# Politics and News > SOCIETY & humanities >  Top 10 Reasons Libertarians Arent Nice To You

## hoytmonger

By Christopher Cantwell

People often complain about libertarians being rude and obnoxious. It’s not nearly as widespread a problem as some would make it out to be, and contrary to popular belief, this did not begin with me. To the extent that it does exist, I have become to many this sort of picture of the asshole libertarian who doesn’t give a shit about your feelings or opinions. So I figured I’d put this list together of why libertarians aren’t nice to you. Even libertarians who are nice to you, I think will get a kick out of it, because despite their outward appearances, they are every bit as frustrated with your statism as we are. Feel free to bookmark it and produce it every time you hear someone make this complaint.

*Libertarians Aren’t Nice To You Because,*


*10. Ridicule works.*


Believe me when I tell you, we would really prefer it if mankind were a rational creature that responded to reason and evidence. If that were the case, we would have already won this debate, and we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. The State would not exist, and there would be no political arguments pertaining to it.

*9. If you already have an ideology, we’re actually not terribly concerned with convincing you.*


Most people have no concept of politics, economics, or philosophy. If they take an interest in these subjects because of something we said, or because they are genuinely interested in finding some kind of objective truth, then we have some hope of bringing them over to our side. Those are the people we are primarily interested in convincing.

*8. We’re not trying to win elections*


Any libertarian who tells you he is trying to win an election is either lying to you about trying to win the election, lying to us about being a libertarian, or terribly misinformed. As far as we’re concerned, elections are a bad thing. We’re trying to end them, not win them.

*7. We’ve already had this discussion a hundred times*


If you had ever bothered to study the works of any of the great libertarian theorists, you wouldn’t be asking us the questions you are asking. You ask “Who will build the roads?” or “What about defense?” you tell us “There is no such thing as utopia” and a lot of other really tired arguments. It shows us that you haven’t taken so much as 10 minutes out of your miserable life to even make the slightest effort to understand what we are proposing.

*6. All those “what ifs” you’re so concerned about, they’re called choices.*


The nice thing about freedom is, people get to make their own decisions. We’re not entirely sure why this bothers you so much. Every time you ask us “What if X?” we have a thousand different answers we can give you, if you don’t like the first one, we’re happy to give you another. The whole point is, you get to decide for yourself what suits you best in a market environment.

*5. I can’t teach you economics in 140 characters or less*


The nice thing about the internet is, it allows us to communicate with many people very quickly. The downside is that this instant gratification has led people to believe answers will just be fed to them without any effort. If you really think that you’re qualified to walk into a voting booth and decide who will run the world and how, then you should have the common decency to study economics first.

*4. We actually are smarter than you*


The Triple Nine Society, an organization whose membership is reserved for people with IQ’s in the top one tenth of one percent, even more discriminating than Mensa, did a survey on the politics of its members. The results don’t surprise us. Members overwhelmingly supported legalizing all drugs, prostitution, and gambling. They supported gun rights, and free markets. They opposed government involvement in medicine, and income taxes.


Government is a scam, and like other scams it relies on the gullibility of its victims. We’re not falling for it, but you are, and your support of that system harms us. Your stupidity literally hurts.

*3. Our moral superiority is justified*


We know that you have some pretty twisted ideas on morality that stem from religious doctrines and other ancient texts, but logically speaking, morality should be consistent. If your moral platform can’t be applied universally, then it really doesn’t make a great deal of sense.

*2. We’re not asking for much*


If you want to have people threaten you all the time and tell you what to do, that’s your business. We don’t recommend it or anything, but really you’re more than welcome to submit to someone else’s authority in the absence of the State. We might talk to you about the virtues of freedom, but we’re honestly not trying to force you to be free. All we’re saying is you have no right to force us under the same authority.

*1. You always resort to violence*


Polite discussion in State politics is an illusion. At the end of this discussion, it really doesn’t matter who’s right or who’s wrong, the person with the superior numbers is going to force their bad ideas on everybody else at gun point. Just imagine doing this in reverse, where you start with a threat instead of ending with it. Nobody would try to be polite about their disagreement under those circumstances.


Since we know we have inferior numbers, and the minority always gets screwed and threatened by democracy, this is exactly what this discussion looks like to us. It begins and ends with the threat of violence, so the fact that we don’t shoot you in the face really speaks volumes to our civility.


You give us absolutely no option for escaping this violence. We are forced to choose between the violence of you, or the violence of someone else. You tell us “Love it or leave it!” or “Move to Somalia!” like I don’t have any right to be left in peace in my own home. The fact of the matter is, if you give us a choice of violence or violence, eventually we’re going to give some violence back to you, and making fun of you on twitter will become the least of your concerns.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/04/c...t-nice-to-you/

----------

BleedingHeadKen (04-12-2014),Foghorn (04-12-2014),freyasman (09-27-2014),fyrenza (04-12-2014),Invayne (04-14-2014),Mordent (04-12-2014),squidward (04-12-2014)

----------


## Foghorn

I got a kick out of this OP-ED because it is humorous.  And it is also true.

----------


## Foghorn

Most people have a really, really hard time grasping the Libertarian philosophy.  But in reality, its not at all hard to grasp.  Anyone can read about the Founders and pick up the basics in a hurry.  Or, for those educated in the public school system, I can distill it down for you . . .

If you leave me alone, Ill leave you alone.

Thats it, thats the pact.

----------

Now one would think a child of three could understand this most basic, fundamental idea that is rooted in human nature.  I mean this is about as simple as it gets.  I was able to sum up the entire philosophy in nine words.  Can Democrats or Republicans make the same claim?

No, Republicans would require text roughly the length of a magazine article to explain their fundamental ideas.  And Democrats, well, I give you ObamaCare and the Tax Code, each requiring about 80 reams of paper.  What happened to save the trees?

----------

Those still on the outside looking in might benefit from a simple example: Homeowners Associations.  Most of us are familiar with them already.  You take a group of 20 or 30 homeowners, lump them into a group, and try to make them behave how youd like.  Trouble is, most of us just want to be left alone on the property weve worked hard to obtain.

Then once a year you have the obligatory meeting, where most members just want to say hi to their neighbors and catch up on each others lives.  A pot luck dinner might even be arranged, but even that is a bit much to ask since were only willing to commit to about an hour of our time.

And then it happens.

One single homeowner who has nothing better to do starts to bitch.  Last week I saw someone with a boat on a trailer parked on the street for two days.  Thats against regulations and I think we need to put a stop to it now.  Now I say.

In my fathers time, one of the homeowners would simply walk over to the bitcher, grab them up by the shirt and lift them off the ground, then politely suggest they sit down and shut the fuck up.  Now I must admit, Ive had to suppress that same feeling many times, but as my wife reminds me on occasion, we just dont do that anymore.

Here's my question: Why Not?

Seems like a perfectly effective remedy to me.

----------

And when you stop to think about it, that's it in a nutshell.  The majority have to bite their lip every time some whiner starts to complain that they feel offended these days.  The minority squeeky wheel is allowed to waste our time and bitch and moan about something that really doesn't amount to a hill of beans.  What happened to majority rules?

Hey, life is hard.  Wear a cup.

Democrats and Republicans make their living telling others to sit down and shut the fuck up.  How about we try majority rules once again, and tell them both to sit down and shut the fuck up?

----------


## Jim Scott

According to Mr. Cantwell, libertarians are smarter than everyone else, reject any religious basis for morality, don't care what anyone thinks about them and don't want to win elections.  Put another way, libertarians are smug, arrogant, close-minded and not open to any debate that isn't based on the premise they are right and everyone else is wrong.  The honesty is refreshing even if the philosophy is farcical. 

*Jim*

----------

JustPassinThru (04-12-2014),usfan (04-16-2014)

----------


## RMNIXON

10. We are the rational elite, and when we call people names like Statist its cool.

9. Yeah, and we are smarter than everybody else, and only interested in recruits who get it "are way or the highway."

8. Ron Paul Kool Aid cannot compete with Obama, but I would place it an easy second when it comes to over expectations and personality worship. 


I gave up after that.  :Cool20:

----------


## Mordent

The concepts of pure libertarianism are a direction to lean, not a diehard destination. They do well as a foil against mandated socialism.

----------


## QuaseMarco

> The concepts of pure libertarianism are a direction to lean, not a diehard destination. They do well as a foil against mandated socialism.


Perfect observation. Something to strive toward......you got it.

----------

Mordent (04-12-2014)

----------


## wist43

> According to Mr. Cantwell, libertarians are smarter than everyone else, reject any religious basis for morality, don't care what anyone thinks about them and don't want to win elections.  Put another way, libertarians are smug, arrogant, close-minded and not open to any debate that isn't based on the premise they are right and everyone else is wrong.  The honesty is refreshing even if the philosophy is farcical. 
> 
> *Jim*


I don't necessarily agree with the OP, and I can assure you this libertarian views morality upon Christian teachings, and am perfectly willing to engage in debate.

By definition, debate is two or more sides arguing what they believe to be true. Nothing wrong with that - but when one side of a debate says "na-na, na-na, boo-boo, I'm taking my ball and going home" the debate is over and no further argument or debate can take place.

When liberals or neo-conservatives try to take on libertarians, it is the liberals and neocons that throw in the towel and resort to childish tactics.

I think the reason for this is simple and demonstrable - liberals and neocons do not subscribe to any principles. Certainly liberals don't ever really pretend on this score, so what's the point in even engaging them most of the time?? Neocons on the other hand do claim some measure of principled foundation.

This is where it gets sticky for you guys - you believe in open-ended interpretations of the Constitution, so you can't use the Constitution as a guide post or foundation to your agruments. Since you've accepted the progressive interpretations of the Constitution given you by the progressives/liberals, you are much more comfortable debating and arguing with them, b/c you both agree that the Constitution has little or no place in the discussion.

