I've been trying to convince people that don't like trump or Clinton to vote for johnson. They all say the same thing: "who?" I tell them it's irrelevant who the candidate is. Just get more parties involved. Especially if you're not going to vote for the other 2 assholes.
Are you kidding?
Absolutely not. I've heard from at least 30 different people that they weren't going to vote at all if their choices were trump and clinton. My response is why not vote third party?
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
I've been trying to convince people that don't like trump or Clinton to vote for johnson. They all say the same thing: "who?" I tell them it's irrelevant who the candidate is. Just get more parties involved. Especially if you're not going to vote for the other 2 assholes.
Are you kidding?
Absolutely not. I've heard from at least 30 different people that they weren't going to vote at all if their choices were trump and clinton. My response is why not vote third party?
Have you forgotten about the Green Party? Also, no one should just blindly vote. It's never irrelevant who the candidate is.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I've been trying to convince people that don't like trump or Clinton to vote for johnson. They all say the same thing: "who?" I tell them it's irrelevant who the candidate is. Just get more parties involved. Especially if you're not going to vote for the other 2 assholes.
Are you kidding?
Absolutely not. I've heard from at least 30 different people that they weren't going to vote at all if their choices were trump and clinton. My response is why not vote third party?
Have you forgotten about the Green Party? Also, no one should just blindly vote. It's never irrelevant who the candidate is.
I've also mention Jill stein. But right now, Johnson is much closer to getting on the debate stage than stein.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
What's hilarious about libertarians is the notion that private enterprise operating in the free market is better at handling finances! The history of free market capitalism in the US is a story of periodic collapse and epic failures that make the government look pretty good. There will always be mistakes, foolishness, and waste, but that's why we have the opportunity to elect officials from the bottom up. Unfortunately, we don't, we elect from the top down.
Rgambs,
What is hilarious is the idea that there has ever been a free market. Also if a business fails it does not do so with money they have taken from me if I didn't willingly give it to them. Government failure is failure with other people's money that may or may not have wanted to give it or agreed with where their money went. Target only gets my money when I willingly give it so if they are irresponsible or fiscally risky I don't give a shit...when a government body does it with money they took without asking I have a bigger concern and it is much more personal.
Most libertarians won't concede this point, but many forms of governing work. As a libertarian myself I believe that the government is there to protect people and property. people often disagree on what that means. I can't fault someone for thinking protecting people means having social security or a SNAP food program while others think it means preemptively striking a country with bombs because they are after nuclear energy. Who is to say who is right? Or are they all right? We all want the same thing really...a prosperous world with opportunity for all who want it. I believe that libertarian voices are equally important in a discussion as any other and need to be heard. Libertarians biggest problem is that they come across as condescending and dismissive to ideas where compromise would be a much more pragmatic approach. fight for legalization sure, but we must realize that settling for decriminalization will serve many of the same purposes. I am far more worried about what the US government can do to the world in its current state of military intervention and crony capitalism than I am about the damage a free market can do to the world.
No war on drugs, no war on terror, ending a state system that allows for institutional discrimination of any kind (marriage equality shouldn't have to be fought for, there shouldn't be the need to have a state issued license to marry to begin with)...I could go on, but i think you get the point...all of those things sound great to me and I will gladly take the bad that comes with the philosophy that brings me those things To paraphrase Penn Gillette i usually start with the question " can this problem be solved with less government?" Often I believe the answer is yes, but sometimes the answer is no and libertarians all too often try to force the answer of yes to every single question. That is a huge problem.
Gary Johnson isn't perfect, but he reflects a change in philosophy that needs to be heard on a national scale in direct contrast to the other party platforms in a televised and moderated debate.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I actually think that a Bernie supporter who turns to Gary Johnson probably didn't know why they supported Bernie in the first place and vice versa. Bernie is farther away from being a libertarian than anyone else.
I was a Bernie supporter, but I'm voting Johnson, and considered Jill Stein.
I'm anti war, and so I'll always try and support the most anti war candidate. Either Johnson or Stein would be fine there, but I would like to see Johnson on the debate stage.
Also for me, I'm not anti government, and support government programs, I just feel it would be better handled at the state level.
Get the Federal Government out of it, and let State Government deal with the issues.
As for Hillary and Donald. Hillary is the most war hungry, but that is simply a function of what the people who bought and sold her want.
Deep down she was probably anti war, but as a President, she is on board with the Cheney doctrine.
I've been trying to convince people that don't like trump or Clinton to vote for johnson. They all say the same thing: "who?" I tell them it's irrelevant who the candidate is. Just get more parties involved. Especially if you're not going to vote for the other 2 assholes.
Are you kidding?
Absolutely not. I've heard from at least 30 different people that they weren't going to vote at all if their choices were trump and clinton. My response is why not vote third party?
Have you forgotten about the Green Party? Also, no one should just blindly vote. It's never irrelevant who the candidate is.
I've also mention Jill stein. But right now, Johnson is much closer to getting on the debate stage than stein.
This. (Also I am not a big fan of JS. But the main reason is to use the vote to hopefully help a 3rd party to show the highest finish and add some legitimacy to the option.) Love how Canada is criticizing your vote, Degen.
I've been trying to convince people that don't like trump or Clinton to vote for johnson. They all say the same thing: "who?" I tell them it's irrelevant who the candidate is. Just get more parties involved. Especially if you're not going to vote for the other 2 assholes.
Are you kidding?
