[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD" "Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy" Woodworking and Construction Hacks "CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination" "NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law" "Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing" Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn. After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending. Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar” "Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny" "Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is" Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner. Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally "It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive' (Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl "Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race" He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom! "Kamala’s Inane Talking Points" "The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics" Easy Drywall Patch Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind" Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’ Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer? hurricanes and heat waves are Worse 'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA. Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence. Tenn. AG reveals ICE released thousands of ‘murderers and rapists’ from detention centers into US streets Status: Not Logged In; Sign In politics and politicians See other politics and politicians Articles Title: The Passing of the Libertarian Moment Source: theatlantic.com/ URL Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/defused/556934/ Published: Apr 2, 2018 Author: KEVIN D. WILLIAMSON Post Date: 2018-07-05 21:45:54 by Gatlin Keywords: None Views: 18136 Comments: 110 The end of the Cold War and the rise of Donald Trump have left classical liberals without a political home. Senator Rand Paul is a man out of time. It was only a few years ago that the editors of Reason magazine held him up as the personification of what they imagined to be a “libertarian moment,” a term that enjoyed some momentary cachet in the pages of The New York Times, The Atlantic, Politico (where I offered a skeptical assessment), and elsewhere. But rather than embodying the future of the Republican Party, Paul embodies its past, the postwar conservative era when Ronald Reagan could proclaim that “the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism,” when National Review founder William F. Buckley Jr. could publish a conspectus of his later work under the subtitle “Reflections of a Libertarian Journalist,” and young blue- blazered Republicans of the Alex P. Keaton variety wore out their copies of Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose. The view from 2018 is rather different. The GOP finds itself in the throes of a populist convulsion, an ironic product of the fact that the party that long banqueted on resentment of the media now is utterly dominated by the alternative media constructed by its own most dedicated partisans. It is Sean Hannity’s party now. The GOP’s political situation is absurd: Having rallied to the banner of an erratic and authoritarian game-show host, evangelical leaders such as Jerry Falwell Jr. are reduced to comparing Donald Trump to King David as they try to explain away his entanglement with pornographic performer Stormy Daniels. Those who celebrated Trump the businessman clutch their heads as his preposterous economic policies produce terror in the stock markets and chaos for the blue-collar workers in construction firms and manufacturers scrambling to stay ahead of the coming tariffs on steel and aluminum. The Chinese retaliation is sure to fall hardest on the heartland farmers who were among Trump’s most dedicated supporters. On the libertarian side of the Republican coalition, the situation is even more depressing: Republicans such as former Texas Governor Rick Perry, who once offered important support for criminal- justice reform, are lined up behind the atavistic drug-war policies of the president and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, whose big idea on opiate abuse is more death sentences for drug traffickers. Deficits are moving in the wrong direction. And, in spite of the best hopes of the “America First” gang, Trump’s foreign policy has not moved in the direction of Rand Paul’s mild non-interventionism or the more uncompromising non-interventionism of his father, Ron Paul. Instead, the current GOP foreign-policy position combines the self-assured assertiveness of the George W. Bush administration (and many familiar faces and mustaches from that administration) with the indiscipline and amateurism characteristic of Trump. Some libertarian moment. Postwar conservatism, under the intellectual leadership of Buckley, Frank Meyer, and their allies, was, famously, a “fusion”—an alliance between social and religious traditionalists, anti-Communists and national-security hawks, and libertarians ranging from ideologues and idealists such as Henry Hazlitt and Ludwig von Mises to Chamber of Commerce types with their more prosaic concerns about taxes and regulation. The libertarians have always been a junior partner in that alliance, but for many years they punched above their weight. Partly that is because libertarianism is an intellectual tendency rather than a cultural instinct, one that benefited from the rigor and prestige of the economists who have long been its most effective advocates. And libertarianism has benefited from the fact that American elites are notably more libertarian in their views than is the median American voter. That dynamic was explored by the economist Bryan Caplan under a typically bold title (“Why Is Democracy Tolerable?”) with a typically needling conclusion: “Democracies listen to the relatively libertarian rich far more than they listen to the absolutely statist non-rich … Democracy as we know it is bad enough. Democracy that really listened to all the people would be an authoritarian nightmare.” But if libertarianism benefited from its rich friends, it surely benefited even more from its impoverished rivals: the Soviet Union, Castro’s Cuba, North Korea, Mao’s China, and other practitioners of robust étatism. Despite the best hopes of the postwar conservative fusionists, libertarianism has always been more effective in opposition than in government. President Reagan may have called himself a libertarian from time to time, but he also enacted protectionist tariffs, radically expanded the military and the federal police powers, and failed to exhibit a great deal of energy in resisting the deficit-swelling spending bills sent to his desk by Tip O’Neill. The libertarian tendency mainly provided a useful ideological foil, not only to the totalitarian socialist projects of the time but also to more liberal efforts to expand the welfare states in the Western democracies. If you are not moving in the direction of Milton Friedman, the argument went, then you are moving in the direction of Leonid Brezhnev—it’s Chairman Greenspan or Chairman Mao. That was an effective rhetorical strategy while the Soviet Union was a going concern and while the Cold War remained fresh in the national memory. And it was enough to keep the right-wing coalition together. But as the memory of the USSR came to be replaced by the reality of NAFTA, WTO, ASEAN, etc., the fruits of globalism—everyday low prices at Walmart—turned out to be uninspiring to great masses of voters to whom those benefits are invisible for the same reason that water is invisible to fish. Ancient prejudices, including the prejudices against social relations with foreigners, began to reassert themselves, as did the expectation that government should take a paternal interest in the people rather than a merely administrative one. Libertarianism, with its emphasis on free trade, its deference to the market, and its hostility toward social-welfare programs, went quickly out of fashion. How quickly? Last week, my former National Review colleague Victor Davis Hanson published an essay calling for a stronger regulatory hand over high-tech companies, fondly recalling the “cultural revolution of muckraking and trust-busting” of the 19th century, and ending with a plea for “some sort of bipartisan national commission that might dispassionately and in disinterested fashion offer guidelines to legislators” about more tightly regulating these companies, perhaps on the public- utility model. That from a magazine whose founders once dreamed of overturning the New Deal. Libertarian attitudes enjoy some political support: Nick Gillespie, a true-believing libertarian, insists even in the teeth of the current authoritarian ascendancy that we still are experiencing a national— yes!—“libertarian moment,” based on Gallup polling data finding more support for broadly libertarian political sensibilities (27 percent) than for any other single group: conservative, liberal, or populist. But “libertarian” often means little more than “a person with right-leaning sensibilities who is embarrassed to be associated with the Republican Party.” (Hardly, these days, an indefensible position.) Libertarian sensibilities are popular because they enable the posture of above-it-all nonpartisanship, but libertarian policies, as Caplan and others have noted at length, are not very popular at all. Americans broadly and strongly support a rising minimum wage and oppose entitlement reform with at least equal commitment, and they are far from reliable supporters of free speech and free association or enforcing limits on police powers. Hence the peculiar fact that 2016 polling of Republican primary voters found self-identified libertarians backing the authoritarian Trump in remarkable numbers—59 percent in South Carolina—over more libertarian-leaning candidates such as Ted Cruz (17 percent in the same poll) or Marco Rubio (0 percent—ouch). By way of comparison, only 39 percent of self- identified independents backed Trump in that same South Carolina poll, 37 percent of self-identified Tea Party adherents, and 40 percent of voters in the oldest bracket (56-61). Self-described libertarians were not less likely to line up behind the authoritarian demagogue, but half-again as likely to do so. Self-professed libertarian voices such as Larry Elder have become abject Trumpists. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest #1. To: Gatlin (#0) And so the obsession continues. It's cool that you're bringing so much attention libertarianism, even if in attempts to cast it in an unfavorable light. It's not going to go away, in spite of whatever direction the current political winds are blowing. Pinguinite  posted on  2018-07-05   21:58:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #2. To: Gatlin, Chairman Mao, Jerry Falwell Jr, USSR, Castro, ACLU. Tip ONeil (#0) Hondo68  posted on  2018-07-05   22:12:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #3. To: Pinguinite, tater (#1) ... political winds are blowing. We certainly know which way tater's hot aire is blowing. buckeroo  posted on  2018-07-05   22:32:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #4. To: Gatlin (#0) If the Libertarians could not obtain any traction against a GOP ticket of McCain/Palin, it seems their moment passed some time ago. nolu chan  posted on  2018-07-05   22:54:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: nolu chan, tater (#4) If the Libertarians ... [blah, blah, blah.] The Libertarian Party is completely removed from the libertarian movement in the USA; moreover the Libertarian Party does not have the BILLIONS of dollars to run publick advertisements and commercials as both the GOP and the DEM perform. Your argument is weak in other words. I guess you don't have a SCOTUS opinion to back your post, correct? buckeroo  posted on  2018-07-05   23:23:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #6. To: nolu chan (#4) If the Libertarians could not obtain any traction against a GOP ticket of McCain/Palin, it seems their moment passed some time ago. The problem is that the election system we have in place is given to having only 2 dominating parties, regardless of what their political spins happen to be. Come election time, voters have a choice of voting for one of the 2 dominating parties, or throwing their votes away. Pluralist voting systems -- about the worst there is and what the US system is, of course, based on have that fatal flaw. It's as simple as that. It's only with parliamentary election systems where people vote for a party instead of a person, does the 2-party monopoly (duopoly) not exist, as voting for a minor party does NOT constitute throwing a vote away, as voters are allied with similar vote sentiments across the whole country to take some seats in the legislative body. IMO, "Approval voting", rather than a pluralist voting system, has the best chance of giving so called 3rd parties a chance to take root in the current US political system. Pinguinite  posted on  2018-07-05   23:27:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #7. To: buckeroo, nolu chan (#5) The Libertarian Party is completely removed from the libertarian movement in the USA ... Why? Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-06   0:13:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #8. To: buckeroo, nolu chan (#5) The Libertarian Party is completely removed from the libertarian movement in the USA ... Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-06   0:23:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #9. To: Gatlin (#7) Because the LP has a "party" ticket, similar to your two party system operating in America, today. But you knew that. Why are you asking, "why?" buckeroo  posted on  2018-07-06   0:30:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #10. To: Gatlin (#8) Sorry, but I can't watch videos as I use TOR. Oh sure, I can search, sort and run links on another machine ... but why? I don't need or care about the data you want to "present" from a third-party source. buckeroo  posted on  2018-07-06   0:33:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #11. To: buckeroo (#10) I use TOR. Why? Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-06   0:52:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #12. To: buckeroo (#5) The Libertarian Party is completely removed from the libertarian movement in the USA; The libertarians, big or small L, could get no traction against a GOP ticket as bad as McCain/Palin opposed by a Dem ticket as bad as Obama/Biden. In other words, they have failed to be competitive against warm bodies. They have never been able to approach the success of Perot/Stockdale. The libertarian moment was so fleeting, the American people missed it. nolu chan  posted on  2018-07-06   1:59:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #13. To: buckeroo (#5) the Libertarian Party does not have the BILLIONS of dollars to run publick advertisements and commercials as both the GOP and the DEM perform That is because the amoral libertarians don't have much support. That is and was always my problem with libertarians. They equate moral things with immoral things. Do what thou wilt just like the satanic so called Bible. A K A Stone  posted on  2018-07-06   6:24:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #14. To: Pinguinite (#6) IMO, "Approval voting", rather than a pluralist voting system, has the best chance of giving so called 3rd parties a chance to take root in the current US political system Approval voting is a sham where losers win. A K A Stone  posted on  2018-07-06   6:26:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #15. To: Pinguinite (#1) It's not going to go away And it’s not picking up any speed either. Same Ol’ 6% following... because you assholes eat your own. The best and most viable libertarian minded candidate, EVER, is Rand Paul... and the bulk of the rabid 6%, aka, RON PAULTARDS, turned your backs on Rand... because Rand doesn’t run on anarchy. Since you all like to shit in your own bed... you get to sleep in the mess you make. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح GrandIsland  posted on  2018-07-06   7:09:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #16. To: GrandIsland (#15) AMEN !!! Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-06   8:38:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #17. To: GrandIsland (#15) You can always be counted on to post the most juvenile, immature and vulgar references. So glad you aren't on my side. Gatlin gave you a big AMEN on that. He's welcome to you. Pinguinite  posted on  2018-07-06   9:00:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #18. To: A K A Stone (#14) Approval voting is a sham where losers win. Tell me Stone, why you think it's a great idea to have a vote system where someone winning 30% of the popular vote gets to represent 100% of the people in a given region. That's pluralist voting for you. Pinguinite  posted on  2018-07-06   9:03:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #19. To: Pinguinite, GrandIsland (#17) One cannot help but notice that you did not dispute anything GI posted or in any prove what he said was wrong. Why not? Is it because you can’t? Of course it is. All you did was launch into a personal attack. You could show one country that has a successful libertarian “style” government or any paramount successes the libertarian movement has undertaken with smashing accomplishments. Again, why not? Again, because you cannot. All you libertarians ever do is talk, talk and talk. The libertarian movement is a dying cause. FACE IT. You are a pathetic group ... Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-06   10:02:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #20. To: Gatlin (#19) Why not? Is it because you can’t? Of course it is. The "good book" says not to throw pearls before swine. It's good advice. My time is too valuable to waste on some people. Pinguinite  posted on  2018-07-06   10:14:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #21. To: Pinguinite, GrandIsland (#20) The "good book" says not to throw pearls before swine. It's good advice. My time is too valuable to waste on some people. You should learn to be VERY careful how TRY to use Scripture and when you do use Scripture, then you need to QUOTE the whole verse. Since you are unable to so and try to shade its meaning like you libertarians do with everything, then I will quote the Verse in its entirety: Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces. ~ Matthew 7:6 New King James Version. I like the part where it was said that “lest they trun and tear you in pieces.” You have made it quite evident that you don’t really KNOW what Jesus meant when He said to not cast your pearls before swine in Matthew 7:6. It’s from the Sermon on the Mount and for you to understand its meaning, you first need to understand its context and placement within His sermon. The command not to cast your pearls before swine does not mean what you are IMPLYING it to mean. There is GREAT advice for you to be found in Matthew and I would like to share some with you, but my time is also very valuable and I need not waste too much time on ignorant libertarians. You have used up my allocation of time for you today. Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-06   11:25:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #22. To: buckeroo, Gatlin (#10) Sorry, but I can't watch videos as I use TOR. You need a better excuse. Youtube videos, including that specific Youtube video, are watchable on TOR. nolu chan  posted on  2018-07-06   11:37:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #23. To: Pinguinite, A K A Stone (#18) Tell me Stone, why you think it's a great idea to have a vote system where someone winning 30% of the popular vote gets to represent 100% of the people in a given region. That's pluralist voting for you. We do not have pluralist voting, even for President. The President is not elected by vote of the people; the Chief Executive of the Union is elected by the members of the union. The members of the Union are the States who have ratified the Constitution, and the election is by a majority vote. There need not be any popular vote taken in a presidential election, and the early presidential elections featured no popular vote whatever. nolu chan  posted on  2018-07-06   11:48:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #24. To: Gatlin (#21) You have used up my allocation of time for you today. That's the best news I've heard all day! Though it isn't even 11 AM yet. I infer from your response that you purport to be an enlightened Christian saint. That's wonderful. I'm sure GI would be much appreciative if you brought him to the table of Christian charity through your generous and loving examples of how to treat others. Certainly that would do him much good, even though it seems you've yet to learn not to be so condescending toward others, but all things in time. Pinguinite  posted on  2018-07-06   11:54:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #25. To: nolu chan (#23) We do not have pluralist voting, even for President. The President is not elected by vote of the people; the Chief Executive of the Union is elected by the members of the union. The members of the Union are the States who have ratified the Constitution, and the election is by a majority vote. There need not be any popular vote taken in a presidential election, and the early presidential elections featured no popular vote whatever. You