To be sure there are a lot of libertarians who skirt the line of anarchists, I think this is unrealistic, but I can at least see some of their points and have had as many arguments with them over those issues as I have with neocons over big, unconstrained government. In general, I think we should all be striving to achieve as little governance as possible - which is what the Constitution seeks to achieve.

That said, b/c you reject our Founding Fathers interpretations of the Constitution, debate with liberals is easier for you b/c it is just an ideas food-fight; where as most libertarians are much more accepting of the concept of republican government empowered only by a restrictive, negative Constitution.

If Republicans and conservatives had simply stayed on the reservation, and not been enticed to wander out in the wilderness by the liberals, I would still call myself a conservative - and I do regard myself to be a small "r" republican - something that most big "R" Republicans clearly are not.

So when people who are not grounded in principle come to debate people who are grounded in principle - it quickly degenerates into a no-win situation for the unprincipled debater. They are either faced with having to accept facts they are determined not to accept, or they take up their ball and go home in frustration.

It's that simple, lol...  :Wink:

----------

Foghorn (04-12-2014)

----------


## Dan40

#8 is a lie and a cop out for eternal failure.

And they desperately need a #11.

11.  We will never have any effect on anything, ever.

Actually all 10 are just lame excuses for complete failure.

----------

Jim Scott (04-17-2014),JustPassinThru (04-12-2014)

----------


## hoytmonger

> According to Mr. Cantwell, libertarians are smarter than everyone else, reject any religious basis for morality, don't care what anyone thinks about them and don't want to win elections.  Put another way, libertarians are smug, arrogant, close-minded and not open to any debate that isn't based on the premise they are right and everyone else is wrong.  The honesty is refreshing even if the philosophy is farcical. 
> 
> *Jim*


Libertarians understand the state is detrimental to society and are consistent in our moral standards. We are not closed minded... it's just that the arguments of statists have no validity.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> According to Mr. Cantwell, libertarians are smarter than everyone else, reject any religious basis for morality, don't care what anyone thinks about them and don't want to win elections.  Put another way, libertarians are smug, arrogant, close-minded and not open to any debate that isn't based on the premise they are right and everyone else is wrong.  The honesty is refreshing even if the philosophy is farcical. 
> 
> *Jim*


So, Jim, can you tell us where rights come from if not the individual? Since you hold that individual rights are "farcical", you must have some other basis for it. 

As for rejecting the religious basis for morality, that's not true. What Cantwell says that is that they shouldn't be forced onto everyone else. If you are, for instance, a Mormon who does not drink, smoke or ingest caffeine, that is your right. It is not your right to force your preferences onto others. The only universal moral premise is that it is wrong to commit force or fraud. 

However, since you disagree with that universal moral premise, which of your preferences is it right to force onto others, and why is it wrong for others to force their preferences (such as for healthcare, or minimum wage, or gay marriage) onto you?

----------



----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Libertarians understand the state is detrimental to society and are consistent in our moral standards. We are not closed minded... it's just that the arguments of statists have no validity.


It's not that they don't have validity. It's that they are never logically consistent, and so the defense of them must rest on some fallacy. And, it's quite possible to hold the principle that all rights stem from the collective, that might is right and might best utilized will be the best for humanity overall. Totalitarianism *is* a valid argument. The problem for conservatives like Jim is that they want government on their terms and have no logical or objective basis why it's wrong for others to want it on different terms.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> #8 is a lie and a cop out for eternal failure.
> 
> And they desperately need a #11.
> 
> 11.  We will never have any effect on anything, ever.
> 
> Actually all 10 are just lame excuses for complete failure.


The Libertarian Party must, of course, have the primary purpose of winning elections. It has a legal obligation to run candidates for office. That is just one Libertarian organization and by no means the most powerful. For some, that is a worthwhile purpose. For many of us in the LP, the true purpose is to use the time around elections to reach and educate people who are otherwise completely unaware of politics. Running candidates serves that purpose, regardless of the electoral outcome.

I wouldn't trust anyone in office, even a libertarian.

----------


## Jim Scott

> I don't necessarily agree with the OP, and I can assure you this libertarian views morality upon Christian teachings, and am perfectly willing to engage in debate.
> 
> By definition, debate is two or more sides arguing what they believe to be true. Nothing wrong with that - but when one side of a debate says "na-na, na-na, boo-boo, I'm taking my ball and going home" the debate is over and no further argument or debate can take place.
> 
> When liberals or neo-conservatives try to take on libertarians, it is the liberals and neocons that throw in the towel and resort to childish tactics.
> 
> I think the reason for this is simple and demonstrable - liberals and neocons do not subscribe to any principles. Certainly liberals don't ever really pretend on this score, so what's the point in even engaging them most of the time?? Neocons on the other hand do claim some measure of principled foundation.
> 
> This is where it gets sticky for you guys - you believe in open-ended interpretations of the Constitution, so you can't use the Constitution as a guide post or foundation to your agruments. Since you've accepted the progressive interpretations of the Constitution given you by the progressives/liberals, you are much more comfortable debating and arguing with them, b/c you both agree that the Constitution has little or no place in the discussion.
> ...


Arguing with libertarians is like arguing with a member of a religious cult (take your pick).  

On the issue of the proper size and power of government they are absolutely convinced that they are 100% right and anyone who disagrees is 100% wrong.  Unfortunately, that too often results in the libertarian and his or her opposition using snarky insults and puerile  name-calling in lieu of civil disagreement.  When, after a few antagonistic  exchanges, a conservative realizes he or she is confronted with an immovable object (libertarian intransigence) they see the futility of spending their time writing interminable posts going over and over and over the same points of contention and sensibly abandon the discussion, such as it is.  Libertarians then declare 'victory' and congratulate themself on having an impenetrable position.  Realistic conservatives shake their heads and smile at the conceit but realize that libertarian political views are of small consequence in the bigger picture and are mostly confined to political message boards and the insular libertarian club.  

I admire anyone with a political conviction, be they conservative, liberal or libertarian.  I don't have to come close to agreeing with them but I can disagree without a high degree of rancor.  Unfortunately, some libertarians refuse to accept anything but total capitulation to their political philosophy, which is a futile stance.  Comity is weakness to some and so the schism widens.  It reminds me of the time I tried to convince a member of a religious cult (that knocked on my door) that they should convert to Christianity.  One can guess the result.  I now view libertarians in a similar manner.

  Fortunately, as Christopher Cantwell tells us, libertarians don't care what anyone else thinks and don't care about winning elections.  Since losing elections is their fate, that seems a sensible position to hold.  For the rest of us, who do care about winning elections over playing Quixotic political games, we can safely ignore the libertarian rants and serial insults to conservatives and get on with serious political discussion.

*         Jim        *

----------


## Foghorn

Because the OP was written in a somewhat humorous tone, I assumed the parts about Libertarians being smarter would be perceived by readers as tongue in cheek.  Guess not.

I always felt a key underpinning of a Libertarian philosophy was the understanding that were all equal.  Not being any smarter than you, I should not govern you.  And vice versa.

Take a hot button issue like abortion: show me the human being who is smart enough to make that type of decision for another person.  Ive never met one in my life.  If you can think of one, bring them on by for a little chit chat.

And personally, I feel the same about most major issues.  Show me the human being who is smart enough to make my health care, banking, housing, education, and fuel decisions for me.  If you can think of one, bring them on by for a little chit chat.

Im loaded for bear.

----------


## the_diplomat2.0

> Libertarians understand the state is detrimental to society and are consistent in our moral standards. We are not closed minded... it's just that the arguments of statists have no validity.


It is not that supporters of the state do not have valid arguments; it is that supporters of the state make deem the monopoly of the legitimate use of force by the state as enough evidence to discount an alternative system of governance that is at odds with the existing system.

----------


## the_diplomat2.0

> Arguing with libertarians is like arguing with a member of a religious cult (take your pick).  
> 
> On the issue of the proper size and power of government they are absolutely convinced that they are 100% right and anyone who disagrees is 100% wrong.  Unfortunately, that too often results in the libertarian and his or her opposition using snarky insults and puerile  name-calling in lieu of civil disagreement.  When, after a few antagonistic  exchanges, a conservative realizes he or she is confronted with an immovable object (libertarian intransigence) they see the futility of spending their time writing interminable posts going over and over and over the same points of contention and sensibly abandon the discussion, such as it is.  Libertarians then declare 'victory' and congratulate themself on having an impenetrable position.  Realistic conservatives shake their heads and smile at the conceit but realize that libertarian political views are of small consequence in the bigger picture and are mostly confined to political message boards and the insular libertarian club.  
> 
> *I admire anyone with a political conviction, be they conservative, liberal or libertarian.  I don't have to come close to agreeing with them but I can disagree without a high degree of rancor.  Unfortunately, some libertarians refuse to accept anything but total capitulation to their political philosophy, which is a futile stance.  Comity is weakness to some and so the schism widens.  It reminds me of the time I tried to convince a member of a religious cult (that knocked on my door) that they should convert to Christianity.  One can guess the result.  I now view libertarians in a similar manner.
> 
>   Fortunately, as Christopher Cantwell tells us, libertarians don't care what anyone else thinks and don't care about winning elections.  Since losing elections is their fate, that seems a sensible position to hold.  For the rest of us, who do care about winning elections over playing Quixotic political games, we can safely ignore the libertarian rants and serial insults to conservatives and get on with serious political discussion.*
> 
> *         Jim        *


Jim, Chris Cantwell does not speak for all libertarians, but I can tell you that many libertarians do not care about winning elections because they do not want to operate within the confines of existing political institutions. They would much rather engage in civil disobedience of the state through the creation of alternative systems of governance, markets, and the like.  Many libertarians engage in civil disobedience of state institutions and those entities which benefit from them. They are people like Peter Thiel or Susanne Tempelhof. They are the leaders of Bitcoin trading firms, SeaSteading ventures, cloud computing systems, social networking platforms, and free state/city projects. These people are not uncivilized or disrespectful, but simply willingly choose to enact social change by not working with the Establishment.