Absolutely not. I've heard from at least 30 different people that they weren't going to vote at all if their choices were trump and clinton. My response is why not vote third party?
Have you forgotten about the Green Party? Also, no one should just blindly vote. It's never irrelevant who the candidate is.
I've also mention Jill stein. But right now, Johnson is much closer to getting on the debate stage than stein.
This. (Also I am not a big fan of JS. But the main reason is to use the vote to hopefully help a 3rd party to show the highest finish and add some legitimacy to the option.) Love how Canada is criticizing your vote, Degen.
It's all good. Whether pj knows it or not, we have a long history of butting heads.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
What's hilarious about libertarians is the notion that private enterprise operating in the free market is better at handling finances! The history of free market capitalism in the US is a story of periodic collapse and epic failures that make the government look pretty good. There will always be mistakes, foolishness, and waste, but that's why we have the opportunity to elect officials from the bottom up. Unfortunately, we don't, we elect from the top down.
Rgambs,
What is hilarious is the idea that there has ever been a free market. Also if a business fails it does not do so with money they have taken from me if I didn't willingly give it to them. Government failure is failure with other people's money that may or may not have wanted to give it or agreed with where their money went. Target only gets my money when I willingly give it so if they are irresponsible or fiscally risky I don't give a shit...when a government body does it with money they took without asking I have a bigger concern and it is much more personal.
Most libertarians won't concede this point, but many forms of governing work. As a libertarian myself I believe that the government is there to protect people and property. people often disagree on what that means. I can't fault someone for thinking protecting people means having social security or a SNAP food program while others think it means preemptively striking a country with bombs because they are after nuclear energy. Who is to say who is right? Or are they all right? We all want the same thing really...a prosperous world with opportunity for all who want it. I believe that libertarian voices are equally important in a discussion as any other and need to be heard. Libertarians biggest problem is that they come across as condescending and dismissive to ideas where compromise would be a much more pragmatic approach. fight for legalization sure, but we must realize that settling for decriminalization will serve many of the same purposes. I am far more worried about what the US government can do to the world in its current state of military intervention and crony capitalism than I am about the damage a free market can do to the world.
No war on drugs, no war on terror, ending a state system that allows for institutional discrimination of any kind (marriage equality shouldn't have to be fought for, there shouldn't be the need to have a state issued license to marry to begin with)...I could go on, but i think you get the point...all of those things sound great to me and I will gladly take the bad that comes with the philosophy that brings me those things To paraphrase Penn Gillette i usually start with the question " can this problem be solved with less government?" Often I believe the answer is yes, but sometimes the answer is no and libertarians all too often try to force the answer of yes to every single question. That is a huge problem.
Gary Johnson isn't perfect, but he reflects a change in philosophy that needs to be heard on a national scale in direct contrast to the other party platforms in a televised and moderated debate.
I sort of agree with you there, because it is a literal impossibility. If there is a sufficient lack of regulation for it to be considered "free" then it will be wholly corrupted by monopoly, price fixing and chicanery of the like becomes the soup du jour.
What do you know about the economic situation between the civil war and ww1? I don't know any hardcore libertarians (you dont seem hardcore) who know a scrap about that era, because Mises and the rest don't give it a scrap of attention. That's well for them, because it blows every libertarian economic theory to smithereens.
What's hilarious about libertarians is the notion that private enterprise operating in the free market is better at handling finances! The history of free market capitalism in the US is a story of periodic collapse and epic failures that make the government look pretty good. There will always be mistakes, foolishness, and waste, but that's why we have the opportunity to elect officials from the bottom up. Unfortunately, we don't, we elect from the top down.
Rgambs,
What is hilarious is the idea that there has ever been a free market. Also if a business fails it does not do so with money they have taken from me if I didn't willingly give it to them. Government failure is failure with other people's money that may or may not have wanted to give it or agreed with where their money went. Target only gets my money when I willingly give it so if they are irresponsible or fiscally risky I don't give a shit...when a government body does it with money they took without asking I have a bigger concern and it is much more personal.
Most libertarians won't concede this point, but many forms of governing work. As a libertarian myself I believe that the government is there to protect people and property. people often disagree on what that means. I can't fault someone for thinking protecting people means having social security or a SNAP food program while others think it means preemptively striking a country with bombs because they are after nuclear energy. Who is to say who is right? Or are they all right? We all want the same thing really...a prosperous world with opportunity for all who want it. I believe that libertarian voices are equally important in a discussion as any other and need to be heard. Libertarians biggest problem is that they come across as condescending and dismissive to ideas where compromise would be a much more pragmatic approach. fight for legalization sure, but we must realize that settling for decriminalization will serve many of the same purposes. I am far more worried about what the US government can do to the world in its current state of military intervention and crony capitalism than I am about the damage a free market can do to the world.
No war on drugs, no war on terror, ending a state system that allows for institutional discrimination of any kind (marriage equality shouldn't have to be fought for, there shouldn't be the need to have a state issued license to marry to begin with)...I could go on, but i think you get the point...all of those things sound great to me and I will gladly take the bad that comes with the philosophy that brings me those things To paraphrase Penn Gillette i usually start with the question " can this problem be solved with less government?" Often I believe the answer is yes, but sometimes the answer is no and libertarians all too often try to force the answer of yes to every single question. That is a huge problem.
Gary Johnson isn't perfect, but he reflects a change in philosophy that needs to be heard on a national scale in direct contrast to the other party platforms in a televised and moderated debate.
