Why the Libertarians can't get shit done

[Ishmael]

I believe in and support your 'alternative' opinions because....

"He who fails to question is asking for trouble."

and in answer to your posts...

Democracy is not being, it is becoming. It is easily lost, but never finally won.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for lunch." - Benjamin Franklin

Democracy is nothing more than mob rule. A rush by the bigger mob to spend the treasury on the latest populist sentimental fad, or to pay someone one else to relieve the mob of it's latest fear.

Ishmael


Ishmael

 

[kbate]

Alexis De Toqueville
David Crockett in a speech on the floor of congress.

Nope. Karl Marx and Grover Cleveland. are the sources.

***

And: Yes -- I do believe that if we continue on our current path, America will become a debtor nation, - headed for depression.

 

[breakwall]

Nope. Karl Marx and Grover Cleveland. are the sources.

***

And: Yes -- I do believe that if we continue on our current path, America will become a debtor nation, - headed for depression.

Well, don't worry. Your old buddy Canada can lend you a few bucks until you get back on your feet.

 

[Lost Cause]

"So this is how Liberty dies...with thunderous applause."

Queen Amidala

 

[Lost Cause]

"Democracy and Socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."

Alexis de Tocqueville

 

[ubertroll]

Is that Dolf in your av?

Yes. It is.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for lunch." - Benjamin Franklin

Democracy is nothing more than mob rule. A rush by the bigger mob to spend the treasury on the latest populist sentimental fad, or to pay someone one else to relieve the mob of it's latest fear.

Ishmael

So you'd rather have a dictatorship?

 

[ubertroll]

You may all go to hell. I will go to Texas.

 

[renard_ruse]

Because their party is run by crackpots whose politics only vaguely resemble libertarianism while the actual philosophical libertarians are mostly in the major parties.

The champion of the "Libertarian" party was anti-choice for *&%# sake.

I'm assuming this viscious hateful slur term "anti-choice" is a reference to the aborticide issue.

A true libertarian HAS to be pro-life on the aborticide question. The only legitimate functions of government in libertarianism are to protect the individual from violence and to protect property. To not protect the unborn from the ultimate violence of being slaughtered is not compatible with libertarianism.

The pro-abortion "libertarians" have given the philosophy a bad name with their hypocrisy over recent years. They are not libertarians, for they seek to take the liberty from the most defenseless among us, the unborn.

 

[bare_pussy]

how do libertarians propose to handle of the unwanted babies?

I mean, you won't pay for child care, you won't pay for orphanages, you won't pay for educations...so, the cycle of poverty not only grows, but continues.

The reason poverty levels tapered off in the 90s was not only because of the economic book of that time but also because there were fewer unwanted/unplanned pregnancies in the areas and within the populations that could least afford it.

Maybe Mill is more appropriate for modern society than Locke.

 

[Ishmael]

Nope. Karl Marx and Grover Cleveland. are the sources.

***

And: Yes -- I do believe that if we continue on our current path, America will become a debtor nation, - headed for depression.

You didn't quote them. Both of the below are much earlier than your quotes. See if they don't sound familiar.

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." - Alexis de Tocqueville


In 1827, the famous Colonel Davy Crockett was elected to the House of Representatives. During his first term of office, a $10,000 relief bill for the widow of a naval officer was proposed. Colonel Crockett rose in stern opposition and gave the following eloquent rebuttal to the bill:

"We must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not attempt to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money."

After he sat down and a vote was taken, instead of unanimous approval as had been assumed, the measure failed with only a few votes in support of it. (Legend has it that Crockett, one of the poorest members of the House at that time, was the only one to contribute substantially to a private charitable fund for the widow.)

The de Toqueville quote was extremely prescient.

Ishmael

 

[BoomerP]

Because their party is run by crackpots whose politics only vaguely resemble libertarianism while the actual philosophical libertarians are mostly in the major parties.

The champion of the "Libertarian" party was anti-choice for fuck's sake.

To participate in politics you must first grow a beard!!

 

[TurdFergeson]

WTF!??!!?!

Where did you get from Roe v Wade that abortion was made mandatory? I seriously think you need to read the actual decision.

WTF? Do you read everything absolutely literally?

It makes abortion clinics MANDATORY in places that don't want them. It therefore makes abortion (availability) mandatory everywhere, like I said. I seriously think you need to read my posts before you respond to them.

 

[TurdFergeson]

how do libertarians propose to handle of the unwanted babies?

I mean, you won't pay for child care, you won't pay for orphanages, you won't pay for educations...so, the cycle of poverty not only grows, but continues.