are partially, but not totally correct. We do have pluralist voting. You cite only the matter of the election of president, and only in regards to the electoral college. However, #1) Every seat of both houses of Congress is elected by pluralist vote, and the vast majority of state legislatures and gov, if not all unanimously, all utilize pluralist voting systems to fill them. I think there may be a handful of seats nationwide at lower municipal levels that utilize a different method. #2) Even in the case of president, within each state, most every state employs pluralist voting to decide which presidential candidate receives all electoral votes from that state. I haven't done the count, but in many of the states Trump won he only won a plurality, not a majority vote. We DO have a pluralist voting system in the US, Nolu. You know this. I did not limit my statement to only the office of president. Pinguinite  posted on  2018-07-06   12:07:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #26. To: Pinguinite (#6) It's only with parliamentary election systems where people vote for a party instead of a person, does the 2-party monopoly (duopoly) not exist, as voting for a minor party does NOT constitute throwing a vote away, as voters are allied with similar vote sentiments across the whole country to take some seats in the legislative body. We do not have a parliamentary government and so we do not have parliamentary elections. In the UK, they have the Labor Party and the Tories. When is the last time anyone else was in charge of the goverment? Voting for an Independent is not throwing a vote away. If elected, he or she will caucus with one of the major parties. He or she can still only vote aye, nay, or present. If you know who he/she will caucus with, it's almost like voting Dem or GOP except the major party you least favor may win due to your vote. Just having a few seats in the legislative body confers no power. Believe whatever they will, a party with a few seats lacks the power to enact anything. Nations where five or six competitive parties are in an eternal struggle for power don't seem to work out so well. It is more like Game of Thrones than a well-functioning government. There is nothing stopping the Libertarian party from rising to power except for the lack of popular support, and candidates who do not inspire support. nolu chan  posted on  2018-07-06   12:08:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #27. To: GrandIsland, Pinguinite (#15) And it’s not picking up any speed either. Same Ol’ 6% following... because you assholes eat your own. You are too generous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Libertarian_Party In the 2016 presidential election the Libertarian Party (Johnson/Weld) won 3.27% of the popular vote. the Green Party (Stein/Baraka) won 1.06% of the popular vote. the Independent Party (McMullin/Finn) won 0.53% of the popular vote. the Constitution Party (Castle/Bradley) won 0.15% of the popular vote. Combined, those parties won 5.01% of the vote. Faith Spotted Eagle won one electoral vote which was one more than Gary Johnson the official Libertarian Party ticket. nolu chan  posted on  2018-07-06   12:09:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #28. To: nolu chan (#26) We do not have a parliamentary government and so we do not have parliamentary elections. Of course not. Others do, but not the USA. Voting for an Independent is not throwing a vote away. If elected, I can stop you right there. As long as the independent/3rd party candidate has no realistic chances of getting elected, then voting for him is, in practical terms, throwing a vote away. Just having a few seats in the legislative body confers no power. Believe whatever they will, a party with a few seats lacks the power to enact anything. Yes, of course a minor party in parliament or even in US congress can't "enact anything". But in a body where a majority IS required to get things passed, a minority presence does confer influencing power. Nations where five or six competitive parties are in an eternal struggle for power don't seem to work out so well. It is more like Game of Thrones than a well-functioning government. That's not to say a "well functioning government" is the virtuous best result for all people. Better to have a non functioning government than one that efficiently and carelessly enacts laws and pursues goals that trample rights and destroy its society. I would not argue a parliamentary system is the beth system in that regard. To the contrary I'm sure it has plenty of flaws. But it does have the advantage of giving it's citizens more than 2 practical choices of political parties. There is nothing stopping the Libertarian party from rising to power except for the lack of popular support, and candidates who do not inspire support. I disagree, as I articulated previously. Our vote system largely prevents any 3rd parties, whether libertarians or others, from gaining a foothold. If the L's & D's were in power, the R's would have the same problem. The end result: libertarians like Ron Paul utilize the R party as a vehicle to get elected. Pinguinite  posted on  2018-07-06   12:22:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #29. To: nolu chan (#27) Combined, those parties won 5.01% of the vote. Of course. Why? Because voting for 3rd parties is "throwing your vote away". It's a pragmatic fact. Pinguinite  posted on  2018-07-06   12:23:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #30. To: Pinguinite, Y'ALL (#1) And so the obsession continues ----- This antilibertarian obsession is akin to the antiTrump one. --- Both types should be pitied for their fanaticism. tpaine  posted on  2018-07-06   12:45:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #31. To: Pinguinite (#29) voting for 3rd parties is "throwing your vote away". It's a pragmatic fact. Then don't do it. nolu chan  posted on  2018-07-06   12:47:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #32. To: tpaine, Pinguinite (#30) This antilibertarian obsession is akin to the antiTrump one. With the minor exception that the Libertarian target can barely be found. nolu chan  posted on  2018-07-06   12:49:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #33. To: nolu chan (#31) Then don't do it. You're smoking something today. Pinguinite  posted on  2018-07-06   13:12:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #34. To: Pinguinite (#28) As long as the independent/3rd party candidate has no realistic chances of getting elected, then voting for him is, in practical terms, throwing a vote away. They can get elected to the House or Senate. There they caucus with the Dems or GOP. They have no power to get anything done by themselves. That's not to say a "well functioning government" is the virtuous best result for all people. Better to have a non functioning government than one that efficiently and carelessly enacts laws and pursues goals that trample rights and destroy its society. Identify an historical example of a non-functioning government which has served a country well. The U.S. government under the Articles of Confederation was not very functional. That union of 13 states was dissolved and an 11 state union replaced it. Eventually, the two missing states joined the new union. But it does have the advantage of giving it's citizens more than 2 practical choices of political parties. How is the advantage of that a given fact? What is the advantage? If the L's & D's were in power, the R's would have the same problem. The R's only date back to 1854. Others had a long head start on them. 1860 saw the Republican Party get their candidate elected president. Of course, 1864 saw the National Union Party get their candidate elected president. Ross Perot and the Reform Party garnered almost 20% of the popular vote. The problem with the Libertarians and other third parties is that they have been unable to attract viable candidates to run for President/Vice President. People who watch their conventions or observe their candidates conclude the party is a joke. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olYx5LILl34 Libertarian chair candidate strips at party's convention Three cheers for freedom of expression. nolu chan  posted on  2018-07-06   13:18:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #35. To: nolu chan (#32) tpaine, ---- This antilibertarian obsession is akin to the antiTrump one. With the minor exception that the Libertarian target can barely be found. --- nolu You fanatics here have had no problem finding it, have you? tpaine  posted on  2018-07-06   13:26:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #36. To: nolu chan (#34) So you argue there is no duopoly today and that 3rd parties can attract a significant base to dethrone the R's and D's because it happened before, 160+ plus years ago. Cute. If you want to start a campaign to repeal the Bill of Rights because some guy stripped at a convention, go for it. Pinguinite  posted on  2018-07-06   14:30:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #37. To: tpaine, nolu chan (#35) tpaine, ---- This antilibertarian obsession is akin to the antiTrump one. With the minor exception that the Libertarian target can barely be found. --- nolu You fanatics here have had no problem finding it, have you? That’s right. It’s no problem at all finding why libertarians are failing at politics. Jerry Taylor of the Niskanen Center dropped a truth bomb on the beltway in his recent piece for Fox News about the decline of Rand Paul. Taylor notes that the alleged growth of the libertarian movement in the wake of the Ron Paul campaign was largely illusory. The alienated populists and conspiracy theorists that filled out Paul’s numbers in 2012 easily made the transition to the very un-libertarian Donald Trump in 2015, leaving Rand out in the cold. The lack of a broad-based movement, despite a number of high profile campaigns and events, is a bitter pill for libertarians who believe in electoral politics. Having libertarians in office may help raise the profile of issues like overcriminalization, tech freedom, and the insanity of the drug war. But those who await a libertarian takeover of the GOP misunderstand the fundamentally radical nature of libertarian ideas and how deeply that radicalism conflicts with the perceptions most Americans have about the role of government. Trump supporters are a grim reminder that millions of voters view the government as a hammer that can be wielded to smash opposing values or groups and force their beliefs on others. Educating the electorate about libertarian ideas misses the fact that they have no real incentive to learn; most don’t care about the relationship between man and state and likely never will, as long as the state continues to provide the stability they have