I agree, especially on the idea of getting the Feds out and letting state governments that better represent the state's culture and ideals do their governing. Marriage as well, why is who can or cannot marry even a government, state or federal, issue at all? This country was not founded on the principal of "government approved" Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of happiness. We are not here to make the government stronger, but instead the government is in place to make the people stronger. Somehow people have gotten so delusional that they think "the government" or a bunch of power hungry politicians are going to care for them more than they care for themselves. That delusion has dissolved the idea of personal responsibility for their Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of happiness...all of which are individually defined goals. Life has not and will never be "fair", there will always be good people suffering and bad people profiting and vise versa. I believe that people will help the suffering if they see it as a personal responsibility instead of a government mandate...it's in our nature to rebel. At the same time, I will concede that it would be catastrophic to do a complete flip flop into a total hardcore libertarian society. I would love it and thrive, and would rather live in a little cabin out in the middle of nowhere with my livestock and garden, but the majority of Americans (especially city dwellers) would be strapped for cash and confused a little about their inability to afford high definition TV. I just do not see things going that far, but I think the values of libertarians and the notion personal responsibility are most definitely a good thing.
What's hilarious about libertarians is the notion that private enterprise operating in the free market is better at handling finances! The history of free market capitalism in the US is a story of periodic collapse and epic failures that make the government look pretty good. There will always be mistakes, foolishness, and waste, but that's why we have the opportunity to elect officials from the bottom up. Unfortunately, we don't, we elect from the top down.
Rgambs,
What is hilarious is the idea that there has ever been a free market. Also if a business fails it does not do so with money they have taken from me if I didn't willingly give it to them. Government failure is failure with other people's money that may or may not have wanted to give it or agreed with where their money went. Target only gets my money when I willingly give it so if they are irresponsible or fiscally risky I don't give a shit...when a government body does it with money they took without asking I have a bigger concern and it is much more personal.
Most libertarians won't concede this point, but many forms of governing work. As a libertarian myself I believe that the government is there to protect people and property. people often disagree on what that means. I can't fault someone for thinking protecting people means having social security or a SNAP food program while others think it means preemptively striking a country with bombs because they are after nuclear energy. Who is to say who is right? Or are they all right? We all want the same thing really...a prosperous world with opportunity for all who want it. I believe that libertarian voices are equally important in a discussion as any other and need to be heard. Libertarians biggest problem is that they come across as condescending and dismissive to ideas where compromise would be a much more pragmatic approach. fight for legalization sure, but we must realize that settling for decriminalization will serve many of the same purposes. I am far more worried about what the US government can do to the world in its current state of military intervention and crony capitalism than I am about the damage a free market can do to the world.
No war on drugs, no war on terror, ending a state system that allows for institutional discrimination of any kind (marriage equality shouldn't have to be fought for, there shouldn't be the need to have a state issued license to marry to begin with)...I could go on, but i think you get the point...all of those things sound great to me and I will gladly take the bad that comes with the philosophy that brings me those things To paraphrase Penn Gillette i usually start with the question " can this problem be solved with less government?" Often I believe the answer is yes, but sometimes the answer is no and libertarians all too often try to force the answer of yes to every single question. That is a huge problem.
Gary Johnson isn't perfect, but he reflects a change in philosophy that needs to be heard on a national scale in direct contrast to the other party platforms in a televised and moderated debate.
I agree, especially on the idea of getting the Feds out and letting state governments that better represent the state's culture and ideals do their governing. Marriage as well, why is who can or cannot marry even a government, state or federal, issue at all? This country was not founded on the principal of "government approved" Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of happiness. We are not here to make the government stronger, but instead the government is in place to make the people stronger. Somehow people have gotten so delusional that they think "the government" or a bunch of power hungry politicians are going to care for them more than they care for themselves. That delusion has dissolved the idea of personal responsibility for their Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of happiness...all of which are individually defined goals. Life has not and will never be "fair", there will always be good people suffering and bad people profiting and vise versa. I believe that people will help the suffering if they see it as a personal responsibility instead of a government mandate...it's in our nature to rebel.
This just comes off as naive to me. People will help the suffering if it isnt a government mandate? For real? I don't see anything in this country's (or the world's) history that evidences there is a large enough will to alleviate suffering that the government can get out of that business.
Government shouldn't tell people they can't get married, but there are real, practical consequences of marriage that need to be thought about. If we just blow up marriage in general, we need to have a plan in place to deal with those consequences.
What's hilarious about libertarians is the notion that private enterprise operating in the free market is better at handling finances! The history of free market capitalism in the US is a story of periodic collapse and epic failures that make the government look pretty good. There will always be mistakes, foolishness, and waste, but that's why we have the opportunity to elect officials from the bottom up. Unfortunately, we don't, we elect from the top down.
Rgambs,
What is hilarious is the idea that there has ever been a free market. Also if a business fails it does not do so with money they have taken from me if I didn't willingly give it to them. Government failure is failure with other people's money that may or may not have wanted to give it or agreed with where their money went. Target only gets my money when I willingly give it so if they are irresponsible or fiscally risky I don't give a shit...when a government body does it with money they took without asking I have a bigger concern and it is much more personal.