----------


## hoytmonger

> It's not that they don't have validity. It's that they are never logically consistent, and so the defense of them must rest on some fallacy. And, it's quite possible to hold the principle that all rights stem from the collective, that might is right and might best utilized will be the best for humanity overall. Totalitarianism *is* a valid argument. The problem for conservatives like Jim is that they want government on their terms and have no logical or objective basis why it's wrong for others to want it on different terms.





> It is not that supporters of the state do not have valid arguments; it is that supporters of the state make deem the monopoly of the legitimate use of force by the state as enough evidence to discount an alternative system of governance that is at odds with the existing system.


My understanding of the word 'valid' is that it means 'logically correct.'

----------


## hoytmonger

*Also, if you click on the link in the OP there's more to each of the 'reasons'... except #1 and #4... I edited the article to save space.*

----------


## Hansel

> By Christopher Cantwell
> 
> People often complain about libertarians being rude and obnoxious. It’s not nearly as widespread a problem as some would make it out to be, and contrary to popular belief, this did not begin with me. To the extent that it does exist, I have become to many this sort of picture of the asshole libertarian who doesn’t give a shit about your feelings or opinions. So I figured I’d put this list together of why libertarians aren’t nice to you. Even libertarians who are nice to you, I think will get a kick out of it, because despite their outward appearances, they are every bit as frustrated with your statism as we are. Feel free to bookmark it and produce it every time you hear someone make this complaint.
> 
> *Libertarians Aren’t Nice To You Because,*
> 
> 
> *10. Ridicule works.*
> 
> ...


Wow, are you ever full of yourself. Your hatband must be way too tight. 

Most people don't even know what a libertarian is and furthermore don't really care. You people are a fringe element.

----------


## Dan40

> It's not that they don't have validity. It's that they are never logically consistent, and so the defense of them must rest on some fallacy. And, it's quite possible to hold the principle that all rights stem from the collective, that might is right and might best utilized will be the best for humanity overall. Totalitarianism *is* a valid argument. The problem for conservatives like Jim is that they want government on their terms and have no logical or objective basis why it's wrong for others to want it on different terms.


The libertarians on this forum are basically rock headed pains in the ass that have boundless excuses for their failures.

Top liberal, makes great speeches, accomplishes nothing.

Top libertarian, makes great speeches, accomplishes nothing.

Liberals as a group make excuses why everything is someone elses's fault.

Libertarians as a group make excuses why everything is someone else's fault.

Liberals lie and win elections.

Libertarians lie and aren't competitive in elections.

Ahh, good, there is a slight difference.

----------

Jim Scott (04-17-2014)

----------


## catfish

Someone,Ghost I believe, posted a test to determine if you were a statist.....I apparently am a raging libertarian but I disagree to one degree or another on all 10 points....there has to be boundaries at some point.....no one and I mean no one lives in a vacuum....it is entirely impossible for 300 million people to exist together without affecting each other one way or another whether for good or bad........Maybe that's why there are so few of you.The rest of us are smart enough to know pure libertarianism is impossible.

----------


## Dos Equis

> Polite discussion in State politics is an illusion. At the end of this discussion, it really doesnt matter whos right or whos wrong, the person with the superior numbers is going to force their bad ideas on everybody else at gun point. Just imagine doing this in reverse, where you start with a threat instead of ending with it. Nobody would try to be polite about their disagreement under those circumstances.
> 
> 
> Since we know we have inferior numbers, and the minority always gets screwed and threatened by democracy, this is exactly what this discussion looks like to us. It begins and ends with the threat of violence, so the fact that we dont shoot you in the face really speaks volumes to our civility.
> 
> 
> /


So what is the libertarian solution for this?  I have yet to hear it.

----------


## Hansel

> Perfect observation. Something to strive toward......you got it.


I think you have somewhat the same thing with religion in that both are idealistic. 

The idea of "live and let live is not workable" in this world because there are too many other people who do not see it the same way. That is why we have laws and slammers, to protect the innocents from  such predators. In a way it is a selfish negative way to live in a community.  By sharing their wealth and the civic responsibility, willingly that is, people can have a much better life than trying to go it alone.

I am not much on sports and am not keen on being a team player, but it is obvious to me that in many cases two heads are better than one and that many sets of hands can create a better standard of living for each other than going it alone will.  A solid man-wife marriage is an excellent example of "you scratch my back and I will scratch yours".

I feel very fortunate to live in a small town where people are cooperative and caring. It gets boring at times but it is also nice to be able to go about my business without having to look over my shoulder for thugs. We do have a certain amount of crime here but it affects very few of us. Peer pressure helps to keep folks in line because if you screw up in a small burg it can be very lonely and people will ostracize you.

My little town also has a very limited budget for charity and welfare so that tends to limit the number of undesirables who live here.  The churches and civic organizations such as the Kiwanis and the Lions Club are the mainstay of welfare donors. Food and  mattresses at the county jail must not be too good as they have plenty of empty cells.

----------

Foghorn (04-13-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> The libertarians on this forum are basically rock headed pains in the ass that have boundless excuses for their failures.
> 
> Top liberal, makes great speeches, accomplishes nothing.
> 
> Top libertarian, makes great speeches, accomplishes nothing.
> 
> Liberals as a group make excuses why everything is someone elses's fault.
> 
> Libertarians as a group make excuses why everything is someone else's fault.
> ...


You're projecting again.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> So what is the libertarian solution for this?  I have yet to hear it.


Sokutiin for what? The state? Disband it.

----------


## Hansel

> Sokutiin for what? The state? Disband it.


I take it that you prefer jungle law, everyman for himself and the survival of the fittest.  Who takes care of those who are not able to take care of themselves, like the infants and the frail elderly?  In some countries the extended family does a lot of this but in America we tend to be strewn to the wind and cannot help our people much.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> I take it that you prefer jungle law, everyman for himself and the survival of the fittest.



The usual ridiculous response of the unimaginative statist. If I believed in every man for himself I would become a politician and tell you exactly what you want to hear, get your vote and pass you a few crumbs while I enrich myself at your expense. After all, that is what you support now, perhaps in the naive hope that if the right people are elected things will turn out ok.

It is ok to speculate about your motives since you feel free to speculate about minutes,  right?




> Who takes care of those who are not able to take care of themselves, like the infants and the frail elderly?  In some countries the extended family does a lot of this but in America we tend to be strewn to the wind and cannot help our people much.



I se. So, you declare it moral to take from some, using the police powers of the state, in order to derive a benefit for yourself or enforce your moral preferences. So when is it immoral to use that power and how would ypu make a logical,  objective distinction between right use of that powrer and the wrong use of it?

----------


## Maximatic

> So what is the libertarian solution for this?  I have yet to hear it.


Stop using violent, immoral and counterproductive systems of governance.

----------

fyrenza (04-13-2014),Invayne (04-14-2014),Longshot (04-14-2014)

----------


## Foghorn

Personally, I dont know any Libertarians.  Yet Ive paid close attention to some on TV, the internet, etc.  And if you had to pin me down, Id say Im closer to a Libertarian than an R or D based on the information Ive gathered over time.  But I dont know that a person has to declare a team to play for in order to be consequential.  In fact, Id say the opposite is true: making any such declaration is counter-productive.

------------

Lets just say tomorrow I decide to announce Im a card-carrying Libertarian.  Im going to go out and get the bumper stickers and everything.  Doesnt that automatically brand me as a person that accepts each and every tenet that true Libertarians espouse?

The next thing you know people will start to accuse me of wanting to legalize heroine.  No, no, Id say, I dont want to legalize heroine.  Then the response would come back that Im a hypocrite, and I guess theyd be right to a degree.

------------

Ok, then, I guess Id have to change my brand and say Im a Conservative.  The problem is, Im not even 100% sure what that means anymore.  At one time I felt pretty sure I knew, but not so sure anymore.  How many politicians in the Republican Party claim to be Conservatives these days?  A lot, but they sure dont act that way.

And if you say youre a Conservative dont most people automatically brand you with the Republican Party?  Well, I can give you a 100 grievances I have with the Republican Party off the top of my head.  Yet people would expect me to automatically support each and every action of the Republican Party simply by announcing Im a Conservative.

------------

Hmmm, quite the quandary, isnt it?  Not really. 

One of the most dangerous afflictions affecting human behavior seems to be the need to declare a team to play for politically.  History has shown this time and time again.  How many Obama supporters do you know that support 100% of his actions?  Not many, if you press them with enough questions.  Yet they feel they must stay silent when he steps over the line (which is often).  Theyre in whole hog and somehow feel they have to take the good with the bad.

Why?

Its just part of human nature.  Were more comfortable being part of a team, being accepted by a group, and were willing to forfeit some of our core beliefs to do so.  And that may very well be at the root of many of our problems.

----------

fyrenza (04-13-2014)

----------


## fyrenza

> #8 is a lie and a cop out for eternal failure.
> 
> And they desperately need a #11.
> 
> 11.  We will never have any effect on anything, ever.
> 
> Actually all 10 are just lame excuses for complete failure.


And yet, Big "R" Repugs will be whining and crying about how Libertarians are going to cost y'all the elections,

because we have the principles to NOT "vote for the lesser evil,"

which we see for what it is ~ SS/DD (same shit / different denomination).