The reason poverty levels tapered off in the 90s was not only because of the economic book of that time but also because there were fewer unwanted/unplanned pregnancies in the areas and within the populations that could least afford it.

Maybe Mill is more appropriate for modern society than Locke.

Unwanted babies? Since when is it my problem or society's in general to "handle" YOUR unwanted trash? For free , no less?

 

[Ishmael]

how do libertarians propose to handle of the unwanted babies?

I mean, you won't pay for child care, you won't pay for orphanages, you won't pay for educations...so, the cycle of poverty not only grows, but continues.

The reason poverty levels tapered off in the 90s was not only because of the economic book of that time but also because there were fewer unwanted/unplanned pregnancies in the areas and within the populations that could least afford it.

Maybe Mill is more appropriate for modern society than Locke.

Or maybe not.

The Libertarian is NOT against having those services, merely against all such spending being concentrated in DC.

The states are quite free to do what they please regarding orphanages, child care, etc. As a matter of fact, those are properly the province of the states, as is education. There is NO compelling reason for the monies to be funneled through washington before be aportioned out to the states. It's just another layer of bureaucracy to pay for with monies best used to provide services. (As an example, in the hay day of welfare only 28 cents out of every welfare dollar was acutally reaching the recipients, the other 72 cents were going to the bureaucracy.)

Ishmael

 

[ubertroll]

It makes abortion clinics MANDATORY in places that don't want them.

No, it really doesn't.

One of the major thrusts of the anti-choice lobby is to drive abortion clinics out of business with needlessly complicated regulations on them. (This, of course, from the 'anti-regulation' party) There are a number of states with only one--or no--abortion clinics.

It therefore makes abortion (availability) mandatory everywhere, like I said.

Are you ever right? About anything?

Don't tell me... you watch Fox Nudes.

Unwanted babies? Since when is it my problem or society's in general to "handle" YOUR unwanted trash? For free , no less?

And yet you don't have a problem with society handling a coal-burning power plant's ACTUAL trash--soot in the air--for free? If a woman gets pregnant but does not want to/cannot afford to raise a child, what do you suggest she do? Because I assure you, if she's flat fucking broke and receives no financial assistance, the odds are EXCEEDINGLY good that little bastard is going to grow up to do drugs, engage in crime, or otherwise do things that lower your precious property value.

It is in my enlightened self-interest to pay low to moderate taxes in exchange for high quality universal mandatory education, child care, national defense, and many other such services.





Oh, and Ish, what makes the state government of, say, California [population a bazillion million] any more legitimate a source of laws than the national government [population slightly more than a bazillion million]?

 

[bare_pussy]

what I think you're missing, Uber, is that some people assume women only mate in order to have sex. That, or that they all have availability to and information about birth control - which of course, in their world, is 100% effective. Oh yeah, in their heads, no one ever gets divorced, and no one ever gets raped.

So, women should be A-OK.

 

[TurdFergeson]

No, it really doesn't.

One of the major thrusts of the anti-choice lobby is to drive abortion clinics out of business with needlessly complicated regulations on them. (This, of course, from the 'anti-regulation' party) There are a number of states with only one--or no--abortion clinics.


Are you ever right? About anything?

Don't tell me... you watch Fox Nudes.

And yet you don't have a problem with society handling a coal-burning power plant's ACTUAL trash--soot in the air--for free? If a woman gets pregnant but does not want to/cannot afford to raise a child, what do you suggest she do? Because I assure you, if she's flat fucking broke and receives no financial assistance, the odds are EXCEEDINGLY good that little bastard is going to grow up to do drugs, engage in crime, or otherwise do things that lower your precious property value.

It is in my enlightened self-interest to pay low to moderate taxes in exchange for high quality universal mandatory education, child care, national defense, and many other such services.

If you LOVE abortion so much, and think it is an individual RIGHT, petition Congress to make a constitutional amendment making abortion a right.

Until then, you are wrong, and anti-constitution and law.

The USSC does not make law. Like you want it to. Overturning the unconstitutional Roe. V Wade will not stop all abortions, like you think it will in your overly simplistic black and white mind ideology.

Roe V Wade takes AWAY the CHOICE of the individual states. But you want free state sponsored abortions everywhere, even in places where the vast majority doesn't want them.

Make the right of an abortion in the USA a constitutional amendment, or STFU, because you look like a commie.

 

[TurdFergeson]

what I think you're missing, Uber, is that some people assume women only mate in order to have sex. That, or that they all have availability to and information about birth control - which of course, in their world, is 100% effective. Oh yeah, in their heads, no one ever gets divorced, and no one ever gets raped.

So, women should be A-OK.