Most libertarians won't concede this point, but many forms of governing work. As a libertarian myself I believe that the government is there to protect people and property. people often disagree on what that means. I can't fault someone for thinking protecting people means having social security or a SNAP food program while others think it means preemptively striking a country with bombs because they are after nuclear energy. Who is to say who is right? Or are they all right? We all want the same thing really...a prosperous world with opportunity for all who want it. I believe that libertarian voices are equally important in a discussion as any other and need to be heard. Libertarians biggest problem is that they come across as condescending and dismissive to ideas where compromise would be a much more pragmatic approach. fight for legalization sure, but we must realize that settling for decriminalization will serve many of the same purposes. I am far more worried about what the US government can do to the world in its current state of military intervention and crony capitalism than I am about the damage a free market can do to the world.
No war on drugs, no war on terror, ending a state system that allows for institutional discrimination of any kind (marriage equality shouldn't have to be fought for, there shouldn't be the need to have a state issued license to marry to begin with)...I could go on, but i think you get the point...all of those things sound great to me and I will gladly take the bad that comes with the philosophy that brings me those things To paraphrase Penn Gillette i usually start with the question " can this problem be solved with less government?" Often I believe the answer is yes, but sometimes the answer is no and libertarians all too often try to force the answer of yes to every single question. That is a huge problem.
Gary Johnson isn't perfect, but he reflects a change in philosophy that needs to be heard on a national scale in direct contrast to the other party platforms in a televised and moderated debate.
I agree, especially on the idea of getting the Feds out and letting state governments that better represent the state's culture and ideals do their governing. Marriage as well, why is who can or cannot marry even a government, state or federal, issue at all? This country was not founded on the principal of "government approved" Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of happiness. We are not here to make the government stronger, but instead the government is in place to make the people stronger. Somehow people have gotten so delusional that they think "the government" or a bunch of power hungry politicians are going to care for them more than they care for themselves. That delusion has dissolved the idea of personal responsibility for their Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of happiness...all of which are individually defined goals. Life has not and will never be "fair", there will always be good people suffering and bad people profiting and vise versa. I believe that people will help the suffering if they see it as a personal responsibility instead of a government mandate...it's in our nature to rebel.
This just comes off as naive to me. People will help the suffering if it isnt a government mandate? For real? I don't see anything in this country's (or the world's) history that evidences there is a large enough will to alleviate suffering that the government can get out of that business.
Government shouldn't tell people they can't get married, but there are real, practical consequences of marriage that need to be thought about. If we just blow up marriage in general, we need to have a plan in place to deal with those consequences.
Organizations such as the Christian Relief Fund are completely based on people giving money out of their own pockets to help those in need. They are a non-government based organization that has fed and housed thousands of not millions of people and are totally charity. They are one of a countless organizations that are not government based that go lengths in helping mass amounts of people in the world thrive. They teach people in third world countries how to be self sufficient. The government teaches those that they "help" to be dependent. The government wasted trillions of dollars, probably enough to give the whole world "champagne breakfasts" on things like the war on drugs. Tell me again how people cannot manage their personal finances better than a government "entity"? I guess that the difference between you and I are that I still believe that there are good people out there willing to help each other. I am definitely one of those...
It's not that I believe there are no good people willing to help, it's thst history shows there are not enough to counteract the greedy pigs who hoard more than they could ever use.
It's not that I believe there are no good people willing to help, it's thst history shows there are not enough to counteract the greedy pigs who hoard more than they could ever use.
That's just the thing, though. It's not all about the all mighty dollar. Teach people to fend for themselves, grow their own food, fish, etc. and they can at least feed themselves. That seems cheaper than expensive government rations in the long run. Let those greedy assholes hoard their money, they are going to find ways of doing it anyway. It seems to me that recent history has shown that the federal government actually rewards those with shady financial practices instead of holding them accountable, aka bailout.
It's not that I believe there are no good people willing to help, it's thst history shows there are not enough to counteract the greedy pigs who hoard more than they could ever use.
That's just the thing, though. It's not all about the all mighty dollar. Teach people to fend for themselves, grow their own food, fish, etc. and they can at least feed themselves. That seems cheaper than expensive government rations in the long run. Let those greedy assholes hoard their money, they are going to find ways of doing it anyway. It seems to me that recent history has shown that the federal government actually rewards those with shady financial practices instead of holding them accountable, aka bailout.
There's no argument against that, and it goes broader, the government will always reward and encourage corruption. That is an immutable fact of life and will maniferst itself in a hardcore communism, an absolute free market, and anything in between.
To your first paragraph, that requires land and you need money to own land. Previous generations were fully competent with those skills, and they still suffered, starved, and died under libertarian style capitalism.
It's not that I believe there are no good people willing to help, it's thst history shows there are not enough to counteract the greedy pigs who hoard more than they could ever use.
That's just the thing, though. It's not all about the all mighty dollar. Teach people to fend for themselves, grow their own food, fish, etc. and they can at least feed themselves. That seems cheaper than expensive government rations in the long run. Let those greedy assholes hoard their money, they are going to find ways of doing it anyway. It seems to me that recent history has shown that the federal government actually rewards those with shady financial practices instead of holding them accountable, aka bailout.
There's no argument against that, and it goes broader, the government will always reward and encourage corruption. That is an immutable fact of life and will maniferst itself in a hardcore communism, an absolute free market, and anything in between.
To your first paragraph, that requires land and you need money to own land. Previous generations were fully competent with those skills, and they still suffered, starved, and died under libertarian style capitalism.