Just in case you haven't noticed, it was Y'ALL that got us/US here,
with your caving at every opportunity to try to keep the peace,
and your allowances of any and everything,
regardless of how lawless and/or illegal it is/was.

Shit, look at you sit there,
blathering on about how we just can't oust Obozo for being a Manchurian candidate ~
we'll need to "work the system" to try to undo the harm his Admin has visited upon all of us/US.

THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN,
because of the additions/re-interpretations made to the basic rules of the game,

and you just want to KEEP DOING THAT EXACT SAME THING.

And with ^that,^ you've PROVED Numbers 4 and 3.

----------

Invayne (04-14-2014)

----------


## Dos Equis

> Stop using violent, immoral and counterproductive systems of governance.


Tell people to behave?  Seriously?

It's either bullets or ballots.  That is the way people gain power over their fellow man.  To think you can change human nature by telling them just to stop trying to gain power over their fellow man is absurd.

----------


## Dos Equis

> Tell people to behave?  Seriously?
> 
> It's either bullets or ballots.  That is the way people gain power over their fellow man.  To think you can change human nature by telling them just to stop trying to gain power over their fellow man is absurd.


This is why libertarians are not taken seriously.  Those in power look to see how they intend on taking power away from them.  Then they see that there is no threat politically or militarily or economically and just carry on about their business and ignore them.

Looking at history, I view the life of Jesus to be the shining example on how to change the immoral behavior of mankind without bullets or ballots.  You might even say it is the only example.  Everyone else wants to weigh you down with government regulations and laws or hold a gun to your head.

----------


## hoytmonger

> Wow, are you ever full of yourself. Your hatband must be way too tight. 
> 
> Most people don't even know what a libertarian is and furthermore don't really care. You people are a fringe element.


It must be empowering to know that you speak for 'most people.' Most polls show that self described libertarians make up between 20% and 25% of voters... more than self described liberals and only 6% to 10% less than self described conservatives.

Try using factual information the next time you make an ignorant statement.




> So what is the libertarian solution for this?  I have yet to hear it.


The free market.

----------


## hoytmonger

> Tell people to behave?  Seriously?
> 
> It's either bullets or ballots.  That is the way people gain power over their fellow man.  To think you can change human nature by telling them just to stop trying to gain power over their fellow man is absurd.


Ballots? Seriously? What positive change have ballots ever brought?

The state gives those that wish to exercise power over others a means to do so. The majority of people wish to avoid confrontation, so it's not human nature to gain power over others, that's a psychological disorder afflicting a minority. These sociopaths are what are commonly referred to as politicians. By participating in elections, you are giving these sociopaths the means to govern you.

----------

Invayne (04-14-2014)

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

Mainstream libertarianism is more or less ok if not taken to extremes, they have made valuable contributions. What we're seeing on this and other forums is that the extremists have taken over the movement and are pushing it to an anarchist direction, tarnishing the brand.

And when you have an ideology that is so extreme that it has no chance of winning an election, you can say all the stupid crap you like, you are FREE to push things to extreme lengths, because there are no consequences.

----------

Jim Scott (04-17-2014)

----------


## Maximatic

> Tell people to behave?  Seriously?
> 
> It's either bullets or ballots.  That is the way people gain power over their fellow man.  To think you can change human nature by telling them just to stop trying to gain power over their fellow man is absurd.


Why did you respond to something I didn't say, instead of what I did say?

----------


## wist43

> Arguing with libertarians is like arguing with a member of a religious cult (take your pick).  
> 
> On the issue of the proper size and power of government they are absolutely convinced that they are 100% right and anyone who disagrees is 100% wrong.  Unfortunately, that too often results in the libertarian and his or her opposition using snarky insults and puerile  name-calling in lieu of civil disagreement.  When, after a few antagonistic  exchanges, a conservative realizes he or she is confronted with an immovable object (libertarian intransigence) they see the futility of spending their time writing interminable posts going over and over and over the same points of contention and sensibly abandon the discussion, such as it is.  Libertarians then declare 'victory' and congratulate themself on having an impenetrable position.  Realistic conservatives shake their heads and smile at the conceit but realize that libertarian political views are of small consequence in the bigger picture and are mostly confined to political message boards and the insular libertarian club.  
> 
> I admire anyone with a political conviction, be they conservative, liberal or libertarian.  I don't have to come close to agreeing with them but I can disagree without a high degree of rancor.  Unfortunately, some libertarians refuse to accept anything but total capitulation to their political philosophy, which is a futile stance.  Comity is weakness to some and so the schism widens.  It reminds me of the time I tried to convince a member of a religious cult (that knocked on my door) that they should convert to Christianity.  One can guess the result.  I now view libertarians in a similar manner.
> 
>   Fortunately, as Christopher Cantwell tells us, libertarians don't care what anyone else thinks and don't care about winning elections.  Since losing elections is their fate, that seems a sensible position to hold.  For the rest of us, who do care about winning elections over playing Quixotic political games, we can safely ignore the libertarian rants and serial insults to conservatives and get on with serious political discussion.
> 
> *         Jim        *


I wouldn't talk to you if I thought it was a futile effort. I don't engage liberals very often, if at all, b/c quite simply they are incapable of recognizing truth.

"Conservatives" on the other hand - you guys should be at the very least intellectually honest; and if someone is intellectually honest, you should be able to ping pong facts and ideas to arrive at truth.

What this libertarian is talking about is principle. Whatever label I may have to wear b/c of where the definitions of other terms get blown by the wind is not of my choosing necessarily. I haven't moved much at all in the last 20 years, from a time when I was considered much more of a mainstream conservative. It is other "conservatives" that have moved - following the false leadership of the Republican Party - inparticular the false leadership of "Establishment Republicans".

20 years ago, I would have been hardpressed to find a conservative that accepts the progressive interpretations of the Constitution. Most conservatives from that time understood that those open-ended interpretations were dangerous and at the root of the explosive expansion of government.

Today, it would seem most conservatives, you included, wholly accept those progressive interpretations, and wholly reject original intent - I can only assume b/c you learned your lessons while in the government school system... I would call that indoctrination.

Original intent is easy to back up, as we have many writings from our Founding Fathers to look to. I consider it not only the foundation of liberty, but truth. Previous generations of Americans viewed the Constitution and our founding principles in the same way.

It was the progressive/liberals, by way of creep, year after year, changing the textbooks, packing the courts and issuing inane rulings that undercut the Constitution and the principles of freedom that have led to today, when only a small percentage of the population still believes the principles of freedom; and strict interpretation of the Constitution that is designed to protect us from government.

Where we have a problem right out of the gate - is you reject original intent, and say that the Constitution is wide open for interpretation, and almost any interpretation can be valid. 

_The necessary and proper and general welfare clauses_ are perfect examples. The progressive interpretations kill the original intent of the Constitution - as James Madison said_,

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators._

With respect to the _necessary and proper clause, Thomas Jefferson_ wrote in a letter to George Washington,

_"Certainly no such univeral power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."

- Thomas Jefferson, 15 February 1791

_Of course we have the Federalist Papers, the convention notes, the personal writings of many of our founders, and many mores sources of material to back these commons sense contentions up.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Today, the common sense and altruism of our Founding Fathers is roundly rejected by liberals (of course), our courts, and sadly now by conservatives as well.

This is where we cannot agree to disagree, b/c what these erroneous interpretations of the Constitution do, in fact, is create the metamorphosis of the Constutition that James Madison warned about. It completely turns the Constitution and the rule of law upside down, changing it from a negative to a positive document.

Of course the results have been disasterous - as I should think is obvious; yet it would seem the citizens of Amerika have become so ignorant of the principles of liberty, and the truths given us by our Founding Fathers, that most can't see what is obvious.

It's sad.

----------

fyrenza (04-13-2014),Invayne (04-14-2014)

----------


## Dos Equis

> The free market.


The free market?  Those in the "free market" are doing the same things.  If given the opportunity, they will create monopolies and eventually take over as many businesses as humanly possible and make it impossible for others to compete with them.  These corporate beasts will then begin to operate like small governments, only instead of running for election they prop up men like Barak Obama through campaign donations.

 Didn't the corporate bail out teach you anything?

Incidentally, elections are not won they are either bought or controlled through military/political  might.  That is why the US government has a legislative approval rating of only 10% but continue to remain in power.

----------


## the_diplomat2.0

> Mainstream libertarianism is more or less ok if not taken to extremes, they have made valuable contributions. What we're seeing on this and other forums is that the extremists have taken over the movement and are pushing it to an anarchist direction, tarnishing the brand.
> 
> And when you have an ideology that is so extreme that it has no chance of winning an election, you can say all the stupid crap you like, you are FREE to push things to extreme lengths, because there are no consequences.


I think you will find that even libertarians on this forum who have anarchist inclinations can work within the confines of the established political system if necessary. Personally, as a libertarian, I am not a member of the Libertarian Party. I am a registered member of the Democratic Party. I vote for Libertarian Party and other third party candidates, but I choose to align myself with the Democratic Party as I put more emphasis on social liberty and freedom, although economic freedom is incredibly important to me as well. In doing so, I have worked in Democratic Party organizations in order to work influence it for the better, that is, towards greater liberty and freedom. In my opinion, I think the Democratic Party has more potential than the Republican Party in moving towards libertarianism as I think it will be near impossible to change the trajectory of the Republican Party which is splintering in terms of vision (although its vision continues to empower the state), while the Democratic Party maintains strong yet flawed internal consistency in vision. It is easier to upgrade a working clock with flawed working parts than a broken one.

----------


## Dos Equis

> Why did you respond to something I didn't say, instead of what I did say?


You said that people should stop using immoral methods of governance.