come to expect. Ron Paul’s success in 2008 and 2012 can largely be credited to the mortgage crisis; once the sting faded, so did support for his radical ideas. There’s a good reason libertarians remain at the ideological fringe: “Libertarian politics” is a contradiction in terms. Libertarianism is not a third party, like the Know- Nothings or the Whigs or a prescription of policy tweaks to make the government more efficient. It is a distinct value system that abhors political power itself, even if some of its adherents consider power a necessary evil. Libertarians may disagree whether the state should be abolished or minimized, but the difference matters little to the average American: Both seem frighteningly outside his own experience. Even the most moderate libertarians will wax poetic about ending intellectual property or privatizing the welfare system. Moreover, virtually all voters are deeply invested in government services they have come to depend on, and libertarians have been unable to present hypothesized private- sector alternatives while the state forces dependence upon itself. Conceptually, libertarians are on a page that most people find bizarre. Libertarianism is best understood as the latest in a long line of radical liberation ideologies, rooted in the principles of natural law and individualism, that have provided the intellectual basis for rebellion since the American Revolution. It is a reaction to the perpetual expansion of government power in the U.S. and its frequent abuses. But radicalism, by definition, is immoderate and cannot compromise its way to reforms. Rather than moving toward the “Overton window” of public opinion by moderating controversial views (as Rand Paul attempted), radicals must pull public opinion towards their own viewpoints. Rand’s straying from libertarian principles means that he likely has little unique appeal even for the tiny libertarian electorate his father created. David Boaz’s research shows that 70 percent of libertarian-leaning voters went with Mitt Romney over Gary Johnson in 2012, so we know even libertarians who believe in politics are willing to blunt their own sword. If libertarianism is denied its radical characteristics, it degrades into a flimsy millennial conservatism: Fiscally conservative, socially liberal and completely powerless, a mashup of existing ideas better espoused by other parties and ideologies. Without unyielding commitment to truly radical ideas, libertarians are drowned out by louder voices catering to the will of angry, pitchfork-bearing constituents. They add little of value, and are likely to end up little more than a footnote in the history of conservatism. To fail to understand this is to remain resigned to swim against the tide of American politics. As Friedrich Hayek pointed out: “Those who have concerned themselves exclusively with what seemed practicable in the existing state of opinion have constantly found that even this has rapidly become politically impossible as the result of changes in a public opinion which they have done nothing to guide.” Instead, libertarians might be more useful as single-issue activists and innovators. While U.S. politicians fail to shrink government, individualists like Erik Voorhees, Cody Wilson, Peter Thiel and the pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto are using technology to forge a new path. Time will tell exactly where that leads. But Rand’s decline underlines the fact that libertarian ethics predicate disruption and revolution, not moderation and compromise. As such, it is unlikely to ever get big votes in American politics. Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-06   15:18:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #38. To: Pinguinite, nolu chan (#36) ... some guy stripped at a convention ... I’m Shocked. Well, not really. You libertarians are fucking crazy. Libertarian Party chair candidate strips on stage at national convention. Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-06   15:32:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #39. To: Pinguinite (#36) So you argue there is no duopoly today and that 3rd parties can attract a significant base to dethrone the R's and D's because it happened before, 160+ plus years ago. If they had a leader to run. They don't. They will need to manufacture a Lincoln to repeat the GOP success. Until then, they will remain irrelevant. nolu chan  posted on  2018-07-06   19:14:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #40. To: tpaine (#35) You fanatics here have had no problem finding it, have you? Yep, court opinions ain't the only thing I can find with the google. nolu chan  posted on  2018-07-06   19:15:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #41. To: Pinguinite (#17) (Edited) Put your big boy pants on, bitch. This ain’t no safe space for millennial snowflakes. It’s by freedom I can express my opinions in what you define as a “vulgar” way... and yet you supposedly espouse “freedom” of speech... but find little value in me exercising it or complain about the way I use it. Most of you so called constitutional posters are full of fucking shit. What I posted was SPOT ON... and you don’t have the ability nor the balls to prove me wrong, factually. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح GrandIsland  posted on  2018-07-06   20:07:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #42. To: nolu chan (#27) You are too generous. I always try and give the Paultards the benefit of the doubt. (Btw, that 6% figure always pisses off any paultard). Thanks for posting the actual facts. You can be counted on to post researched facts... not just YELLA AGENDA spin. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح GrandIsland  posted on  2018-07-06   20:12:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #43. To: Gatlin (#19) One cannot help but notice that you did not dispute anything GI posted or in any prove what he said was wrong. Why not? Is it because you can’t? He’s a BITCH. I honestly find it hard to believe that Stone would have ever made a biased paultard little bitch like that, a past site moderator. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح GrandIsland  posted on  2018-07-06   20:17:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #44. To: Pinguinite (#18) (Edited) Tell me Stone, why you think it's a great idea to have a vote system where someone winning 30% of the popular vote gets to represent 100% of the people Because a democracy is dangerous... and unfortunately, our forefathers should have taken EVEN MORE steps to ensure we today, don’t suffer from it. Everyone with an O’bunghole phone, will vote for illegals to stay and vote... and the snowball starts to grow. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح GrandIsland  posted on  2018-07-06   20:22:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #45. To: GrandIsland (#43) Ah, he is just another candy-assed libertarian crybaby who whines when someone doesn’t fully agree with everything he says and and runs away to pout when he loses a discussion. Libertarians try to pass themselves off as intellects who know everything about politics and how the world should be run. Yet there is not a country anywhere that has a libertarian government and NO libertarian has ever done anything except....TALK. These libertarians are locked in the past. They thought they were big shits with the “Ron Paul Revolution.” Well that died after producing nothing and Ron Paul went back to being even a less of a nobody than he was before. Now, all these poor children can do is try to live on a memory that dies and grows colder each passing day. They fail to realize that the only way their dreamed-of "libertarian movement” is moving is backwards. They are fun to watch and even more fun to agitate. They are a bunch of assholes....each and every one of them. Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-06   20:41:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #46. To: Gatlin (#45) and NO libertarian has ever done anything except....TALK. Exactly. How many legislative bills did Ron Paultard pass? And the paultards MOCK Trump for his progress, and worse, the things he’s gotta do to get progress with the obstructive assholes he’s up against. Ops... I was vulgar. Everything I said doesn’t count. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح GrandIsland  posted on  2018-07-06   20:43:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #47. To: nolu chan (#22) (Edited) You need a better excuse. Youtube videos, including that specific Youtube video, are watchable on TOR. Scripts are disabled in TOR based upon my predetermined settings. I use TOR to ensure anonymity on the Internet to include third party tracking cookies. The approach I use is effective, too. I have used TOR for over a decade, even before joining LF. However, your attempt to dismiss my opinion for the use of TOR is silly. I don't need to do anything to include answering to you or anyone for my free choices. What little information I provide [today] is the last post on the matter. buckeroo  posted on  2018-07-06   21:59:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #48. To: buckeroo (#47) What little I information I provide [today] is the last post on the matter. You provide LITTLE information at any time, you need to make this your LAST post forever. Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-06   22:04:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #49. To: GrandIsland (#46) How many legislative bills did Ron Paul[sic] pass? Doesn't your question tell you something about the nation? If Ron couldn't ensure passage of many of his pro-American bills, it is ABSOLUTE PROOF there is something horribly wrong in America. buckeroo  posted on  2018-07-06   22:14:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #50. To: tater (#48) You provide LITTLE information at any time, you need to make this your LAST post forever. I was here before you and I will be here after you leave the planet. FUCK OFF, yukon loser. buckeroo  posted on  2018-07-06   22:16:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #51. To: buckeroo (#49) If Ron couldn't ensure passage of many of his pro-American bills, it is ABSOLUTE PROOF there is something horribly wrong in America. Sadly, Gatlin's senile mind is unable to grasp that simple concept. “Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul Trump: My People Should ‘Sit Up in Attention’ Like Kim Jong-un’s Staff. Deckard  posted on  2018-07-06   22:16:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #52. To: buckeroo GrandIsland (#49) How many legislative bills did Ron Paul[sic] pass? Doesn't your question tell you something about the nation? His question tells me there are some stupid people in the district that elected Ron Paul to Congress. If Ron couldn't ensure passage of many of his pro-American bills, it is ABSOLUTE PROOF there is something horribly wrong in America. There were NO “many” of his pro-American bills....there was absolutely NONE. The only bill he passed was to sell a house in Texas. And since he couldn’t get but ONE bill to sell a house passed in Congress, it’s ABSOLUTE PROOF of Ron Paul's long record of glorious failures in congress!!! Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-06   22:26:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #53. To: Deckard (#51) If Ron couldn't ensure passage of many of his pro-American bills, it is ABSOLUTE PROOF there is something horribly wrong in America. Sadly, Gatlin's senile mind is unable to grasp that simple concept. His post was ADDRESSED to GrandIsland, stupid...not to me. Geeeeze....why are you so dumb and unable to follow what goes on? Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-06   22:29:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #54. To: Gatlin (#52) You are a living example of superficial examination of objective evidence. As a result you will NEVER uncover "root cause" and necessary "corrective action" ... you will perpetually exist in a containment mode such as, "shoot the messenger." buckeroo  posted on  2018-07-06   22:32:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #55. To: Gatlin (#53) His post was ADDRESSED to GrandIsland You two efftards are joined at the hip - your views are exactly the same as FireIsland's. Besides, you have made the same statement many times. It's so doggone hard to tell you fascists apart. “Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul Trump: My People Should ‘Sit Up in Attention’ Like Kim Jong-un’s Staff. Deckard  posted on  2018-07-06   22:42:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #56. To: Deckard, tater, fireisland (#55) It's so doggone hard to tell you fascists apart. I have to admit, these two Siamese Twins [tater, fireisland] are difficult to differentiate from tyme to tyme. buckeroo  posted on  2018-07-06   22:51:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #57. To: A K A Stone (#13) amoral libertarians What in the world are you talking about? buckeroo  posted on  2018-07-06   23:40:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #58. To: Deckard (#55) Nothing you said here excuses your stupidity. Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-07   0:19:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #59. To: buckeroo, A K A Stone (#57) amoral libertarians What in the world are you talking about? Why Do People Think Libertarians Are Amoral? Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-07   0:27:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #60. To: buckeroo (#54) Obviously, TRUTH bothers you greatly. Learn to live with it. Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-07   0:46:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #61. To: buckeroo (#50) GOOD....I pissed you off. I’m GLAD!!! Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-07   0:49:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #62. To: Gatlin (#52) And since he couldn’t get but ONE bill to sell a house passed in Congress, it’s ABSOLUTE PROOF of Ron Paul's long record of glorious failures in congress!!! Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul! RP is living in your head, rent-free. LOL Tooconservative  posted on  2018-07-07   1:03:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #63. To: GrandIsland (#41) GI, you have all of the intellect, maturity and communication capability of a sophomore high school student who has just discovered the estasy of employing vulgarity outside of earshot of his parents. When you rise above that, maybe we can have an adult conversation about adult topics. Pinguinite  posted on  2018-07-07   1:05:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #64. To: buckeroo (#49) If Ron couldn't ensure passage of many of his pro-American bills, I would point out the stupidity of measuring the soundness of one's political ideology by the number of laws that he pushes through congress. If that's the standard, GI should probably be a cheerleading democrat. Pinguinite  posted on  2018-07-07   1:09:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #65. To: buckeroo (#57) You think heroin should be legal and cocaine. That is one of many examples. A K A Stone  posted on  2018-07-07   6:52:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #66. To: A K A Stone (#65) You think heroin should be legal and cocaine. While you "push" your claim upon me, you neglect the offense of government meddling in "morality." It is a very interesting balance act you wield so that you can claim, "government is good." buckeroo  posted on  2018-07-07   8:08:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #67. To: Pinguinite, GrandIsland (#64) I would point out the stupidity of measuring the soundness of one's political ideology by the number of laws that he pushes through congress. If that's the standard, GI should probably be a cheerleading democrat. He claims to be a cop. This means that the more laws are on the books, the more citations he can write and the more bucks he can milk off the government for doing nothing worthwhile in life. He needs justification for his mere existence. buckeroo  posted on  2018-07-07   8:21:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #68. To: buckeroo, A K A Stone (#66) ... amoral libertarians ... While you "push" your claim upon me, you neglect the offense of government meddling in "morality." It is a very interesting balance act you wield so that you can claim, "government is good." Uh, at this time in the exchange you really need to show that libertarians are not amoral instead of attempting to deflect Stone’s point and change the conversation over to government. Deflection is a fallacious debating tactic you libertarians TRY to use far too often. Picking up on Stone’s point, a recap of the findings from Understanding Libertarian Morality: The Psychological Dispositions of Self-Identified Libertarians shows that: Compared to self-identified liberals and conservatives, libertarians showed 1) stronger endorsement of individual liberty as their foremost guiding principle, and weaker endorsement of all other moral principles; 2) a relatively cerebral as opposed to emotional cognitive style; and 3) lower interdependence and social relatedness. As predicted by intuitionist theories concerning the origins of moral reasoning, libertarian values showed convergent relationships with libertarian emotional dispositions and social preferences. It is abundantly clear the ONLY thing that matters to libertarians is freedom. Freedom Uber Alles! Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-07   8:53:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #69. To: Gatlin (#68) ... at this time in the exchange you really need to show that libertarians are not amoral ... Actually, all the other idiots running the country have PROVEN their deceit about the nation. The idea of 21 TRILLION in federal debt [alone] proves the point. instead of attempting to deflect Stone’s point and change the conversation over to government. I didn't, A K A Stone performed the deed but you were high on the hookah obviously enamored with his post. Deflection is a fallacious debating tactic you libertarians TRY to use far too often. That is a rhetorical remarck and has no significance to anything. buckeroo  posted on  2018-07-07   9:04:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #70. To: Pinguinite, THE ACLU-COMMIE FASCIST (#1) And so the obsession continues. Like a child who can't stop tossing cake at all the other kids at another kid's birthday party. Old ACLU-Commie Authoritarians HATE any part or parcel of libertarianism. They are rigidly militaristic and inflexible in all ways. Thus, Gatlin is only comfortable as a fascist (who also dislikes Trump -- don't be fooled.) It's cool that you're bringing so much attention libertarianism, even if in attempts to cast it in an unfavorable light. It's not going to go away, in spite of whatever direction the current political winds are blowing. Yes, and isn't also odd that Gatlin has simultaneously been touting the ACLU, the hood ornament and legal-wing of MARXISM?? The ONLY way libertarianism (as intended by the Founders) will go away (as he wishes) will be via the rigid Dem-Commie authoritarianism Gatlin espouses through his fascist ACLU lens. (As also discussed, libertarianism AT ITS LIMITS IS ANARCHY, and frankly just as dangerous as Gatlin's Commie-Authoritarianism. It should be noted that BOTH SIDES OF THIS SAME COIN OPPOSE DONALD TRUMP.) That said, arguably ALL of our Founders favored a balance of libertarianism to some degree or another, which is the basis for our individual liberties and foundations of our Republic. Liberator  posted on  2018-07-07   9:39:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #71. To: hondo68 (#2) Let me tell you right now, up front; YOU are not a "Libertarian"; You are an ANARCHIST. Rand Paul? He wouldn't give you the time of day. That's rich -- YOU mentioning Mao. Castro. The ACLU. YOUR kind of Anarcho-"Libertarianism" can only result in utter chaos. And then the strong-arm OF a Castro, a Mao, a Stalin to usher in "ORDER". Liberator  posted on  2018-07-07   9:43:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #72. To: nolu chan (#4) If the Libertarians could not obtain any traction against a GOP ticket of McCain/Palin, it seems their moment passed some time ago. They just don't get it; "Libertarianism" is woven in the fabric of Constitutionalism. (The conservative wing) Liberator  posted on  2018-07-07   9:44:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #73. To: A K A Stone (#13) Amoral libertarians don't have much support. That is and was always my problem with libertarians. They equate moral things with immoral things. Do what thou wilt just like the satanic so called Bible. Yup. At its limits, "Libertarianism" = Total Anarchy. Moral (and otherwise) Laws unto themselves. Liberator  posted on  2018-07-07   9:46:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #74. To: GrandIsland (#15) The best and most viable libertarian minded candidate, EVER, is Rand Paul... and the bulk of the rabid 6%, aka, RON PAULTARDS, turned your backs on Rand... because Rand doesn’t run on anarchy. Absolutely RIGHT. Liberator  posted on  2018-07-07   9:47:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #75. To: Pinguinite, GrandIsland (#17) Gatlin gave you a big AMEN on that. The Old Commie is just stroking for allies. Frankly, I believe Gatlin is the type of rigid Major Burns-like AK-ing AH that GI saw over and over for 20 years at his dept...and despised their hypocrisy and select rigidity. JMO. Liberator  