I'm not so sure previous generations were very competent with those skills as shown by the dust bowl. One could say that the government was wholly responsible for better farming practices, but I believe ingenuity and technological advances by "capitalists" also played a major part. It does not take owning land to fish or hunt, but the government is definitely making those things more and more expensive. I have actually donated extra meat from hunting the past couple years to local food banks. You would be surprised at how many vegetables you can grow in a pretty damn small place. Our city actually has a community garden. Hell, if just a tiny bit of the parks in a place like Seattle were used to grow fruits and vegetables for the locals, you could probably provide enough food to sustain the whole city. It's crazy that people in the United States actually go hungry with the abundance of resources available. A few more people practicing those skills would make a major dent in ensuring people are at least fed...and are not completely dependent.
It's not that I believe there are no good people willing to help, it's thst history shows there are not enough to counteract the greedy pigs who hoard more than they could ever use.
That's just the thing, though. It's not all about the all mighty dollar. Teach people to fend for themselves, grow their own food, fish, etc. and they can at least feed themselves. That seems cheaper than expensive government rations in the long run. Let those greedy assholes hoard their money, they are going to find ways of doing it anyway. It seems to me that recent history has shown that the federal government actually rewards those with shady financial practices instead of holding them accountable, aka bailout.
There's no argument against that, and it goes broader, the government will always reward and encourage corruption. That is an immutable fact of life and will maniferst itself in a hardcore communism, an absolute free market, and anything in between.
To your first paragraph, that requires land and you need money to own land. Previous generations were fully competent with those skills, and they still suffered, starved, and died under libertarian style capitalism.
That is the thing though..."libertarian style" capitalism has never existed nor has it been coupled with a government who protects the people. we give corruptible people the power to write the rules and people who have access and something to gain corrupt them and then are mad about the outcome.
Our "free" markets (something I will concede for arguments sake here but still do not believe have ever existed) were not ever coupled with a government who's single focus was protection of the people and their property rather than protection of money. They cannot be mutually exclusive to work. They must exist together...some will argue that isn't a free market but I would say that it is. I am free to enter it on my own volition, to compete in it but I am not free to harm someone else or their property. The libertarian ideal comes with more litigation attached no doubt but I think a smaller government with more focus on actually protecting the individual rather than one that says corporations are people too will have time to adjudicate those cases rather than another case of one consenting adult selling another cons bring adult a bag of weed. I can go on all day about this stuff and have on occasion but what it boils down to besides political ideology is the thought that you leave me alone I will leave you alone and we all have a responsibility to help our neighbors. Pretty god damn simple really.
Been gone for a long time but lurk once in a while and something in your post prompted a response. So thanks for that.
Nothing unites the dems and republicans like a libertarian argument...tells me they are on to something
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
It's not that I believe there are no good people willing to help, it's thst history shows there are not enough to counteract the greedy pigs who hoard more than they could ever use.
That's just the thing, though. It's not all about the all mighty dollar. Teach people to fend for themselves, grow their own food, fish, etc. and they can at least feed themselves. That seems cheaper than expensive government rations in the long run. Let those greedy assholes hoard their money, they are going to find ways of doing it anyway. It seems to me that recent history has shown that the federal government actually rewards those with shady financial practices instead of holding them accountable, aka bailout.
There's no argument against that, and it goes broader, the government will always reward and encourage corruption. That is an immutable fact of life and will maniferst itself in a hardcore communism, an absolute free market, and anything in between.
To your first paragraph, that requires land and you need money to own land. Previous generations were fully competent with those skills, and they still suffered, starved, and died under libertarian style capitalism.
That is the thing though..."libertarian style" capitalism has never existed nor has it been coupled with a government who protects the people. we give corruptible people the power to write the rules and people who have access and something to gain corrupt them and then are mad about the outcome.
Our "free" markets (something I will concede for arguments sake here but still do not believe have ever existed) were not ever coupled with a government who's single focus was protection of the people and their property rather than protection of money. They cannot be mutually exclusive to work. They must exist together...some will argue that isn't a free market but I would say that it is. I am free to enter it on my own volition, to compete in it but I am not free to harm someone else or their property. The libertarian ideal comes with more litigation attached no doubt but I think a smaller government with more focus on actually protecting the individual rather than one that says corporations are people too will have time to adjudicate those cases rather than another case of one consenting adult selling another cons bring adult a bag of weed. I can go on all day about this stuff and have on occasion but what it boils down to besides political ideology is the thought that you leave me alone I will leave you alone and we all have a responsibility to help our neighbors. Pretty god damn simple really.
Been gone for a long time but lurk once in a while and something in your post prompted a response. So thanks for that.
Nothing unites the dems and republicans like a libertarian argument...tells me they are on to something
Nothing about your argument here squares with Mises-style rhetoric. If Libertarians would actually recognize the need for government intervention in markets to protect personal property more often, I wouldn't have such disdain for the ideology.
It's too bad your idea of libertarianism isn't more prevalent, more people would get on board!
What's hilarious about libertarians is the notion that private enterprise operating in the free market is better at handling finances! The history of free market capitalism in the US is a story of periodic collapse and epic failures that make the government look pretty good. There will always be mistakes, foolishness, and waste, but that's why we have the opportunity to elect officials from the bottom up. Unfortunately, we don't, we elect from the top down.
Rgambs,
What is hilarious is the idea that there has ever been a free market. Also if a business fails it does not do so with money they have taken from me if I didn't willingly give it to them. Government failure is failure with other people's money that may or may not have wanted to give it or agreed with where their money went. Target only gets my money when I willingly give it so if they are irresponsible or fiscally risky I don't give a shit...when a government body does it with money they took without asking I have a bigger concern and it is much more personal.
