Do you know what thread you're in, it's not the Democratic one therefore wrong by every measure and members of Her team have a duty to act! Seriously, it's just some perceived moral superiority thing, we all go through it.
Ah yes, Democrats, those people that believe as long as you have a majority the state can do just about anything. The ones that realize it is immoral for themselves to take property belonging to others but think nothing of voting for the state to do so, so they can redistribute it.
That all depends on ones view of property rights. An argument along those lines can certainly be made. Reasonable people can also have disagreement about when taxation becomes unfair (or theft) and what compulsory taxation can and should be used for. "It seems it should go without saying that when someone takes something from another person, there must be a moral justification for that taking. Otherwise, common sense tells us that the taking is wrong. In the realm of taxation, sometimes a person may make the statement that taxation is theft. Although the typical response to such a statement may be to roll one's eyes, the issue is not so straightforward. Often the response is in the form of questions: "Well how are we to pay for a civilized society? What will be used to pay for all these social services that are needed?" Such responses can only be considered answers if one presupposes that one's needs define a legitimate claim upon another. Without such a presupposition, the response would merely be begging the question. In other words, the presumed justification for taxes used to pay for social or public good is simply because the governing body says so. Discussion regarding tax policy usually starts from this positive law view. This is justified by invoking democracy. Leaving aside the notion that democracy differs from a republic form of government, the term democracy is used as an atoning touchstone to cover the simple justification for taking from one and giving to another because a majority of citizens (or their representatives) have stated "because I want to." If we rest there, it is obvious that the issue is merely one of force of numbers. The only philosophical or principled basis for imposing a tax on people to benefit other people is that the more powerful group can do it without retaliation. If this is all there were to it, it could very well be admitted that taxation is theft." An essay on the Morality of Taxation.
Rand Paul 13 hrs · Last night during the Kentucky Senate debate my opponent accused me of having "wild ass philosophies." He actually used that line several times during his unhinged debate performance. I think he may have had a little too much of our great Kentucky Bourbon personally but then I thought - what policies is he talking about? So I created a list of my Top Ten Wild Ass Philosophies for you: 1. Balancing the budget and ending our debt 2. Supporting term limits 3. Proposing we read all of the bills before voting 4. Fighting to end the Obama/Hillary war on coal 5. Standing up for family farms against an out of control EPA 6. Asking that we only going to war if congress declares it -- As the constitution intended! 7. Standing up for the entire bill of rights 8. Auditing the federal reserve 9. Arguing for lower taxes and regulations to help create new jobs 10. Continuously opposing Hillary Clinton It's a pretty crazy list don't you think?
how is the koch brothers version of kansas and dream for the country functionally different from libertarianism for a multinational explain how this one doesnt descend into a steaming pile of bureaucratic bullshit the second we disagree about which rights are more important if you dont get taxes stolen from you then you better pay a bunch of dudes enough money to make it worth their time to keep me and my boys from bashing your head in with a rock and taking all your shit (bonus: if they dont try and stand in our way they can have a cut of your shit) of course your standard libertarian would respond that someone in the security business wouldn't do that, lest they harm their reputation and therefore future job prospects, but im hoping for more from yall
1) pretty wild ass 2) incentivizing people to sell out to moneyed interests knowing theyll be out of a job and unaccountable to the public soon (actually would really like a defense of this one) 3) theres the good doctor taking a bold stand 4) libertarians and externalities will never not short circuit. like the epa should be one of your favorite agencies 5) same as 4? i legit dont get this ones complaint other than the epa 6) yah everyone wants that but unfortunately congress is playing hooky and isis is just a little bit our fault 7) just dont even care 8) about this either 10) lol no gold standard? save me from the evils of fiat currency ron...
Excited for the Left posters to cozy up to us now for the next 4-8 years on certain policies. "Oh wait, they really weren't kidding when they said they weren't Diet Republicans!"
I liked the argument about how third party candidates ruined this election for Hillary That was entertaining
I thoroughly eviscerated this in a Facebook post just this morning. Crazy how false this is when you look at the data, aside from the moral/logical fallacies of even telling someone they should've voted against their own preferences.
So y'all have to be hoping Trump has no policy interest and will just be a rubber stamp factory for Paul Ryan right? Ryan's going to push basically your vision for the markets and the social welfare net, right?