posted on  2018-07-07   9:50:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #76. To: Gatlin, Pinguinite (#21) Now you've done it, Ping... "Father" Major Burn is again at his fake pulpit, stealing the scripture he *thinks* will support his fake piety. His YUGE Pope's Hat is dyed Castro-military green. Liberator  posted on  2018-07-07   9:54:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #77. To: Pinguinite, Gatlin (#24) I infer from your response that you purport to be an enlightened Christian saint. That's wonderful...even though it seems you've yet to learn not to be so condescending toward others, but all things in time. OUCH. Liberator  posted on  2018-07-07   9:56:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #78. To: Liberator (#73) (Edited) At its limits, "Libertarianism" = Total Anarchy. Moral (and otherwise) Laws unto themselves. OK. Take a lookie-loo at the GOP-DEM federal debt; ever consider that topic as ANARCHIST? NAW, its just a cool 21,000,000,000,000 bucks, so it is under control and non-anarchist? buckeroo  posted on  2018-07-07   9:59:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #79. To: tpaine (#30) This antilibertarian obsession is akin to the antiTrump one. --- Both types should be pitied for their fanaticism. You're HALF right. The Libertarians who we've been witnessing running for office are far more supportive of ANARCHY. It is NOT the Founder's intent and the direct opposite side of the Authoritarian coin. Liberator  posted on  2018-07-07   10:01:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #80. To: buckeroo (#78) (Edited) Take a lookie-loo at the GOP-DEM federal debt; ever consider that topic as ANARCHIST? NAW, its just a cool 21,000,000,000 bucks, so it is under control and non-anarchist? A whole different subject to address. The Feral Deficit is the fault of printing-pre$$ SOCIALIST-Dems and GLOBALIST Pubbies -- neither who are Constititutionalist or America-Firsters. And btw -- No pure Libertarian Gummint would ever be able to collect a penny for taxes. Liberator  posted on  2018-07-07   10:04:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #81. To: Liberator, gatlin (#80) Differentiate the idea that "libertarians" caused the current government fiasco. Your love of the two party system is what brought the USA to its knees. buckeroo  posted on  2018-07-07   10:09:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #82. To: Liberator (#73) At its limits, "Libertarianism" = Total Anarchy. Moral (and otherwise) Laws unto themselves. A common misconception is that libertarians want to abolish government. But that is the anarchist, not libertarian philosophy. Libertarians recognize the need for government, but that it should be much smaller than it is today in the USA. Pinguinite  posted on  2018-07-07   10:11:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #83. To: buckeroo (#69) Deflection is a fallacious debating tactic you libertarians TRY to use far too often. That is a rhetorical remarck and has no significance to anything. It has GREAT significance since it APPLIES directly to you. Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-07   10:13:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #84. To: Gatlin (#83) GO FUCK YOURSELF. buckeroo  posted on  2018-07-07   10:16:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #85. To: buckeroo (#84) Now I have REALLY pissed you off....I am even happier about that. Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-07   10:20:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #86. To: Liberator (#80) And btw -- No pure Libertarian Gummint would ever be able to collect a penny for taxes. Given the philosophy of some libertarians, I could see that argument being made as a valid criticism of libertarianism. I myself disagree with one major plank of the L party having to do with open borders. I do understand the philosophical argument in favor of open borders, but in practice it falls short due to differing rules of alternate governments of foreign countries. The fed gov got by almost exclusively on import duties for the first 100 years or so, if I'm not mistaken. Humorously, I've speculated on the idea of a "citizenship exchange program" where if you want to emigrate to another country, all you need to do is find someone from that country that wants to come to the USA, and you trade citizenship and both move at the same time. It's a net zero gain in both residency and citizenship for both countries so neither government can claim to be adversely harmed. Sounds like it could be a good libertarian compromise!! Pinguinite  posted on  2018-07-07   10:26:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #87. To: Gatlin (#85) If you are so happy, why do you want to "piss me off?" Is it because you are deranged and out of YOUR FUCKIN' MIND? buckeroo  posted on  2018-07-07   10:27:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #88. To: buckeroo (#81) Differentiate the idea that "libertarians" caused the current government fiasco. I just gave you an answer to what "caused the current government fiasco". I also added that a Libertarian Gummint wouldn't have the will or inclination to collect necessary (YES, NECESSARY) taxes to run any gummint agencies for 300m people. And btw -- Trump was ostensibly a THIRD PARTY who BEAT both the establishment Parties. IF you paid a whit of attention. It's why both Party leadership hate him. HULLO. Libertarianism: Exactly what IS you "platform" should you actually win any election at all? Liberator  posted on  2018-07-07   10:42:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #89. To: Pinguinite (#82) A common misconception is that libertarians want to abolish government. But that is the anarchist, not libertarian philosophy. Libertarians recognize the need for government, but that it should be much smaller than it is today in the USA. I understand that concept... The problem is that Libertarian activism is led by its extremist strain. *They* support a radical reduction in common sense laws while lacking solutions for contemporary problems. We can certainly quibble over the definition of "Libertarian" and to what extent or size and scope of gummint a Libertarian-controlled machination would run things... In my opinion the radical elements would win that day, which is fundamentally anarchist. Ideally it wouldn't be. Liberator  posted on  2018-07-07   10:49:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #90. To: buckeroo (#87) No. Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-07   10:51:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #91. To: Chairman Gatlin, buckeroo, A K A Stone (#68) It is abundantly clear the ONLY thing that matters to libertarians is freedom. Oh the irony... MEANWHILE at the OTHER end of the spectrum is your uber-militaristic ANTI-FREEDOM strain of rigid Authoritarianism, supported by Castro, Mao, and the Stalinist-supported ACLU. Liberator  posted on  2018-07-07   10:53:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #92. To: buckeroo (#87) YES. Liberator  posted on  2018-07-07   10:53:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #93. To: Liberator (#88) ... a Libertarian Gummint wouldn't have the will or inclination to collect necessary (YES, NECESSARY) taxes to run any gummint agencies for 300m people. Under current government regulations, you are correct. But why is a free and sovereign state giving away its own wealth to every other nation? It doesn't make any sense when coupled withe FACT, that the USA permits illegals over our sovereign borders by the MILLIONS, does it? Nope, the US Government has gone MAD under the DEM/GOP largess. buckeroo  posted on  2018-07-07   10:54:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #94. To: buckeroo, Tater, Luberator, anarchist revolutionaries, community agitators (#87) If you are so happy, why do you want to "piss me off?" Tater is a phony anarchist leading from the rear, like Luberator. They're hoping to incite some minor infractions of the "rules" so they can crack down on the dissidents with an iron fist. Wannabe Tyrants gonna tyrant. Hondo68  posted on  2018-07-07   11:16:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #95. To: Pinguinite (#86) I myself disagree with one major plank of the L party having to do with open borders. Right, and you must; Open Borders is anathema to sovereignty. But to radical Libertarian (who are now actually allying with Antifa and Commie elements), "freedom" at its extreme promotes exactly that kind of anarchy. I do understand the philosophical argument in favor of open borders, but in practice it falls short due to differing rules of alternate governments of foreign countries. At no level or degree can I understand any basic argument in favor of Open Borders in this day and age. (of *your* understanding, what would it be?) The fed gov got by almost exclusively on import duties for the first 100 years or so, if I'm not mistaken. Pretty much I believe...And at that, it seems law & order at most levels of gummint were maintained. Sure -- out west there were some problems with law enforcement, but gummint by and large was lean and mean. Might we consider THE USA as pretty much "libertarian" but blended with Protestant ethics and morals? The formula worked and worked well. And THEN came Wilson's Feral Taxation and the backdoor confiscation of wealth (AND political POWER) by Internationalists. But I digress... There IS something to be said about noting an America that was mostly self-moderating and self-policing to a great degree. That reason was found in the faith of a nation that still relied on common sense and virtue espoused in The Good Book. Even though we had a "Constitution" and laws on the books, citizenry wisdom and respect of and for personal, community, and national sovereignty was pretty much...expected. Humorously, I've speculated on the idea of a "citizenship exchange program" where if you want to emigrate to another country, all you need to do is find someone from that country that wants to come to the USA, and you trade citizenship and both move at the same time. It's a net zero gain in both residency and citizenship for both countries so neither government can claim to be adversely harmed. Sounds like it could be a good libertarian compromise!! Heh...like baseball team trades. "Here's our poison. It can't kill you any more than yours." ;-) (Imagine this kind of arrangement at the local level?) I prefer the "Life Exchange" program where the "mutual trade compromise" is made by and with "Nature". How about the "net zero gain" of EXPORTING the criminally insane/Democrats in exchange with...say penguins at the South Pole? Liberator  posted on  2018-07-07   11:26:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #96. To: Liberator (#89) The problem is