Most libertarians won't concede this point, but many forms of governing work. As a libertarian myself I believe that the government is there to protect people and property. people often disagree on what that means. I can't fault someone for thinking protecting people means having social security or a SNAP food program while others think it means preemptively striking a country with bombs because they are after nuclear energy. Who is to say who is right? Or are they all right? We all want the same thing really...a prosperous world with opportunity for all who want it. I believe that libertarian voices are equally important in a discussion as any other and need to be heard. Libertarians biggest problem is that they come across as condescending and dismissive to ideas where compromise would be a much more pragmatic approach. fight for legalization sure, but we must realize that settling for decriminalization will serve many of the same purposes. I am far more worried about what the US government can do to the world in its current state of military intervention and crony capitalism than I am about the damage a free market can do to the world.
No war on drugs, no war on terror, ending a state system that allows for institutional discrimination of any kind (marriage equality shouldn't have to be fought for, there shouldn't be the need to have a state issued license to marry to begin with)...I could go on, but i think you get the point...all of those things sound great to me and I will gladly take the bad that comes with the philosophy that brings me those things To paraphrase Penn Gillette i usually start with the question " can this problem be solved with less government?" Often I believe the answer is yes, but sometimes the answer is no and libertarians all too often try to force the answer of yes to every single question. That is a huge problem.
Gary Johnson isn't perfect, but he reflects a change in philosophy that needs to be heard on a national scale in direct contrast to the other party platforms in a televised and moderated debate.
I agree, especially on the idea of getting the Feds out and letting state governments that better represent the state's culture and ideals do their governing. Marriage as well, why is who can or cannot marry even a government, state or federal, issue at all? This country was not founded on the principal of "government approved" Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of happiness. We are not here to make the government stronger, but instead the government is in place to make the people stronger. Somehow people have gotten so delusional that they think "the government" or a bunch of power hungry politicians are going to care for them more than they care for themselves. That delusion has dissolved the idea of personal responsibility for their Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of happiness...all of which are individually defined goals. Life has not and will never be "fair", there will always be good people suffering and bad people profiting and vise versa. I believe that people will help the suffering if they see it as a personal responsibility instead of a government mandate...it's in our nature to rebel.
This just comes off as naive to me. People will help the suffering if it isnt a government mandate? For real? I don't see anything in this country's (or the world's) history that evidences there is a large enough will to alleviate suffering that the government can get out of that business.
Government shouldn't tell people they can't get married, but there are real, practical consequences of marriage that need to be thought about. If we just blow up marriage in general, we need to have a plan in place to deal with those consequences.
Organizations such as the Christian Relief Fund are completely based on people giving money out of their own pockets to help those in need. They are a non-government based organization that has fed and housed thousands of not millions of people and are totally charity. They are one of a countless organizations that are not government based that go lengths in helping mass amounts of people in the world thrive. They teach people in third world countries how to be self sufficient. The government teaches those that they "help" to be dependent. The government wasted trillions of dollars, probably enough to give the whole world "champagne breakfasts" on things like the war on drugs. Tell me again how people cannot manage their personal finances better than a government "entity"? I guess that the difference between you and I are that I still believe that there are good people out there willing to help each other. I am definitely one of those...
Private charities will be the first to tell you that they would be completely buried to death in demand if their parallel government program didn't exist. It's a right wing myth that they provide services more efficiently than the government programs.
Some can manage their finances, and some can't. The average household credit card debt is about $10k. So that tells us something.
I've been trying to convince people that don't like trump or Clinton to vote for johnson. They all say the same thing: "who?" I tell them it's irrelevant who the candidate is. Just get more parties involved. Especially if you're not going to vote for the other 2 assholes.
Are you kidding?
Absolutely not. I've heard from at least 30 different people that they weren't going to vote at all if their choices were trump and clinton. My response is why not vote third party?
Have you forgotten about the Green Party? Also, no one should just blindly vote. It's never irrelevant who the candidate is.
I've also mention Jill stein. But right now, Johnson is much closer to getting on the debate stage than stein.
This. (Also I am not a big fan of JS. But the main reason is to use the vote to hopefully help a 3rd party to show the highest finish and add some legitimacy to the option.) Love how Canada is criticizing your vote, Degen.
Canada criticized his vote? Wow.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
What's hilarious about libertarians is the notion that private enterprise operating in the free market is better at handling finances! The history of free market capitalism in the US is a story of periodic collapse and epic failures that make the government look pretty good. There will always be mistakes, foolishness, and waste, but that's why we have the opportunity to elect officials from the bottom up. Unfortunately, we don't, we elect from the top down.
Rgambs,
What is hilarious is the idea that there has ever been a free market. Also if a business fails it does not do so with money they have taken from me if I didn't willingly give it to them. Government failure is failure with other people's money that may or may not have wanted to give it or agreed with where their money went. Target only gets my money when I willingly give it so if they are irresponsible or fiscally risky I don't give a shit...when a government body does it with money they took without asking I have a bigger concern and it is much more personal.