What you are missing is that overturning roe v. wade will not make abortions illegal, or get rid of them, at all.

So, yes, women will be just fine.

Or, if you think abortions are a right, get a constitutional amendment passed making it so.

Because nowhere in that document does it even mention abortions.

 

[ubertroll]

If you LOVE abortion so much, and think it is an individual RIGHT, petition Congress to make a constitutional amendment making abortion a right.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.



Suck my nuts, it's already in there. A man or woman is sovereign over his own being. Any other interpretation violates the sacrosanct individual.

 

[Ishmael]

No, it really doesn't.

One of the major thrusts of the anti-choice lobby is to drive abortion clinics out of business with needlessly complicated regulations on them. (This, of course, from the 'anti-regulation' party) There are a number of states with only one--or no--abortion clinics.


Are you ever right? About anything?

Don't tell me... you watch Fox Nudes.

And yet you don't have a problem with society handling a coal-burning power plant's ACTUAL trash--soot in the air--for free? If a woman gets pregnant but does not want to/cannot afford to raise a child, what do you suggest she do? Because I assure you, if she's flat fucking broke and receives no financial assistance, the odds are EXCEEDINGLY good that little bastard is going to grow up to do drugs, engage in crime, or otherwise do things that lower your precious property value.

It is in my enlightened self-interest to pay low to moderate taxes in exchange for high quality universal mandatory education, child care, national defense, and many other such services.





Oh, and Ish, what makes the state government of, say, California [population a bazillion million] any more legitimate a source of laws than the national government [population slightly more than a bazillion million]?

Let's start with some facts. It is the responsibility of the plant operator to install scrubbers on their own nickle. The government isn't paying for that. What gives the federal government the mandate to pass such a law? The fact that that soot and other pollutants travel across state lines gives them the mandate.

A woman who finds herself pregnant has three options, get an abortion, have the baby and keep it, have the baby and put it up for abortion. Should she decide to keep it, the father is on the hook for financial responsibility, the DNA verified father.

The governments of the various states are closer to the citizen than the federal government. California, as per your example, has issues unique to California and is a better position to address those issues than the federal government, which gravitates towards a 'one size fits all' type solution. A solution that may not work so well in S. Dakota.

And the fact still remains that the more hands the dollars pass through, the fewer dollars are left to apply to the services for which they were collected. Because of the way in which our constitution is contructed there is no way to avoid this without destroying the constitution.

Do you know why federal welfare came about to begin with?

Ishmael

 

[TurdFergeson]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.



Suck my nuts, it's already in there. A man or woman is sovereign over his own being. Any other interpretation violates the sacrosanct individual.

That is an absolutely retarded interpretation, and keep your gay thoughts to yourself.

And why does Roe. V Wade even exist, if (as you say), the right to abortions is already in it?

Not even close.

 

[TurdFergeson]

Let's start with some facts. It is the responsibility of the plant operator to install scrubbers on their own nickle. The government isn't paying for that. What gives the federal government the mandate to pass such a law? The fact that that soot and other pollutants travel across state lines gives them the mandate.

A woman who finds herself pregnant has three options, get an abortion, have the baby and keep it, have the baby and put it up for abortion. Should she decide to keep it, the father is on the hook for financial responsibility, the DNA verified father.

The governments of the various states are closer to the citizen than the federal government. California, as per your example, has issues unique to California and is a better position to address those issues than the federal government, which gravitates towards a 'one size fits all' type solution. A solution that may not work so well in S. Dakota.

And the fact still remains that the more hands the dollars pass through, the fewer dollars are left to apply to the services for which they were collected. Because of the way in which our constitution is contructed there is no way to avoid this without destroying the constitution.

Do you know why federal welfare came about to begin with?

Ishmael

He also says that everyone is sovereign over their own being.

Explain why suicide is illegal, then.

 

[bare_pussy]

States are free to determine their own laws restricting abortion.

South Dakota?

Roe V Wade protects privacy and to some extent choice.

Until you're the one who has to put a hanger up your cunt to try to induce labor (though it really just kills you most of the time), or the one throwing yourself down stairs to avoid having the baby of your rapist, or the mother of 6 kids who can't deal with a 7th yet your abusive husband won't let you use birth control, or have the daughter in college who is a product of our times - by that I mean zero realistic sex ed, and no communication in the home...I gather you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[bare_pussy]

"Welfare" as we know it began as aid to women and children who lost their bread winner (husband/father) in war.

Protecting women and mothers.

The United States does not have welfare. We currently have TANF, a program that does absolutely nothing to help women out of poverty, provide for their children, or become self sufficient.

TANF is why I have a hard time being proud of the Clinton presidency.