Are we to tell them to just behave?  Look at politicians like Charley Rangel.  He has been told to behave.  The rebuke was so severe that they "censored" him.  LOL.  Oh the horror!!

Now if you wish to hold men like Charley Rangel accountable, then you will have to take on the establishment for which he is an empty suit.

Good luck with that.

----------


## Dos Equis

> I think you will find that even libertarians on this forum who have anarchist inclinations can work within the confines of the established political system if necessary. Personally, as a libertarian, I am not a member of the Libertarian Party. I am a registered member of the Democratic Party. I vote for Libertarian Party and other third party candidates, but I choose to align myself with the Democratic Party as I put more emphasis on social liberty and freedom, although economic freedom is incredibly important to me as well. In doing so, I have worked in Democratic Party organizations in order to work influence it for the better, that is, towards greater liberty and freedom. In my opinion, I think the Democratic Party has more potential than the Republican Party in moving towards libertarianism as I think it will be near impossible to change the trajectory of the Republican Party which is splintering in terms of vision (although its vision continues to empower the state), while the Democratic Party maintains strong yet flawed internal consistency in vision. It is easier to upgrade a working clock with flawed working parts than a broken one.


If anarchy were declared tomorrow then we would begin with power via warlords.  This would then gravitate towards a king ruling over an empire and then are more civilized way to keep people under their thumbs, like having elections that they control.

Collectivism is the cancer within us all.

----------


## hoytmonger

> The free market?  Those in the "free market" are doing the same things.  If given the opportunity, they will create monopolies and eventually take over as many businesses as humanly possible and make it impossible for others to compete with them.  These corporate beasts will then begin to operate like small governments, only instead of running for election they prop up men like Barak Obama through campaign donations.
> 
>  Didn't the corporate bail out teach you anything?
> 
> Incidentally, elections are not won they are either bought or controlled through military/political  might.  That is why the US government has a legislative approval rating of only 10% but continue to remain in power.


How would a monopoly emerge without the monopoly of coercion provided by the state? The only reason monopolies exist is because the state picks winners and losers... rewards friends and punishes enemies... that isn't a free market.

----------

Invayne (04-14-2014),Sled Dog (04-13-2014)

----------


## Maximatic

> You said that people should stop using immoral methods of governance.
> 
> Are we to tell them to just behave?  Look at politicians like Charley Rangel.  He has been told to behave.  The rebuke was so severe that they "censored" him.  LOL.  Oh the horror!!
> 
> Now if you wish to hold men like Charley Rangel accountable, then you will have to take on the establishment for which he is an empty suit.
> 
> Good luck with that.


You're still doing it. At least you used a question mark this time.
The people who uphold the system, the public, must come to believe that better systems of governance are possible. Contrary to your assumption that voting to maintain the current system is more effective, information sharing is the only way this can be done, and only now, with the internet, is it possible to compete with the MSM, which is owned by a handful of people and regulated by the government. Information alone can only persuade so many people, so examples of these alternative systems will have to be created. There are many ways to do this, some of which are underway, now; the Free State Project is one, the Honduras RED project failed, but also showed that it is possible to get a small state to amend it constitution and try alternative systems. A similar project could be seen through by just greasing some palms. There are plenty of other ideas, few of which involve bullets or ballots. Economic freedom invariably leads to greater prosperity. Once some of these have been established and had a chance to grow, others will want what they have, and it will spread.

----------


## Maximatic

> If anarchy were declared tomorrow then we would begin with power via warlords.  This would then gravitate towards a king ruling over an empire and then are more civilized way to keep people under their thumbs, like having elections that they control.
> 
> Collectivism is the cancer within us all.


Why don't you focus on finding ways in which freedom can work, instead of repeating platitudes that it can't?

----------


## Maximatic

> The free market? Those in the "free market" are doing the same things. If given the opportunity, they will create monopolies and eventually take over as many businesses as humanly possible and make it impossible for others to compete with them. These corporate beasts will then begin to operate like small governments, only instead of running for election they prop up men like Barak Obama through campaign donations.
> 
> Didn't the corporate bail out teach you anything?


It should have taught you that governments don't spend money well. Yes, given the opportunity... Most utility companies have monopolies. How did they get them? They were granted by a state. Why do you think it is that you don't see any monopolies that are not created by a state? Have you ever asked yourself that question? Have you ever looked around to see if anyone has come up with an answer?

----------


## Dos Equis

> How would a monopoly emerge without the monopoly of coercion provided by the state? The only reason monopolies exist is because the state picks winners and losers... rewards friends and punishes enemies... that isn't a free market.


People make alliances in order to gain strength and power over others.  There is no stopping it.  All that can be done is to try and thwart it.

Keep in mind that the US once had a free market.  Now it does not.  Looking at history, it can be said that people gravitate towards collectivism and government is their club.

----------


## Dos Equis

> Why don't you focus on finding ways in which freedom can work, instead of repeating platitudes that it can't?



Looking at history, the vast number of people have been slaves.  There are brief moments of freedom, like the Revolution in the 1700's or the sermon on the Mount, but by in large tyranny is our nature.

Just look at the Founding Fathers to see this.  Here we have a group of men who broke away from an oppressive centralized government, only to then turn around and pass the Alien and Sedition Act which took away the freedom of speech to be critical of government.  Sure, Thomas Jefferson saw the injustice and led a movement to have it overturned, but it shows you how quickly men seek to go from slave to slave master.  If Jefferson had not led this movement to overturn the law in question, our world would be a much darker place.

----------


## the_diplomat2.0

> People make alliances in order to gain strength and power over others.  There is no stopping it.  All that can be done is to try and thwart it.
> 
> Keep in mind that the US once had a free market.  Now it does not.  Looking at history, it can be said that people gravitate towards collectivism and government is their club.


Monopolies can exist in free markets, but they are usually not profitable. Often, monopolies are inefficient, creating deadweight loss, and market competition tends to weed them out. Instances where monopolies exist are in areas with high input costs, whether that be in the form of natural resources or R & D. However, with the existence of the state, markets susceptible to monopolies have even greater concentration of market power, not less.

----------


## the_diplomat2.0

> You're still doing it. At least you used a question mark this time.
> The people who uphold the system, the public, must come to believe that better systems of governance are possible. Contrary to your assumption that voting to maintain the current system is more effective, information sharing is the only way this can be done, and only now, with the internet, is it possible to compete with the MSM, which is owned by a handful of people and regulated by the government. Information alone can only persuade so many people, so examples of these alternative systems will have to be created. There are many ways to do this, some of which are underway, now; the Free State Project is one, the Honduras RED project failed, but also showed that it is possible to get a small state to amend it constitution and try alternative systems. A similar project could be seen through by just greasing some palms. There are plenty of other ideas, few of which involve bullets or ballots. Economic freedom invariably leads to greater prosperity. Once some of these have been established and had a chance to grow, others will want what they have, and it will spread.


Do not forget SeaSteading and LEAP Zones.

----------


## Dos Equis

> Monopolies can exist in free markets, but they are usually not profitable. Often, monopolies are inefficient, creating deadweight loss, and market competition tends to weed them out. Instances where monopolies exist are in areas with high input costs, whether that be in the form of natural resources or R & D. However, with the existence of the state, markets susceptible to monopolies have even greater concentration of market power, not less.


My point here is that people will learn to make their corporation profitable, even if it means creating a state that will do its bidding.

Does it seem odd to anyone around here why corporate America champions such legislation as Obamacare and cap and trade?

----------


## the_diplomat2.0

> My point here is that people will learn to make their corporation profitable, even if it means creating a state that will do its bidding.
> 
> Does it seem odd to anyone around here why corporate America champions such legislation as Obamacare and cap and trade?


No, that is not odd at all. It is the pursuit of rational self-interest. Under the current system of institutions we live under, it makes sense for businesses to reap the most amount of benefits while spreading the costs across society. Private benefits, public costs, or more specifically, concentrated benefits, diffused costs. Libertarians have problems with this as well. That is why so many of us believe that it is not only imperative to work to delegitimize the state, but the economic institutions inextricably linked to them. This is not to say that we oppose Capitalism, but we realize that the current form of Capitalism in existence around the world is a detriment to true free markets.

----------


## Sled Dog

> According to Mr. Cantwell, libertarians are smarter than everyone else, reject any religious basis for morality, don't care what anyone thinks about them and don't want to win elections.  Put another way, libertarians are smug, arrogant, close-minded and not open to any debate that isn't based on the premise they are right and everyone else is wrong.  The honesty is refreshing even if the philosophy is farcical. 
> 
> *Jim*


Really?

I can state explicitly where human rights come from, without having to call upon an imaginary magical sky pixie to do it.

Where do rights come from?

----------


## Dan40

> Really?
> 
> I can state explicitly where human rights come from, without having to call upon an imaginary magical sky pixie to do it.
> 
> Where do rights come from?


The Founding Fathers of the USA had an opinion that human rights came from the Creator.  That opinion has never been universally shared worldwide.  At times it is viciously rejected.

And if a libertarian believes that human rights are God given, then that libertarian CANNOT allow those rights to be violated anywhere on the Earth.

----------


## Sled Dog

> The Libertarian Party must, of course, have the primary purpose of winning elections.


Why?   Look at all the Rodent Parties that never win elections, but get their way by taking bribes from Great King Rat, aka President Gumby aka King Obama.

The problem with the LP is that the LP leaders aren't smart enough to realize that their stated goals of freedom are noticed to be inconsistent with their actual goals (partying).   So they run LP candidates knowing full well that the only effect their candidate will have is to put the Rodent into office, which is the most anti-freedom thing they can do.