Most libertarians won't concede this point, but many forms of governing work. As a libertarian myself I believe that the government is there to protect people and property. people often disagree on what that means. I can't fault someone for thinking protecting people means having social security or a SNAP food program while others think it means preemptively striking a country with bombs because they are after nuclear energy. Who is to say who is right? Or are they all right? We all want the same thing really...a prosperous world with opportunity for all who want it. I believe that libertarian voices are equally important in a discussion as any other and need to be heard. Libertarians biggest problem is that they come across as condescending and dismissive to ideas where compromise would be a much more pragmatic approach. fight for legalization sure, but we must realize that settling for decriminalization will serve many of the same purposes. I am far more worried about what the US government can do to the world in its current state of military intervention and crony capitalism than I am about the damage a free market can do to the world.
No war on drugs, no war on terror, ending a state system that allows for institutional discrimination of any kind (marriage equality shouldn't have to be fought for, there shouldn't be the need to have a state issued license to marry to begin with)...I could go on, but i think you get the point...all of those things sound great to me and I will gladly take the bad that comes with the philosophy that brings me those things To paraphrase Penn Gillette i usually start with the question " can this problem be solved with less government?" Often I believe the answer is yes, but sometimes the answer is no and libertarians all too often try to force the answer of yes to every single question. That is a huge problem.
Gary Johnson isn't perfect, but he reflects a change in philosophy that needs to be heard on a national scale in direct contrast to the other party platforms in a televised and moderated debate.
I agree, especially on the idea of getting the Feds out and letting state governments that better represent the state's culture and ideals do their governing. Marriage as well, why is who can or cannot marry even a government, state or federal, issue at all? This country was not founded on the principal of "government approved" Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of happiness. We are not here to make the government stronger, but instead the government is in place to make the people stronger. Somehow people have gotten so delusional that they think "the government" or a bunch of power hungry politicians are going to care for them more than they care for themselves. That delusion has dissolved the idea of personal responsibility for their Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of happiness...all of which are individually defined goals. Life has not and will never be "fair", there will always be good people suffering and bad people profiting and vise versa. I believe that people will help the suffering if they see it as a personal responsibility instead of a government mandate...it's in our nature to rebel.
This just comes off as naive to me. People will help the suffering if it isnt a government mandate? For real? I don't see anything in this country's (or the world's) history that evidences there is a large enough will to alleviate suffering that the government can get out of that business.
Government shouldn't tell people they can't get married, but there are real, practical consequences of marriage that need to be thought about. If we just blow up marriage in general, we need to have a plan in place to deal with those consequences.
Organizations such as the Christian Relief Fund are completely based on people giving money out of their own pockets to help those in need. They are a non-government based organization that has fed and housed thousands of not millions of people and are totally charity. They are one of a countless organizations that are not government based that go lengths in helping mass amounts of people in the world thrive. They teach people in third world countries how to be self sufficient. The government teaches those that they "help" to be dependent. The government wasted trillions of dollars, probably enough to give the whole world "champagne breakfasts" on things like the war on drugs. Tell me again how people cannot manage their personal finances better than a government "entity"? I guess that the difference between you and I are that I still believe that there are good people out there willing to help each other. I am definitely one of those...
Private charities will be the first to tell you that they would be completely buried to death in demand if their parallel government program didn't exist. It's a right wing myth that they provide services more efficiently than the government programs.
Some can manage their finances, and some can't. The average household credit card debt is about $10k. So that tells us something.
There is a whole movement of people cutting up their credit cards and committing to staying out of debt. I wish more people would get on board. I advise everyone to check out Dave Ramsey and get out of debt sooner that later!
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I have seen more posts than I can count , suggesting there are ONLY two choices this election cycle. When in fact there is an alternative.
One that is on the ballot in all 50 states , and I assume in the territories as well.
ANNNNND YET , this was found on the third page.
Do tell, why there isnt more discussion here on this ticket? If the other two are so distasteful to many, it seems logical to me that at a minimum this ticket would get more consideration than has been shown here.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I voted for him in 2012, but I will not this time. He and his running partner are not Libertarians.
Johnson was the 3rd party guy in 12 when the other two guys weren't worthy of selection. But he's had four years to hone his skill and ability to be able to provide some of the most basic answers as to what being Libertarian is. All he's doing is running as a lesser of three evils.
kinda like Bernie then. he may have the progressive bona fides but he didnt register or join as a Dem until he ran. Caucused with D's sure but held his own stance on some things. Which is good for sure, prefer a pol who doesnt toe party line but still.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Comments
we will find a way, we will find our place
we will find a way, we will find our place
Rgambs,
What is hilarious is the idea that there has ever been a free market. Also if a business fails it does not do so with money they have taken from me if I didn't willingly give it to them. Government failure is failure with other people's money that may or may not have wanted to give it or agreed with where their money went.
Target only gets my money when I willingly give it so if they are irresponsible or fiscally risky I don't give a shit...when a government body does it with money they took without asking I have a bigger concern and it is much more personal.
Most libertarians won't concede this point, but many forms of governing work. As a libertarian myself I believe that the government is there to protect people and property. people often disagree on what that means. I can't fault someone for thinking protecting people means having social security or a SNAP food program while others think it means preemptively striking a country with bombs because they are after nuclear energy. Who is to say who is right? Or are they all right? We all want the same thing really...a prosperous world with opportunity for all who want it.
I believe that libertarian voices are equally important in a discussion as any other and need to be heard. Libertarians biggest problem is that they come across as condescending and dismissive to ideas where compromise would be a much more pragmatic approach. fight for legalization sure, but we must realize that settling for decriminalization will serve many of the same purposes.
I am far more worried about what the US government can do to the world in its current state of military intervention and crony capitalism than I am about the damage a free market can do to the world.
