In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there a
Funny, libertarians always argue that you don’t need welfare because charities would take care of the poor.
.
*of the poors that deserve help.
not all the poors lol, that's not the claim.
people who are the cause of their own misery won't all be helped because many/most people intend to help only those who do their part, or those who are purely victim of very extreme circumstances.
*of the poors that deserve help.
not all the poors lol, that's not the claim.
people who are the cause of their own misery won't all be helped because many/most people intend to help only those who do their part, or those who are purely victim of very extreme circumstances.
the claim is that without government taking people’s money the money would be more efficiently allocated by charities, and welfare is obsolete
Also while it’s certainly possible, I don’t think it’s very probable that libertarianism would win out. After all many states that are currently red wouldn’t choose libertarianism, they would choose theocracy. And those that retain a welfare state can simply attach a residency for x number of years requirement as some programs already have (such as reduced in-state tuition for
I am not sure what model you have in mind: I haven't said no federal government, I said libertarian federal government (as in classic liberal, we already went through this).
theocracy would still be fully illegal and
the federal gvmnt allowed to use violence to force states to respect the federal constitution, as it is now.
what the federal gvmnt would cease to do is nationwide regulation of the environment, nationwide labour rules, nationwide intervention in healthcare, in education, social security, medicare, medicaid and all other redistribution efforts. basically all the FDR/Johnson big society things. back to 1925, but with the 14a enforced (so no Jim crow).
which "theocratic" drift would you envision that isn't legal today for red states but would be legal in that model?
as for judicial decisions/directions, just imagine a SCOTUS with 9 gorsuchs
We should enslave all the parasites and those that don't comply should simply be put to death. They aren't good for anything except wasting taxes. I'm stoked about the new executive order that rounds up the homeless leeches and sends them to farm camps. That combined with ICE, and RFK's rehabs should rid the streets of most of the unsightly vermin we're forced to encounter. They should make it easier to shoot/kill protesters too.
I am not sure what model you have in mind: I haven't said no federal government, I said libertarian federal government (as in classic liberal, we already went through this).
The vast majority of citizens have basically zero contact with the fed govt, outside of say filing taxes, on any kinda regular basis. Unless you want to count say rangers at nat. parks lol.
If we were a ~350 person village the fed govt would basically be 1-2people running around like absolute lunatics trying to cover all of the bases.
The very best people
https://thehill.com/homenews/administrat...
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reposted a CNN segment about a pastor who believes women should not vote on the social media platform X.
The CNN video shows a video of Pete Hegseth attending a service at Wilson’s church.
The vast majority of citizens have basically zero contact with the fed govt, outside of say filing taxes, on any kinda regular basis. Unless you want to count say rangers at nat. parks lol.
If we were a ~350 person village the fed govt would basically be 1-2people running around like absolute lunatics trying to cover all of the bases.
so every company they work for or buy things from have to deal with impossibly numerous federal regulations but that layer of obfuscation makes you claim that they have 0 contact with the federal gvmnt outside of filing taxes.
Now trump is setting tariffs (remember that's completly illegal for the reading of the constitution i subscribe to, and against all libertarian principles on top of that) which affect most of the goods people buy directly or indirectly, and that's 0 contact with the federal gvmnt?
Anyone who wants to save has to deal with the federal government, and that's 0 contact? your bank account is federally regulated, the securities you buy are federally regulated, cripto is federally regulated at this point lol.
your mortgage interest rate depends on federal reserve policy at the time you got it (or you refinanced it) and that's 0 contact with the federal government? if you still have to pay a federally guaranteed mortgage or student loan, that's 0 contact with the federal government?
every drug you buy has to be approved by the federal government (!!!!!)
how the ****ing **** can you claim 0 contact with the federal government when the federal government is imbedded in every single relevant element of society to the core?????
The fed gvmnt, under libertarian principles:
1) would never interact with any loan to private individuals or companies in the USA, no exception
2) would never set any tariff or in general regulate trade in any way : caveat emptor, everything is allowed that states don't ban (and the commerce clause limits what states can ban)
3) would not regulate banks, insurance companies or securities in any way, no exception
4) would not regulate labor contract in any aspect at all, no exception
5) would not levy a corporate income tax at all
6) would not levy payroll taxes, as no redistribution would happen at the federal level, no exception (no social security, medicare, medicaid, food stamps and so on)
7) would not regulate food drugs tobacco or any other substance at all, no exception, it's incredible it does (states only can, within commerce clause limits)
"1-2 lunatics in a village of 350 people" ffs
Texas is going to start housing the parasites ICE nabs at Fort Bliss Texas starting with 1000 beds. They may expand to 5000. My question is: What should we do with the rest of the terrorist invaders once ICE rounds up all the illegals?
