring devices could be used?

Take the example of a successful one day lecture or a "one day workshop". Would the successfully informed attendants be only able to use the measuring device of Libertarianism that one day and only for a singular purpose, or would they simply become more skilled in their minds and thoughts so they could use any political term and philosophy for different occasions and different purposes?

The barometer is a good example. Why would we measure pressure? There are many reasons, for many different purposes. Just measuring pressure doesn't come to be very useful, except as a curiosity (which tends to ensue further investigation, further processes, further tools and further actions).

 

[Tennyson]

I have been friends with and used to consider myself a small case 'l'ibertarian, but not an ideological 'L'ibertarian. I have always felt that there are limits to what a system of ideology can do for you. Ideology is nothing more than a tool that if you use too much to express your own thought, the tool ends up doing all your thinking for you.

While most conservatives have a healthy regard for limited government and individual rights, Libertarians take it to an extreme, opposing a draft in time of war, opposing emergency powers for the government during disasters, objecting to any use of government funding to improve our infrastructure despite the FACT that the US government has been doing this since 1806 when they funded the construction of the National Road.

But ideologues never let actual facts stop them and Libertarians are no different. And with these guys, there is a certain mystique in always losing elections, funding and being rejected by the general population as they think it kind of sanctifies them as being right, somehow.

Back when Bob Barr was the Libertarian Party nominee and got into double digits in a few polls running for POTUS, a Libertarian friend of mine expressed dismay saying that if Barr was so popular, there must be something wrong with him. I asked him how Libertarians could ever win an election with that kind of attitude, and he replied 'We are not supposed to win elections; that is for the sheeple.' That was the final straw as I began to realize that Libertarian = Losertarian and that observation has been confirmed repeatedly over the years.

And we see this dynamic in play in the Republican party today, where a good many of the Ted Cruz supporters were Libertarians from Rand Pauls campaign after he folded his tent. Instead of bowing to the winner and taking backstage, no, they have decided that it is better to lose the election than to support a 'liberal' like Donald Trump, lol. The only issues that Trump got his 'liberal' label for was that he was in favor of keeping Social Security, using government to help people and reforming our trade agreements to benefit the American worker rather than the American corporations. Isnt this a losing position, to oppose these programs and revising these treaties? Well yes, but Libertarians are totally OK with that, no matter who else it drags down with them, like the rest of the GOP. Hence 'Losertarian'.

But the moral impact of this fatalistic vision of humanity is the most abhorrent of all. Libertarians recognize there existing no unfortunate person, as to them each and every one of us are in total command of our own destiny, no matter if you cant get a job because of age discrimination, a history of disabilities or being Black Listed. IF you cant do what it takes to succeed, in their opinion, then you are a whiner and deserve to die. The fact that even the top STEM graduates are having a hard time getting work doesnt persuade them to ease back on the inflow of more H1-B visa workers, no, if Americans cant compete with three STEM people for every STEM job, then thats their problem and they can starve. The fact that almost every Libertarian I had ever met would not have survived living in the 1800s really doesnt bother them, if it even enters their mental radar at all.

And of course this heartless attitude fucks it all up for actual conservatives who mistake these drones for a form of conservatism. But Russel Kirk and Edmund Burke would not have recognized these ass holes as conservative in any way shape or form. Conservatism is about preserving Christendom and always has been and these Johnny-Come-Lately Losertarians are nothing more than a bunch of rats who are not bad because of what they eat so much as what they get into and spoil for human consumption.

They are leaving their mark on this 2016 election so far, convincing innocent conservatives making the mistake of trusting them, to truthfully explain why they will not support an obviously conservative candidate. But with any luck, it will brand them for the alien shits that they are and the GOP will be more able to purge them from the ranks in 2018.

Libertarianism isn't a political ideology. The Libertarian Party has made their version of libertarianism an ideology. Libertarianism is a political theory.

The National Road was paid for with money from the sale of land by the federal government and Madison vetoed the bill that would have used tax dollars to build roads.

The rest of your beef, and mine as well, is against the Libertarian Party's antics.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Every sane voice in the libertarian party moved into the Tea Party when libertarians were hijacked by the pot heads. The current libertarian presidential candidate is the former CEO of Cannibas Sativa.

He took that position for $1/year to apply his govt expertise to the very REAL problems of getting ahead of public policy on the subject. NOT to enhance the business or benefit financially. He did it to ASSURE that when the people decide to decriminalize weed, that the processes and regulations are fair and workable. So that it doesn't become an embarrassing disaster.