No war on drugs, no war on terror, ending a state system that allows for institutional discrimination of any kind (marriage equality shouldn't have to be fought for, there shouldn't be the need to have a state issued license to marry to begin with)...I could go on, but i think you get the point...all of those things sound great to me and I will gladly take the bad that comes with the philosophy that brings me those things
To paraphrase Penn Gillette i usually start with the question " can this problem be solved with less government?" Often I believe the answer is yes, but sometimes the answer is no and libertarians all too often try to force the answer of yes to every single question. That is a huge problem.
Gary Johnson isn't perfect, but he reflects a change in philosophy that needs to be heard on a national scale in direct contrast to the other party platforms in a televised and moderated debate.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I'm anti war, and so I'll always try and support the most anti war candidate. Either Johnson or Stein would be fine there, but I would like to see Johnson on the debate stage.
Also for me, I'm not anti government, and support government programs, I just feel it would be better handled at the state level.
Get the Federal Government out of it, and let State Government deal with the issues.
As for Hillary and Donald. Hillary is the most war hungry, but that is simply a function of what the people who bought and sold her want.
Deep down she was probably anti war, but as a President, she is on board with the Cheney doctrine.
(Also I am not a big fan of JS. But the main reason is to use the vote to hopefully help a 3rd party to show the highest finish and add some legitimacy to the option.)
Love how Canada is criticizing your vote, Degen.
we will find a way, we will find our place
What do you know about the economic situation between the civil war and ww1?
I don't know any hardcore libertarians (you dont seem hardcore) who know a scrap about that era, because Mises and the rest don't give it a scrap of attention. That's well for them, because it blows every libertarian economic theory to smithereens.
At the same time, I will concede that it would be catastrophic to do a complete flip flop into a total hardcore libertarian society. I would love it and thrive, and would rather live in a little cabin out in the middle of nowhere with my livestock and garden, but the majority of Americans (especially city dwellers) would be strapped for cash and confused a little about their inability to afford high definition TV. I just do not see things going that far, but I think the values of libertarians and the notion personal responsibility are most definitely a good thing.
For real?
I don't see anything in this country's (or the world's) history that evidences there is a large enough will to alleviate suffering that the government can get out of that business.
Government shouldn't tell people they can't get married, but there are real, practical consequences of marriage that need to be thought about. If we just blow up marriage in general, we need to have a plan in place to deal with those consequences.
The government wasted trillions of dollars, probably enough to give the whole world "champagne breakfasts" on things like the war on drugs. Tell me again how people cannot manage their personal finances better than a government "entity"?
I guess that the difference between you and I are that I still believe that there are good people out there willing to help each other. I am definitely one of those...
It seems to me that recent history has shown that the federal government actually rewards those with shady financial practices instead of holding them accountable, aka bailout.
To your first paragraph, that requires land and you need money to own land. Previous generations were fully competent with those skills, and they still suffered, starved, and died under libertarian style capitalism.
It does not take owning land to fish or hunt, but the government is definitely making those things more and more expensive. I have actually donated extra meat from hunting the past couple years to local food banks. You would be surprised at how many vegetables you can grow in a pretty damn small place. Our city actually has a community garden. Hell, if just a tiny bit of the parks in a place like Seattle were used to grow fruits and vegetables for the locals, you could probably provide enough food to sustain the whole city. It's crazy that people in the United States actually go hungry with the abundance of resources available. A few more people practicing those skills would make a major dent in ensuring people are at least fed...and are not completely dependent.
Our "free" markets (something I will concede for arguments sake here but still do not believe have ever existed) were not ever coupled with a government who's single focus was protection of the people and their property rather than protection of money. They cannot be mutually exclusive to work. They must exist together...some will argue that isn't a free market but I would say that it is. I am free to enter it on my own volition, to compete in it but I am not free to harm someone else or their property. The libertarian ideal comes with more litigation attached no doubt but I think a smaller government with more focus on actually protecting the individual rather than one that says corporations are people too will have time to adjudicate those cases rather than another case of one consenting adult selling another cons bring adult a bag of weed.
I can go on all day about this stuff and have on occasion but what it boils down to besides political ideology is the thought that you leave me alone I will leave you alone and we all have a responsibility to help our neighbors. Pretty god damn simple really.
Been gone for a long time but lurk once in a while and something in your post prompted a response. So thanks for that.
Nothing unites the dems and republicans like a libertarian argument...tells me they are on to something
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
If Libertarians would actually recognize the need for government intervention in markets to protect personal property more often, I wouldn't have such disdain for the ideology.
It's too bad your idea of libertarianism isn't more prevalent, more people would get on board!
Some can manage their finances, and some can't. The average household credit card debt is about $10k. So that tells us something.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
http://m.liveleak.com/view?i=650_1469717868
No, seriously, I love this guys hair. Kind of wild and free.
I have seen more posts than I can count , suggesting there are ONLY two choices this election cycle.
When in fact there is an alternative.
One that is on the ballot in all 50 states , and I assume in the territories as well.
ANNNNND YET , this was found on the third page.
Do tell, why there isnt more discussion here on this ticket? If the other two are so distasteful to many, it seems logical to me that at a minimum this ticket would get more consideration than has been shown here.
Edit to correct a typo.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Johnson was the 3rd party guy in 12 when the other two guys weren't worthy of selection. But he's had four years to hone his skill and ability to be able to provide some of the most basic answers as to what being Libertarian is. All he's doing is running as a lesser of three evils.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14