that Libertarian activism is led by its extremist strain. *They* support a radical reduction in common sense laws while lacking solutions for contemporary problems. Liberator, I always appreciate our ability to discuss issues amicably and constructive even if they often result in animosity with others. It speaks well for both of us! Yes, the problem is that unlike the R & D platforms where the various planks are generally have little to no direct relation to one another (i.e. the R platform has both a strong military and is pro life), the Libertarian party is based on a philosophy where the various planks ARE much more related to one another. That relation is freedom. Everything is based on the concept that each person's circle of freedom should be expanded as much as possible, limited only when it begins to overlap another person's like circle of freedom. It's as simple as that. In practice, yes, there are areas where the philosophy isn't workable, open borders being, IMO, one big one. Communal sharing of expenses, such as military defense & infrastructure is another. True libertarianism is NOT about getting a free ride, of course. The problem is only in how to fairly charge each member for a true cost of the benefit they receive. On roads, in theory, every road would be a toll road so everyone using a road would pay for its maintenance, while those not using it would not pay. Some libertarians argue that all taxation is theft, yet those same libertarians would not have any problem with toll roads to cover needed maintenance. It comes down to the semantics of the difference between a tax and a "use fee". Pinguinite  posted on  2018-07-07   11:29:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #97. To: buckeroo (#93) But why is a free and sovereign state giving away its own wealth to every other nation? It doesn't make any sense when coupled withe FACT, that the USA permits illegals over our sovereign borders by the MILLIONS, does it? I agree, you agree, and tens of millions of common sense Americans agree with all that. The Uni-Party Globalist Firsters hijacked BOTH parties, printed up a gazillion fiat dollars, gladly flung open the border to 40 million Illegals thru the Mexican border, THEN made you and I subsidize our own national suicide. Donald Trump is trying the remediate this Uni-Party Establishment-created & maintained destruction and sabotage of our liberties, sovereignty and wealth. And because he IS, the Uni-Party Globalists and Deep State mobsters have been trying like mad to oust HIM as well as everyone associated with him. Nope, the US Government has gone MAD under the DEM/GOP largess. Agreed. Liberator  posted on  2018-07-07   11:34:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #98. To: Gatlin, buckeroo, A K A Stone (#68) ...freedom Calvin Coolidge: There is no substitute for a militant freedom. The only alternative is submission and slavery." "There is no greater service we can render…than to maintain inviolate the freedom of our own citizens." "There is no justification for public interference with purely private concerns." "All liberty is individual liberty." "The individual has rights…And the protection of rights is righteous." Who knew that Silent Cal was a libertarian? “Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul Trump: My People Should ‘Sit Up in Attention’ Like Kim Jong-un’s Staff. Deckard  posted on  2018-07-07   11:34:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #99. To: hondo68 (#94) Tater is a phony anarchist leading from the rear, like Luberator. Ok, you win 'Most Insane Post EVER' award. Here's a cookie. Liberator  posted on  2018-07-07   11:36:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #100. To: Liberator (#95) At no level or degree can I understand any basic argument in favor of Open Borders in this day and age. (of *your* understanding, what would it be?) The philosophy is quite simple. Without freedom of movement, other freedoms are necessarily usurpable. I.e. if you can be forced to remain in your home, you lose your right to assemble & associate. You lose your ability to travel for work and other personal reasons. We NEED the ability to travel. In fact it's the sole punishment that jailtime actually yields for convicted criminals. The argument in favor of open borders is simply an extension of that idea. If the government can't morally jail all citizens in homes or elsewhere, why should it have the moral right to jail them in their home country? That's the argument. It's quite simple. As I said, unlike the R & D parties which are a collection of independent planks that in an alternate universe could be freely interchanged with one another with no hypocrisy, the L party is based on a uniform philosophy. That is the appeal the party has for logical thinkers. Pinguinite  posted on  2018-07-07   11:42:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #101. To: Liberator (#97) common sense Well stated. buckeroo  posted on  2018-07-07   11:48:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #102. To: Pinguinite (#96) (Edited) Liberator, I always appreciate our ability to discuss issues amicably and constructive even if they often result in animosity with others. It speaks well for both of us! Thank you...appreciate it. The feeling is mutual. ...the Libertarian party is based on a philosophy where the various planks ARE much more related to one another. That relation is freedom. Everything is based on the concept that each person's circle of freedom should be expanded as much as possible, limited only when it begins to overlap another person's like circle of freedom. It's as simple as that. Thanks for your concise explanation and definition of the Libertarian Party philosophy. There's not a lot to oppose or disagree with in principle or intent there, is there? A lot of libertarian philosophy is based on common sense respect of others -- i.e., personal privacy, liberties, movement, choice, sovereignty, etc. Those attributes were supported by most of our Founders, weren't they? I'm repeating myself again, but where it goes off the rails and becomes fringe anarchy is when it speeds past its mid-range or moderate limits. Problem there: Who or what defines "moderate libertarianism"? I'm being rhetorical of course because we'll get a ton of definitive answers depending on the day or week. *I* know it when I see it, but how about the other 99 people? Related: BECAUSE we have Open Border Anarchists, Authoritarians, Dem uber-Socialists and NWO Globalists all simultaneously attempting to shred common sense and Constitution apart, there's no instant solution BUT to strongly support Donald Trump for now. His policies are more libertarian-constitutional than anyone I can remember. Including Reagan. As I see it? He is trying to hold our Founders' core together. Otherwise the entire thing implodes. Liberator  posted on  2018-07-07   11:57:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #103. To: Deckard (#98) (Edited) Who knew that Silent Cal was a libertarian? Calvin Coolidge: Libertarian? Think Again. Here goes a brick at a political hornets nest…Dr. Paul Miller of the University of Texas makes some reasoned points in this great piece at The Imaginative Conservative: above all, the reminder that the Founders constituted a limited government, endowed with counterbalancing energy and deliberation, along conservative – not libertarian – lines. If we want to become libertarians, we have to look elsewhere to a precedent that has never been to be enacted by a kind of human nature that only exists in Ayn Rand fiction. Coolidge understood this distinction intended by the Founders and stands as one of the preeminent exemplifications of their ideals translated for modern America. For, he said, of the Founding generation, “They knew, however, that self-government is still government, and that the authority of the Constitution and the law is still authority. They knew that a government without power is a contradiction in terms.” Then, he said, “To be independent to my mind does not mean to be isolated, to be the priest or the Levite, but rather to be the good Samaritan. There is no real independence save only as we secure it through the law of service.” Again, he said, “Much emphasis has been placed on our political independence. It has become one of our most fundamental traditions of government, and rightly so.” The Founders, Coolidge went on to say, however, “could not escape the conclusion that as the individual derives his liberty from an observance of the law, so nations derive their independence and perpetuate their sovereignty from an observance of that comity by which they are all bound. As modern developments have brought the nations closer and closer together, this conclusion has become more and more unavoidable. While the rights of the citizen have been in no wise diminished, the rights of humanity have been very greatly increased. Our country holds to political and economic independence, but it holds to cooperation and combination in the administration of justice…All sections have the same community of interests, both in theory and in fact, and they ought to have a community in political action. We can not deny that we are all Americans. To attempt to proceed upon any other theory can only end in disaster. No policy can ever be a success which does not contemplate this as one country. The principle that those who think alike ought to be able to act alike wherever they happen to live should supplemented by another rule for the continuation of the contentment and tranquility of our Republic. The general acceptance of our institutions proceeds on the theory that they have been adopted by the action of a majority. It is obvious that if those who hold to the same ideals of government fail to agree the chances very strongly favor a rule by a minority..Artificial propaganda, paid agitators, selfish interests, all impinge upon members of legislative bodies to force them to represent special elements rather than the great body of their constituency…Not only is this one country, but we must keep all its different parts in harmony by refusing to adopt legislation which is not for the general welfare.” This regard for historical perspective and respect for the interests of all the people, through an incremental and measured advancement, is conservatism. Conservatives know change is constant but also know that drastic change hurts the most vulnerable people in society. It is for people then that conservatives work to slow the speed of change down so that those in the rear are not left behind. By keeping everyone moving forward together, civilization progresses. Rapid transformation and radical revolution leads to regression, at best, or collapse, at worst. Libertarianism may, and often does, have thoughts to contribute to public policy. Both sides can learn a great deal from one another but we are mistaken to makeover the historical record equating libertarianism with the principles espoused by Coolidge or what the Founders preserved for us and generations not yet born. Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-07   11:59:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #104. To: Liberator (#99) 'Most Insane Post EVER' award. Your plot to install ex-gov Crisco as the Donut King has been exposed, deal with it. ;) Hondo68  posted on  2018-07-07   12:07:27 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #105. To: Liberator (#102) Thanks for your concise explanation and definition of the Libertarian Party philosophy. There's not a lot to oppose or disagree with in principle or intent there, is there? A lot of libertarian philosophy is based on common sense respect of others -- i.e., personal privacy, liberties, movement, choice, sovereignty, etc. Those attributes were supported by most of our Founders, weren't they? I cannot understand how anyone would see the foundation of the USA being based on anything other than freedom. But it seems some here do. I'm repeating myself again, but where it goes off the rails and becomes fringe anarchy is when it speeds past its mid-range or moderate limits. Problem there: Who or what defines "moderate libertarianism"? I'm being rhetorical of course because we'll get a ton of definitive answers depending on the day or week. *I* know it when I see it, but how about the other 99 people? On the "expanding circle of freedom" description I gave, in spite of the concept being simple, there's always room for debate on what constitutes "overlapping". Permissable home improvements being one area. If I wanted to make my home into a 30 story high rise, would my neighbors have a just concern that their right in preserving their home value is being unjustly reduced due to my project? Related: BECAUSE we have Open Border Anarchists, Authoritarians, Dem uber-Socialists and NWO Globalists all simultaneously attempting to shred common sense and Constitution apart, there's no instant solution BUT to strongly support Donald Trump for now. His policies are more libertarian-constitutional than anyone I can remember. Including Reagan. I have always scored Trump with low marks on the civil rights side, believing he has personally never had to endure a loss of rights. Having money, he could always try to lawyer his way to obtain his wishes. It was one of the criticisms against him pre-election, bullying unwilling residents into selling homes for Trump's real estate development projects. As I see it? He is trying to hold our Founders' core together. Otherwise the entire thing implodes. He certainly has a strong patriotic core to him, obviously. We see that at multiple levels continuously. Pinguinite  posted on  2018-07-07   12:15:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #106. To: Liberator (#71) To: hondo68 Let me tell you right now, up front; YOU are not a "Libertarian"; You are an ANARCHIST. Rand Paul? He wouldn't give you the time of day. That's rich -- YOU mentioning Mao. Castro. The ACLU. YOUR kind of Anarcho-"Libertarianism" can only result in utter chaos. And then the strong-arm OF a Castro, a Mao, a Stalin to usher in "ORDER". Excellent post. Good summary of Hondope I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح GrandIsland  posted on  2018-07-07   15:04:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #107. To: Pinguinite (#105) I cannot understand how anyone would see the foundation of the USA being based on anything other than freedom. But it seems some here do. I know. Un-believable. What I find worrisome is people here (and out "there") who *should* know better. They're getting confused about our history, mankind's history, priorities...and how easily freedom slips away. Much of it as we know began on 9/12 before the ink from the un-read "Patriot Act" was dry, erasing many of our taken-for-granted liberties (as the border remained an inexplicable open floodgate.) Today? It's a mano a mano situation now. Far more precarious than some are willing to admit...and even realize. The Socialist-Left and Globalists Authoritarians are going gonzo, pulling out all the stops (given they own most of the airwaves). They are hammering people with lying narratives and policies that are counter-liberty, counter-common sense and counter-intuitive. And have you noticed how similar the streets of Frisco look to the street of Paris (along the Seine) recently? "Homeless" armies ready to leap into action and join "Operation Total Anarchy". On the "expanding circle of freedom" description I gave, in spite of the concept being simple, there's always room for debate on what constitutes "overlapping". Permissable home improvements being one area. If I wanted to make my home into a 30 story high rise, would my neighbors have a just concern that their right in preserving their home value is being unjustly reduced due to my project? Interesting example -- I realize it's purposely extreme. Your (Your "expanding circle of freedom" was/is btw a really good visual metric). Common sense and mutual respect used to count heavily in many individual decisions. And then there grew community consensus (and their decisions). It all mostly worked well UNTIL legal SJW behemoths like the ACLU began swooping in with fleets of Leftist lawyers and overruling via technicality, obliterating the spirit of the law. This is still now THE case. Most towns already have zoning ordinances for real estate example. And exceptions via variance of certain local boards. But I get the gist -- there must be room and accommodation for reasonable debate, fairness and personal freedom. Seems the larger gummint gets the more petty, over-officious and authoritarian things get -- especially targeting certain "traditional" select demos. Whether it's the 1A, 2A, 4A, 10A, etc. We are getting squeezed of liberty by the Authoritarian-Left coin -- both now increasingly over-lapping into fascism as *their* respective sphere of influence increases. The uber-Left, Authoritarians and Anarchists are actually elitists, believing they have the "right" to re-define and infringe on the *rest* of OUR "Circle of Freedom". The big problem: MSM have framed and promoted this view of an *earned* LARGER "more deserved" over-lapping circle of "freedom" of at the expense of others -- aka Whitey, conservatives, Christians, men, straights/normals, rural citizen/fly-over-country "in-sophisticates", etal. THIS is what the current CW2 is being fought over. I have always scored Trump with low marks on the civil rights side, believing he has personally never had to endure a loss of rights. Having money, he could always try to lawyer his way to obtain his wishes. It was one of the criticisms against him pre-election, bullying unwilling residents into selling homes for Trump's real estate development projects. I'd have assumed you may be right at one time of Trump's life. It's no secret he was raised in money, used to getting his way with few obstacles. However in time it appears (to me anyway) that he's embraced a wisdom by observing and learning about fairness from those below his "class". He's also apparently learned to frown upon the unprincipled and ironically the "bullying" of the political and business class while having to deal with those who were his "peers". I mean how far into Trump's past real estate transactions are we going to hang the man? How proportional is his "sin" compared to others (whose sins are not only NOT tallied but case UNTOLD. Frankly, if Trump's biggest most "heartless" real estate "sins" are the case of one old lady/man who refused to sell at far more than market-price near the Trump Towers....or a few contrasted with thousands of positive real estate transactions, well...I'M not convinced his "sins" in this regard are heinous to any degree of fair proportion. Moreover, there ARE differences between coercion, leaning on someone in real estate dealings, and dealing fairly. IF Trump truly was "dirty" to any real degree, THAT story would have been exposed. But if we were going there, I'd like to scrutinize the 0bama's shady real estate deals/arrangements, the Clintons, McConnells, the Bushes dealing (with the Arabs) to within 1% of Trump. (People have *died* in some of their respective cases, but I've droned on too long already. So no, I don't believe in broad-brushing Donald Trump as the cold-blooded widow/tenant-bully he was portrayed as a matter of a political assassination. IF the man were truly the cold-blood mercenary capitalist the LEFT and GOPe would like to hang on him, he'd have merely ignored running for President and NOT put up with tolerating the threats and smear of himself and his family. It would have been MUCH safer and easier to have just steam-rolled all his opponents, become an even bigger mega-billionaire, and continued kissing the azzes of the REAL bullies and fascists: The Political and Hollywood elite. Instead Donald Trump cared enough about America to sacrifice all. He DOES indeed relate to Middle Class America and IS a Patriot. He is not that good or patient an actor to fake his sincerity, his love for freedom and the USCON. For what he's done and does I am grateful. Liberator  posted on  2018-07-07   19:33:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #108. To: buckeroo (#66) you neglect the offense of government meddling in "morality." There you just proved my points. You don't want the government!ent to something because it is moral. Lok bud theft and murder are immoral and we legislate that. So quit giving me your squishy Luke warm libertarian cat shit. A K A Stone  posted on  2018-07-07   19:39:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #109. To: GrandIsland (#106) Thanks GI... Every day has become Halloween at this place. Who ARE some of these people?? It's the Twilight Zone. *They* don't even know what or who they are. Commies, Anarchists, self-anointed Authoritahs (D) slammin' the gavel from their kitchen table. Just as long as they can keep on whining over the unfair peanut gallery rules, or the MILLIONS of ill-trained, unprofessional cops who abuse their authoritah every minute of the day. *now don't forget to spank your white-azz repeatedly for wearing a badge for 20 years cuz no steekin' cops or ordinances are needed to prevent Antifa and MS-13 from taking over living room couches and Tee-bee remotes. They will all just respect the law AND constitution. JUST BECAUSE.* Liberator  posted on  2018-07-07   19:48:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #110. To: Pinguinite (#100) I criticize libertarians but I do agree with them on lots of stuff. A K A Stone  posted on  2018-07-07   19:48:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com