He's in line to recoup money in investment. The $1 was a token gesture. He expects to make money.
Pot should be recriminalized or at least careless potheads should be jailed for life if they smoke their dope in any public setting.

You wanna run by the fine folks in Colorado or wait and see what problems ACTUALLY crop up?

And what is "a careless pothead"? Is that as dangerous as someone who intends to reward the Dem/Rep losers by voting for them in this election?

If a person in Colorado blows their pot smoke in my direction I might shoot them in self defense. Their funeral, my safety. I won't be held hostage by ignorant arrogance.
Nothing libertarian about blowing pot smoke on other people. That would be just the opposite of libertarian.

Then you simply have no concept of how to preserve maximum Liberty without resorting to force and violence. We don't want you.. There's a little thing called TOLERANCE. Even if I personally think potheads are stupid and damaged, to me that's a medical issue. Not a call for guys with guns. Or a need to fill up our jails with them.

You're not likely to be part of any solutions to the current political down spiral...

If someone attacks you and threatens harm you have a natural right to protect yourself. Very libertarian. How is that not libertarian? Why do potheads get to attack others with their THC-laden poisonous smoke?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Eh. He's just separating big L and little l. There is a difference. Policy doesn't define Liberty. Principles do.

Gary Johnson, for instance, is not a libertarian. He openly rejects Individual Liberty's most fundamental supporting principal. Which is effectivelyan open rejection of Individual Liberty fully.

Anyway. I have to get off here. Later...

It wasn't clear to me. Thanks for pointing out the OP's intention.

I've been working on the various forms of capitalism, including literary capitalism, in which small and big letters modify and regulate the significance provided and taken within extended texts such as policy would be.

Nonetheless, I still am for contention that if we are to disband ideology as primary operative mode in politics, then there isn't really much difference between "this libertarian" or "that libertarian", but that there is an established and policed standard of any "useful libertarian" to be in the process of an appropriately orienting government.

I just said exactly that in one word; barometer.

Where I come from a barometer is a tool to measure the amount of rain that occurs throughout a determined period of time.

How is "that" (whatever you may be referring to) to do with any of what I mentioned in the previous post?

Barometers measure pressure. Rain gauges measure rainfall.
Libertarianism should be used as a measuring device (happy?). Absolute libertarianism requires a utopia which would render libertarianism moot.
'What would a libertarian do' should be the standard device motto to resolve conflict.

Here is my question then.

Should it really be a measuring device or should it be a regular standard through which multiple measuring devices could be used?

Take the example of a successful one day lecture or a "one day workshop". Would the successfully informed attendants be only able to use the measuring device of Libertarianism that one day and only for a singular purpose, or would they simply become more skilled in their minds and thoughts so they could use any political term and philosophy for different occasions and different purposes?

The barometer is a good example. Why would we measure pressure? There are many reasons, for many different purposes. Just measuring pressure doesn't come to be very useful, except as a curiosity (which tends to ensue further investigation, further processes, further tools and further actions).

Barometer is a figurative term.
Yes, libertarianism should be used as a measuring standard. When inevitable gray areas of conflict develop, libertarian principle should be applied for conflict resolution.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Every sane voice in the libertarian party moved into the Tea Party when libertarians were hijacked by the pot heads. The current libertarian presidential candidate is the former CEO of Cannibas Sativa.

He took that position for $1/year to apply his govt expertise to the very REAL problems of getting ahead of public policy on the subject. NOT to enhance the business or benefit financially. He did it to ASSURE that when the people decide to decriminalize weed, that the processes and regulations are fair and workable. So that it doesn't become an embarrassing disaster.

He's in line to recoup money in investment. The $1 was a token gesture. He expects to make money.
Pot should be recriminalized or at least careless potheads should be jailed for life if they smoke their dope in any public setting.

You wanna run by the fine folks in Colorado or wait and see what problems ACTUALLY crop up?

And what is "a careless pothead"? Is that as dangerous as someone who intends to reward the Dem/Rep losers by voting for them in this election?

If a person in Colorado blows their pot smoke in my direction I might shoot them in self defense. Their funeral, my safety. I won't be held hostage by ignorant arrogance.
Nothing libertarian about blowing pot smoke on other people. That would be just the opposite of libertarian.

Well, that is why we have police. Murder should be looked down on and discouraged as it is bad for civilization. On the otherhand, we shouldn't be locking people up for smoking that leaf.

Can I attack you with pesticide or PCP smoke or cyanide gas or poison ivy flakes or pepper spray...?