It happened in Virginia last November, it will happen again.  The STUPIDS in the LP, those who aren't real libertarians, will view the erosions of their freedom they themselves caused by backing an vote-siphoning Turd Party Candidate as the fault of the GOP candidate who, while  certainly almost never perfect, is loads better than letting the Rodent into the position of power.




> It has a legal obligation to run candidates for office. That is just one Libertarian organization and by no means the most powerful. For some, that is a worthwhile purpose. For many of us in the LP, the true purpose is to use the time around elections to reach and educate people who are otherwise completely unaware of politics. Running candidates serves that purpose, regardless of the electoral outcome.
> 
> I wouldn't trust anyone in office, even a libertarian.


Choosing to support a candidate, not necessarily run a separate individual, is a sufficient goal.  There's no law saying a political party must run their own candidate.   If the LP wants to influence elections in a way befitting their political strength, they should most often endorse or withhold their endorsement from Republican candidates, when doing either is the best path towards defeating the Rodents, since the defeat of the Rodents is the first necessary step towards restoring freedom in the US.

And then, after the election of an endorsed candidate, the LP should watch it's actions like a cop watching a pickpocket.

----------


## Dan40

> The Libertarian Party must, of course, have the primary purpose of winning elections. It has a legal obligation to run candidates for office. That is just one Libertarian organization and by no means the most powerful. For some, that is a worthwhile purpose. For many of us in the LP, the true purpose is to use the time around elections to reach and educate people who are otherwise completely unaware of politics. Running candidates serves that purpose, regardless of the electoral outcome.
> 
> I wouldn't trust anyone in office, even a libertarian.


The Libertarian Party has never demonstrated any interest in winning elections.  And they've been very successful at not winning any elections.

What they have shown is great joy in whining incessantly and blaming anyone else for their failures.  THAT, the LP does extremely well.

----------


## the_diplomat2.0

> The Founding Fathers of the USA had an opinion that human rights came from the Creator.  That opinion has never been universally shared worldwide.  At times it is viciously rejected.
> 
> And if a libertarian believes that human rights are God given, then that libertarian CANNOT allow those rights to be violated anywhere on the Earth.


Given that I do not believe in the existence of a deity, my perspective on human rights is purely philosophical. Human rights are inalienable, self-evident, and universally cognizant. These three conditions, in my opinion, require that those rights should be defended for any human being across the planet.

----------


## wist43

> I think you will find that even libertarians on this forum who have anarchist inclinations can work within the confines of the established political system if necessary. Personally, as a libertarian, I am not a member of the Libertarian Party. I am a registered member of the Democratic Party. I vote for Libertarian Party and other third party candidates, but I choose to align myself with the Democratic Party as I put more emphasis on social liberty and freedom, although economic freedom is incredibly important to me as well. In doing so, I have worked in Democratic Party organizations in order to work influence it for the better, that is, towards greater liberty and freedom. In my opinion, I think the Democratic Party has more potential than the Republican Party in moving towards libertarianism as I think it will be near impossible to change the trajectory of the Republican Party which is splintering in terms of vision (although its vision continues to empower the state), while the Democratic Party maintains strong yet flawed internal consistency in vision. It is easier to upgrade a working clock with flawed working parts than a broken one.


The Democratic Party is a complete disgrace - and they no more care about anybody's liberty than a nazi, a communist, or a neoconservative.

They want an empowered government, which is the antithesis of liberty, and they then want to wield that power for their own ends. Don't mistake their talking about "civil liberties" for being advocates of social liberty.

True liberty, as the expression goes, "... the essence of freedom is the limitation of government". If in forcing the businessman photograper to engage in commerce with the homosexual couple - are not the businessman photographer's rights being violated??

The only way a citizens rights can be violated is by government. Does the businessman photographer have any less rights than the homosexuals?? When the businessman photographer refused the patronage of the homosexuals, they should simply have gone to another business. Nobody's rights were violated until the government stepped in and use force against the photographer.

True liberty is only realized when the government does not interfere in the lives of either party. You are advocating the rights of one party can be violated b/c you favor the feelings of the other party. That isn't liberty, that is a misuse of government.

You are young and don't have a full understanding of proper governance - perhaps it will come in time, as you mature and become more experienced. I hope so.

----------


## the_diplomat2.0

> The Democratic Party is a complete disgrace - and they no more care about anybody's liberty than a nazi, a communist, or a neoconservative.
> 
> They want an empowered government, which is the antithesis of liberty, and they then want to wield that power for their own ends. Don't mistake their talking about "civil liberties" for being advocates of social liberty.
> 
> True liberty, as the expression goes, "... the essence of freedom is the limitation of government". If in forcing the businessman photograper to engage in commerce with the homosexual couple - are not the businessman photographer's rights being violated??
> 
> The only way a citizens rights can be violated is by government. Does the businessman photographer have any less rights than the homosexuals?? When the businessman photographer refused the patronage of the homosexuals, they should simply have gone to another business. Nobody's rights were violated until the government stepped in and use force against the photographer.
> 
> True liberty is only realized when the government does not interfere in the lives of either party. You are advocating the rights of one party can be violated b/c you favor the feelings of the other party. That isn't liberty, that is a misuse of government.
> ...


Ultimately, neither major political party is worth the time of day. In fact, I consider politics as a worthless way of forwarding the goals of libertarianism. I prefer using civil society and business to forward such ends. 

I am registered as a member of the Democratic Party out of expediency. I work to reform the party from within not because the Democratic Party supports social liberty. They certainly do not support social liberty. I am a member of the Democratic Party because as someone who values social liberty, I see more potential to reform the position of the Democratic Party in this regard than I do in the Republican Party. So, in summary, my opinion is not that the Democratic Party embraces social liberty, but that they would be more open to changing their ways in the name of social liberty than the Republican Party, which is enough for me to throw my card into the lot of registered party members and work to bring libertarianism into the two party system. 

In addition, I vote for Libertarian Party candidates, and have many connections with local libertarian candidates. I work and coordinate with them on issues of concern here in Washington, DC, such as making it easier to start businesses. 

As for the proper role of government, my answer is clear: proper government is government that governs least. However, it goes further than that. If one takes libertarian political philosophy to its conclusion, proper government is government that an individual wants and deserves. In my opinion, the state is an illegitimate political unit as it often does not provide governance individuals want or deserve. The only environment that provides governance that individuals want and deserve, in my opinion, is a global panarchist system of non-territorial, competitive governments absent a monopoly upon the legitimate use of force, aka a free market in governance. Realistically, I will settle for a global system of limited government where the inalienable, self-evident, and universally cognizant rights of individuals are defended from overreaching authority, based in a system of global federalism. This would mean a United States that truly adheres to its values enshrined in its Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence, and the replication of such values among other states, as well as the adoption of such principles on the international level, aka Kant's vision of what governance would look like.

----------


## Dan40

> Given that I do not believe in the existence of a deity, my perspective on human rights is purely philosophical. Human rights are inalienable, self-evident, and universally cognizant. These three conditions, in my opinion, require that those rights should be defended for any human being across the planet.


That philosophy does not stand up well against all the libertarians calling for the US to mind our own business and become Isolationists.

I too am irreligious and believe that if we allow people anywhere to be enslaved, it is only a matter of time until we are forced to join them in slavery.

I am not in any way pleased for even one American youth to go off to war in a far away land.  But the world MUST have a leader, and that is us.  And the leader must honor the responsibilities of being the leader.  Shirking those responsibilities is graphically displayed by the incompetent ass in the White House and the chaos that has resulted from his inability to lead.  But the incompetent ass in DC, IS NOT the USA.  obobo is just a temporary boil on the US ass.

----------


## the_diplomat2.0

> That philosophy does not stand up well against all the libertarians calling for the US to mind our own business and become Isolationists.
> 
> I too am irreligious and believe that if we allow people anywhere to be enslaved, it is only a matter of time until we are forced to join them in slavery.
> 
> I am not in any way pleased for even one American youth to go off to war in a far away land.  But the world MUST have a leader, and that is us.  And the leader must honor the responsibilities of being the leader.  Shirking those responsibilities is graphically displayed by the incompetent ass in the White House and the chaos that has resulted from his inability to lead.  But the incompetent ass in DC, IS NOT the USA.  obobo is just a temporary boil on the US ass.


The United States should not mind its own business, but it certainly should not have an over-bloated military fitting of a unipolar, hegemonic world. The changing dynamics of the international system require, in my opinion, that the United States avoid military intervention at all costs, and instead accept the evolution of a multipolar or non-polar world. In turn, we should rely upon diplomatic rigor and international cooperation through free trade. Our military should be large enough and have the ability to defend our borders, and all declarations of war outside of our borders should be on legitimate Constitutional grounds first and international legal grounds second. As a great power, we have more than enough capabilities to avoid the use of military force in almost any situation. Historically, great powers have shown the most resilience when they minimize the use of military force, and use military force wisely to forward their interests that are in the interests of the international community. Diplomatic prowess and the ability to forge lasting partnerships and relationships through peaceful means is the key to leadership in the international system.