I don't get why we are wasting time/dollars rounding them up? Ammo must be expensive. After RFK gets all the autistic parasites into camps, what should be done about the rest of the "special" people? Should we send queers and non-Christian heathens to RFK's camps, or deport them?
There are few things more antithetical to Libertarianism than Jim Crow and slavery.
That said, if someone is a 'libertarian' only with respect to the federal government, I can see your point.
Libertarian is just a term that people use to describe their politics. And prominent libertarians defend the confederacy. It doesn't matter what you think libertarians should be for, what matters is what they actually say.
We did and then they unbanned him for some stupid reason.
Libertarian is just a term that people use to describe their politics. And prominent libertarians defend the confederacy. It doesn't matter what you think libertarians should be for, what matters is what they actually say.
some libertarians defended the right of confederate states to secede (as an unalienable right of every sovereign which is part of a bigger union), not the unprovoked attack of federal military installations nor the institution of slavery.
But you know that and you don't care about truth
I said they defended the confederacy. Not the institution of slavery. But you don't know that because you're not good at reading or figuring out what people are saying.
I said they defended the confederacy. Not the institution of slavery. But you don't know that because you're not good at reading or figuring out what people are saying.
so why do you use the defense of the right to secede as an example of something that wouldn't be libertarian, or that is fascist (lol) as you wrote before? what's fascist in secession, with fascism being ultra-nationalist and completly against secession for any reason no exception, like unionist were?
Under libertarianism you cannot sell or cede your freedom, as an individual or as a society, any contract contrary to that is null and void. That's very basic libertarianism.
The very best people
https://thehill.com/homenews/administrat...
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reposted a CNN segment about a pastor who believes women should not vote on the social media platform X.
The CNN video shows a video of Pete Hegseth attending a service at Wilson’s church.
Attending a church where the pastor says awful things? Hey didn't we have a president that went through this? I guess if Pete just denounces his pastor all will be forgiven. Which he won't do because he's a booze-addled bozo.
The very best people
https://thehill.com/homenews/administrat...
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reposted a CNN segment about a pastor who believes women should not vote on the social media platform X.
The CNN video shows a video of Pete Hegseth attending a service at Wilson’s church.
I didn't know they had elections on X.
so why do you use the defense of the right to secede as an example of something that wouldn't be libertarian,
I used it of an example of something that is. Drafting your citizens and forcing them to die in a war is perfectly defensible for many prominent libertarians as long as we're talking about the civil war and not WW II or anything else. I don't think libertarians are very bright so they can hold obviously stupid/contradictory positions.
Yeah, I've tried a few times and failed.
Edit: Oh, I misread that.
I used it of an example of something that is. Drafting your citizens and forcing them to die in a war is perfectly defensible for many prominent libertarians as long as we're talking about the civil war and not WW II or anything else. I don't think libertarians are very bright so they can hold obviously stupid/contradictory positions.
I never read a libertarian in favor of the draft for a war outside domestic borders. They are split if the country is attacked.
There is no incoherence there, defending and attacking aren't the same thing at all and any pretense they are is intellectually and morally dishonest.
Right. Forcing people to fight wars they don't want to is fine for libertarians as long as libertarians are fine with the war. It's perfectly coherent, just dumb.
Right. Forcing people to fight wars they don't want to is fine for libertarians as long as libertarians are fine with the war. It's perfectly coherent, just dumb.
Forcing people to fight to defend home is fine with SOME libertarians who are pragmatic enough to understand that without that basic rule there is no home and there are no libertarian alive after a non libertarian country attacks.
there is no incoherence by having as the first, fundamental principle for a group ideology above everything else, survival of the group, for any ideology that wants to exist in reality and not be wiped out while the intellectuals have their masturbatory logical discussions during an invasion by the enemy
Forcing people to fight to defend home is fine with SOME libertarians who are pragmatic enough to understand that without that basic rule there is no home and there are no libertarian alive after a non libertarian country attacks.there is no incoherence by having as the first, fundamental principle for a group ideology above everything else, survival of the group, for any ideol
That;s not what the civil war was. It's the low IQ neo confederate version of the civil war which is again totally compatible with my view of libertarianism as a low IQ movement. Geezer, who was initially confused, gets it now which is the only point being ,ade.