I can't think of a more concise summation of Libertarian hopes and dreams at this point... that and access to grenade launchers and RPGs.
Why would anyone be cozying up to people who base their economic philosophy on the fictional ramblings of a Russian spinster?
Between the two, Paul Ryan is certainly more palatable to me than Trump. As a disaffected voter during this election cycle, it has been fascinating to watch. With the Democrats writing the most progressive platform in US history and Trump winning on the backs of the religious right I feel more isolated than ever from either major party. My greatest hope is that Progressives have a new religion on checks and balances. They bemoaned Bush's use of Executive power but once they gained power they rejoiced the actions of Obama to use the power of government to enact social change. Then when the right fought back and became obstruction they cheered Harry Reid's weakening of the filibuster rule. As recently as August he said in a NY Times interview that Democrats should go further to weaken the filibuster if they are able to take back the Senate. Democrats should have a healthy fear for what the GOP might do now because they gave the precedence and expanded the power of government.
um...because regardless of your opinions of russian spinsters, coalitions can still be built on completely unrelated issues? You're right though, you should push away anyone you disagree with on one issue even though you might agree on four others.
Well if the left posters and the libertarian posters had to work together to pass legislation, this would make sense. But this is a discussion board and there's literally no reason to form coalitions of posters.
by this logic we should just foreclose all political discussion on the board, period. We're all just commentators in the end
I'm so pumped to see how the unfettered free market protects the environment, you guys. This is tremendously exciting.
I mean, how do you not care about the raping the natural world is about to get? Do you not enjoy nature?
No. We know, objectively, that a large percentage of those being polled as voted for Stein or Johnson were not Greens or Libertarians in the least. They were protestors or disaffected independents.
That must 100% explain it. Many Libertarians aren't jilted Republicans or young people who have realized it's passé to be an Evangelical twat.
I love hiking, it's one of my favorite things to do. Grew up in the Rockies and now enjoy the Hudson Valley and Appalachians. I'm very concerned about the federal parks and have been for some time, regardless of which party is in power.
You should go to your favorite federal park ASAP. I don't think secretary of the interior Sarah Palin is going to look too kindly on preserving them when there's natural resources that can be monetized there.
yeah, we've gone full circle now. The religious part is definitely some of them. I'd fully admit that separation of church and state forms part of my own libertarianism. Libertarian party has existed long before your Tea Party interpretation. Be as conclusory as you want, about it though.
Of course it has. If you're interested, I wrote a dissertation about the structure and dynamics of markets, which necessarily entailed studying ideas from Thucydides to Locke and Hobbes to Smith and Friedman. Be as conclusory as you like, though.
Surely even you and Iron Mickey don't think you're going to waltz into the Libertarian Thread and get pushback on your Sarah Palin opinions, lol
No, I know y'all think she's an awful human being. I am legitimately curious though how you square libertarian economic theory with a desire for environmental protection. Does ruining the planet for the next generation count as a violation of the NAP?
A similar question might be how True Libertarian Nelson decided to stick with Hobbes' idea of individual nature over Rousseau's concept of natural cooperation in concluding that people are inherently self-interested and thus that the economic structure must be designed to accommodate that greed.
I would be interested. Would gladly read it. Don't quite understand why you're being a prick, though. I don't believe you're right on your interpretation of purported libertarians in this election but I'm willing to listen, as always. A lot was being made of Johnson polling at 10-12 percent for several months. There aren't that many registered libertarians in this country...not even close. That is comical to claim they were. Thus, you must accept the notion that the majority of them were protest voters/disaffected Republicans/Bernie Bros/fuck the drug war people. Were a lot of them Republicans? Undoubtedly. But then, in the 11th hour, when "lesser evilism" starts to take hold and they just vote how their friends are (AKA Trump), you're just talking about a group of people who ended where they started (as Republicans). You're going to claim these people are Libertarians? There might be some of these types in this thread, but you're not talking to one of them.
Mostly because I came in this thread expecting to see people furious that the country had elected the worst crony capitalist of all time and instead found idiotic drivel like this: You'll forgive me if that doesn't read a lot like the Republican thread, but with more superiority as you pretend you weren't part of the problem. All in a thread designed to distance right-leaning posters from the barbaric morons hellbent on ruining the country... under the auspices of an economic and political theory that is pretty conclusively hackery based on the empirical record, much less theoretical distinctions.