----------


## wist43

> Ultimately, neither major political party is worth the time of day. In fact, I consider politics as a worthless way of forwarding the goals of libertarianism. I prefer using civil society and business to forward such ends. 
> 
> I am registered as a member of the Democratic Party out of expediency. I work to reform the party from within not because the Democratic Party supports social liberty. They certainly do not support social liberty. I am a member of the Democratic Party because as someone who values social liberty, I see more potential to reform the position of the Democratic Party in this regard than I do in the Republican Party. So, in summary, my opinion is not that the Democratic Party embraces social liberty, but that they would be more open to changing their ways in the name of social liberty than the Republican Party, which is enough for me to throw my card into the lot of registered party members and work to bring libertarianism into the two party system. 
> 
> In addition, I vote for Libertarian Party candidates, and have many connections with local libertarian candidates. I work and coordinate with them on issues of concern here in Washington, DC, such as making it easier to start businesses. 
> 
> As for the proper role of government, my answer is clear: proper government is government that governs least. However, it goes further than that. If one takes libertarian political philosophy to its conclusion, proper government is government that an individual wants and deserves. In my opinion, the state is an illegitimate political unit as it often does not provide governance individuals want or deserve. The only environment that provides governance that individuals want and deserve, in my opinion, is a global panarchist system of non-territorial, competitive governments absent a monopoly upon the legitimate use of force, aka a free market in governance. Realistically, I will settle for a global system of limited government where the inalienable, self-evident, and universally cognizant rights of individuals are defended from overreaching authority, based in a system of global federalism. This would mean a United States that truly adheres to its values enshrined in its Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence, and the replication of such values among other states, as well as the adoption of such principles on the international level, aka Kant's vision of what governance would look like.


What you've written there is both unrealistic and a recipe for disaster - at least for Americans or anyone who wishes to enjoy the fruits and freedoms of true liberty.

The UN is a corrupt den of thieves, as I know I've explained to you before. The evidence is overwhelming.

Beyond the obvious, the world is such a patchwork quilt of different societies, cultures, customs, governmental systems, religious beliefs, etc, that it is completely unrealistic to think that globalism, in terms of governance is workable in any way. It might be workable if the system you are talking about is authoritarian that doesn't give a damn about anyone's rights, liberty, lives, or property; but in terms of all the worlds citizens being safe from the horrors of authoritarian government wielded by the corrupt and immoral - no way!!

The UN was founded by communists, and is predictably founded as positive governance, i.e. '... you have all these wonderful rights - unless we say you don't'.

The internationals bankers fingerprints are all over the U.N., and always have been. Where there is great wealth, there is great power - it only makes sense going back centuries, that the banking families would seek to harness the power of government for their own ends. The Rothschilds in Europe, and how they were able to institute the Federal Reserve Bank here in America should serve as ample warning to just how devious and duplicitous these monsters are.

The same people behind the Federal Reserve Act, the Stock Market Crash, the Great Depression (where they made enormous fortunes, and took over control of companies and entire industries), WW II - are the same people that gave you the U.N.

Beware the beast my friend... the U.N. is a brood of vipers.

----------

Invayne (04-14-2014)

----------


## Maximatic

> My point here is that people will learn to make their corporation profitable, even if it means creating a state that will do its bidding.


You can't create a state where there is already an existing legal framework that precludes it. A state, as we know it, must have the power to tax, which entails the initiation of force, in order to exist. If the people of a society believe the initiation of force to be unlawful, no state can emerge from within that society because any institution that attempts to wield the power of a state, which would entail the initiation of force, would be perceived, by the entire society, as a criminal organization. A state can usurp power because the people already believe it is the source of law, and any changes to the law must be made from within the state. Once a society is founded on the principle that no person or organization can have the power to initiate force against any other person, any attempt to change that is, by definition, illegal in that society, and there _is no_ organization that anyone believes has the power to do so. The culture that grows from such a situation will be defined according to those precepts. Once an economic structure is established and entrenched in that environment, any organization trying to establish itself as a state will stick out so obviously to everyone, as a criminal organization, it would be smothered immediately, and its assets would suddenly become the property of a bunch of other people.

----------

fyrenza (04-14-2014),Invayne (04-14-2014),Longshot (04-14-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> The Libertarian Party has never demonstrated any interest in winning elections.  And they've been very successful at not winning any elections.


The LP wins about 17% of all elections in which is sponsors candidates. That's not a bad track record considering that the system is designed to prevent third parties from winning elections and, in many cases, from even participating.




> What they have shown is great joy in whining incessantly and blaming anyone else for their failures.  THAT, the LP does extremely well.


And what do you spend most of your time doing on this forum? Whining incessantly and blaming anyone else for your failures. As usual, you are projecting.

----------

wist43 (04-14-2014)

----------


## Dos Equis

> You can't create a state where there is already an existing legal framework that precludes it. A state, as we know it, must have the power to tax, which entails the initiation of force, in order to exist. If the people of a society believe the initiation of force to be unlawful, no state can emerge from within that society because any institution that attempts to wield the power of a state, which would entail the initiation of force, would be perceived, by the entire society, as a criminal organization. A state can usurp power because the people already believe it is the source of law, and any changes to the law must be made from within the state. Once a society is founded on the principle that no person or organization can have the power to initiate force against any other person, any attempt to change that is, by definition, illegal in that society, and there _is no_ organization that anyone believes has the power to do so. The culture that grows from such a situation will be defined according to those precepts. Once an economic structure is established and entrenched in that environment, any organization trying to establish itself as a state will stick out so obviously to everyone, as a criminal organization, it would be smothered immediately, and its assets would suddenly become the property of a bunch of other people.




So how do you get people to embrace this idea, especially in a collectivist world where military and economic alliances are being made to compete with your existence?  Just look at the Ukraine.  They had the option of joining the EU or Russia.  There were no other options.  Since they failed to choose, the choice was made for them.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

Libertarians have the same smug sense of superiority progressivists, communists and fascists have in that they adhere to a cause so 'noble' that it doesn't matter to them in the least if it is workable in actual practice, it's the nobility of intention that matters. If trying to realize it in the world causes great suffering among those it was originally intended to help, no matter: it's the fault of saboteurs and traitors; in short, the fault for its inevitable failure will always lie elsewhere and is never attributable to the failure of the ideology itself.

----------

Jim Scott (04-14-2014)

----------


## wist43

> The LP wins about 17% of all elections in which is sponsors candidates. That's not a bad track record considering that the system is designed to prevent third parties from winning elections and, in many cases, from even participating.
> 
> And what do you spend most of your time doing on this forum? Whining incessantly and blaming anyone else for your failures. As usual, you are projecting.


In the 2012 presidential election, Ron Paul even though he was running as a Republican, he was carrying the libertarian message.

He was polling at least as well as Romney in many of the primary polls against the Republican field, and he was outpolling Obama in some national polls if he were to win the nomination. 

Of course he was torpedoed by the Republican Establishment that engaged in dirty tricks that were reminiscent of the dirty tricks campaign that vaulted Eisenhower past Taft/MacArthur in 1952.

The Establishment that sits above both parties, above our government, and controls the Federal Reserve doesn't care if the Republican or Democrat wins, as long as they control that person - which has been the case with every nominee of both parties going back to Wendell Wilkie. The lone exception being Barry Goldwater in '64.

Goldwater and Taft were the only two real threats to the Establishment stranglehold on power, but they deftly worked their way around those threats, and there hasn't been a serious threat to their power since.

Obama may be repugnant to Republicans and anyone possessed of common sense and honesty, but of course that certainly doesn't include the Establishment. The Establishment is only concerned with increasing their stranglehold on power, and Obama carries water for them - same as Romney would have... same as Bush did, etc.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (04-14-2014),fyrenza (04-14-2014),Invayne (04-14-2014)

----------


## wist43

> Libertarians have the same smug sense of superiority progressivists, communists and fascists have in that they adhere to a cause so 'noble' that it doesn't matter to them in the least if it is workable in actual practice, it's the nobility of intention that matters. If trying to realize it in the world causes great suffering among those it was originally intended to help, no matter: it's the fault of saboteurs and traitors; in short, the fault for its inevitable failure will always lie elsewhere and is never attributable to the failure of the ideology itself.


Is $225 trillion in debt "workable"?? Is a government that has passed legislation that has gutted our rights "workable"?? Is a positively empowering Constitution "workable"??

In your view, you may be opposed to some of the minutia that make up those "workable" realities, but you subscribe to definitions of open-ended governance that allow for them - hence, you are fighting a losing battle, but seem incapable of understanding that.

It's amazing that you've stated some truth there, but you do so as if it were derision. The reason you say those things derisively, and intend them as insults is b/c you don't understand what is happening - and to my saying that, you would reply that I was being "smug".

There are such things as facts and truth. Our "noble cause" of which you speak is liberty - freedom; and you spit venom at it like it was the greatest evil ever spoken of.

_"The essence of freedom, is the proper limitation of government" - that is a fundamental truth that you simply will not accept._ If you can't understand and accept a simple truth like that, you are useless to the cause of liberty; and worse, are easy prey to be enlisted in working for your own enslavement. Which is exactly what you are doing.

----------

Invayne (04-14-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> In the 2012 presidential election, Ron Paul even though he was running as a Republican, he was carrying the libertarian message.
> 
> *He was polling at least as well as Romney in many of the primary polls against the Republican field, and he was outpolling Obama in some national polls if he were to win the nomination.* 
> 
> Of course he was torpedoed by the Republican Establishment that engaged in dirty tricks that were reminiscent of the dirty tricks campaign that vaulted Eisenhower past Taft/MacArthur in 1952.
> 
> The Establishment that sits above both parties, above our government, and controls the Federal Reserve doesn't care if the Republican or Democrat wins, as long as they control that person - which has been the case with every nominee of both parties going back to Wendell Wilkie. The lone exception being Barry Goldwater in '64.
> 
> Goldwater and Taft were the only two real threats to the Establishment stranglehold on power, but they deftly worked their way around those threats, and there hasn't been a serious threat to their power since.
> ...


Oh, you must mean those unscientific staged polls that are easy to rig.

EVERY random poll, along with the actual primaries, showed RuPaul's support at around FIVE PERCENT.

You can rig photo-ops and push polls, but you cannot craft an alternate reality.  

Do I need to find the photo of Mad Doctor Paul, in his hospitality room, ALL ALONE?  Can't do it on this tablet...but the image stands.  He was a movement wanting only supporters; a legend in his own mind.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

Please note: what I said above mostly does not apply to conventional, moderate libertarians--I'm with them on many things. It's aimed at the nutbars of the movement.

----------


## Corruptbuddha

Not all Libertarians are Anarchists.  

Anarchy is freedom...but it isn't liberty.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Not all Libertarians are Anarchists.  
> 
> Anarchy is freedom...but it isn't liberty.


Anarchy is enslavement to the most powerful person in the vicinity.  

It lacks even the stability of slavery as the situation is constantly changing, often with lethal undercurrents.

----------


## Corruptbuddha

> Anarchy is enslavement to the most powerful person in the vicinity.  
> 
> It lacks even the stability of slavery as the situation is constantly changing, often with lethal undercurrents.


Agreed.

Having said that though, the State is slavery to the most powerful GROUP in the vicinity.

Not a more desirable outcome by any stretch.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Agreed.
> 
> Having said that though, the State is slavery to the most powerful GROUP in the vicinity.
> 
> Not a more desirable outcome by any stretch.


Which takes us directly to the Enlightenment political philosophers and the Founders of this country who put their ideas into their new nation's charter...the Constitution.

----------


## Corruptbuddha

> Which takes us directly to the Enlightenment political philosophers and the Founders of this country who put their ideas into their new nation's charter...the Constitution.



Which, it turns out, has no mechanism to protect itself from rampant abuse, misinterpretations and outright disregard for it by succeeding generations.

The government we have today is as far removed from the ideals of the Founders as Armstrong was removed from Adam.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (04-14-2014),fyrenza (04-14-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Which, it turns out, has no mechanism to protect itself from rampant abuse, misinterpretations and outright disregard for it by succeeding generations.


NO government or organization can protect against wholesale corruption of the entire population.  If the people demand tyranny, they WILL HAVE TYRANNY.

This is why Adams noted that _"our Constitution is intended for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly unsuitable for the governance of any other."_

And likewise, no movement to abolish government will survive a demand of the people for any type of government.  Nature abhors a vacuum; and there are always power-seeking persons who would love the opportunity to coronate themselves as Grand Poobah.

There is no answer for wholesale corruption and debasement of the populace.  No structure that can make people free who wish not to be free.  THIS is why the Democrat and Libertarian desire to throw open the borders is so horrific - it brings hordes of ignorant people, who know only tyranny, into this nation - to vote away freedom in favor of the false promises of false populists.

----------


## wist43

> Oh, you must mean those unscientific staged polls that are easy to rig.
> 
> EVERY random poll, along with the actual primaries, showed RuPaul's support at around FIVE PERCENT.
> 
> You can rig photo-ops and push polls, but you cannot craft an alternate reality.  
> 
> Do I need to find the photo of Mad Doctor Paul, in his hospitality room, ALL ALONE?  Can't do it on this tablet...but the image stands.  He was a movement wanting only supporters; a legend in his own mind.


In actual primary results, Paul won the following totals, not polls, actual votes in the Republican primaries

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/pri...candidates/302


State          ---- Percentage     -- Placing - Number of Participants
Virginia              ------ 40%           ------- 2nd ------------ 2
Maine -------- 36%           ------- 2nd                  ------------ 4
North Dakota      28%           ------- 2nd ------------ 4
Minnesota           ----27% ------ 2nd ------------- 4
Washington        - 25%           ------- 2nd ------------ 4
Vermont ----            25%           ------ 2nd -------------- 4
Alaska ------                24%          ------ 3rd                   --------------- 4
New Hampshire  23%           --- 2nd -------------- 6
Iowa  -------- 21%          ------ 3rd ---------------  7

He came in 2nd place in 22 primaries, and as I remember he actually won at least 1 of them but was dirty tricked by the Republican Establishment. Can't remember which state it was... and I'm admittedly too lazy to look it up - don't care enough to prove the point.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ron Paul vs Barack Obama Polls

Source: Real Clear Politics - which simply combines the national polls

*Pollster/Date --------------------- Obama -------------- Paul

*RCP Avg 3/10-5/12                        ------------------- 48.2%         --------------- 40%

Rasmussen Reports 5/9 -------------- 43% ----------------- 44%
Rasmussen Reports 2/25 ------------ 41% ------------------ 43%
Bloomberg 3/11                             ---------------------- 48%           ----------------- 43%
USA/Gallup 1/28                            --------------------- 49% ------------------ 46%

http://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...bama-1750.html

The polling range went from +18 percent Obama to +2 percent Paul. The 18% was clearly an outlier, and the range typically stayed somewhere around +5% for Obama. Since most of the polls had an error range of +/- 3%, it is quite clear that Paul had plenty of national support to be a very, very viable candidate against Obama.

_So was your 5% claim just an outright lie - or were you just ignorant of the facts??_

----------

Invayne (04-14-2014)

----------


## wist43

> Oh, you must mean those unscientific staged polls that are easy to rig.
> 
> EVERY random poll, along with the actual primaries, showed RuPaul's support at around FIVE PERCENT.
> 
> You can rig photo-ops and push polls, but you cannot craft an alternate reality.  
> 
> Do I need to find the photo of Mad Doctor Paul, in his hospitality room, ALL ALONE?  Can't do it on this tablet...but the image stands.  He was a movement wanting only supporters; a legend in his own mind.


Doesn't it suck when someone actually takes the time to refute your crap with actual, demonstrable facts??

At what point would someone just conclude that you are perfectly willing to lie rather than admit something that is demonstrably true??

It speaks very poorly of your character JPT.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Doesn't it suck when someone actually takes the time to refute your crap with actual, demonstrable facts??


No.  But it's sad to see someone who cannot accept facts, the results of the only polls that count - election results.

RINOs have a lot of power within the party; but they cannot magically force voters to vote in certain ways.  RuPaul was on the ballots FIVE TIMES  and lost, and lost, and lost and lost and LOST.

Deal with it.  People with any common sense at all recognize him for the deranged clown he is.

----------


## wist43

> No.  But it's sad to see someone who cannot accept facts, the results of the only polls that count - election results.
> 
> RINOs have a lot of power within the party; but they cannot magically force voters to vote in certain ways.  RuPaul was on the ballots FIVE TIMES  and lost, and lost, and lost and lost and LOST.
> 
> Deal with it.  People with any common sense at all recognize him for the deranged clown he is.


So you tell an outright lie - I prove beyond all doubt that you lied, so rather than admit the truth and the facts that ^^^ is your reply??

It's one thing to be wrong, it's one thing to make a false statement out of ignorance - but it is quite another to be shown that what you said is untrue, and still not admit it.

That makes you a liar.

For Shame JPT, for Shame!!!

----------


## Dan40

> In actual primary results, Paul won the following totals, not polls, actual votes in the Republican primaries
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/pri...candidates/302
> 
> 
> State          ---- Percentage     -- Placing - Number of Participants
> Virginia              ------ 40%           ------- 2nd ------------ 2
> Maine -------- 36%           ------- 2nd                  ------------ 4
> North Dakota      28%           ------- 2nd ------------ 4
> ...


Glad you enjoyed your cherry picking for Paul

Using your link, lets continue the cherry picking.

Paul

FL 4th 7%

SC 4th 13%

Utah 3rd 5%

N Mex 4th 10%

Texas 2nd 12%--his home state, 12%

MD 4th 10%

LA 4th 6%

IL 3rd 9%

PR 5th 1%

MS 4th 4%

TN 4th 9%

OK 4th 10%

OH 4th 9%

GA 4th 7%

AZ 4th 9%

IOWA, Paul got 21% of the caucus vote, finished 3rd.

The above are NOT poll results, they are the results of the public voting.

In the REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES since Paul did not run as a LIBERTARIAN PARTY CANDIDATE, 

Romney amassed 1524 delegates to insure the nomination.

Santorum, a DROP OUT, had 261 delegates.

Paul an "also ran" had 154 delegates, merely 12 more than

Gingrich, a DROP OUT, had 142 delegates.

Paul was NEVER a factor in the 2012 primaries or the general election.

He never has been and now he is,,,,,,,a has been.

----------


## wist43

> Glad you enjoyed your cherry picking for Paul
> 
> Using your link, lets continue the cherry picking.
> 
> Paul
> 
> FL 4th 7%
> 
> SC 4th 13%
> ...


Hello, Mr. Dishonesty??? - did you see the post from your dishonest brother that I was replying to??

As I said, he either lied - or was ignorant of the facts. After I proved him wrong, he refused to admit to the facts... I can only assume you would like to join him in this effort, right??

He says Ron Paul never polled above 5%... I'm sure you agree with this, yes?? 

LOL

Seriously, you guys are such a laugh riot!!!

It's really quite entertaining  :Smile:

----------

BleedingHeadKen (04-14-2014),Invayne (04-14-2014)

----------


## wist43

The 2 of you are much more comfortable with Obama being President than Paul b/c at least Obama is keeping your wars going, and is pressing forward with militarizing federal agencies - and even though he's given some lip service to pot decriminalization, that's all it's been is lip service.

Ron Paul would have already had our troops home, and ended drug prohibition.

So a vote between the lesser of 2 evils - Obama vs Paul... Obama is the lesser of the 2 evils for you guys.

It says a lot about how far gone you guys are.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (04-14-2014),Invayne (04-14-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> The 2 of you are much more comfortable with Obama being President than Paul b/c at least Obama is keeping your wars going, and is pressing forward with militarizing federal agencies - and even though he's given some lip service to pot decriminalization, that's all it's been is lip service.
> 
> Ron Paul would have already had our troops home, and ended drug prohibition.
> 
> So a vote between the lesser of 2 evils - Obama vs Paul... Obama is the lesser of the 2 evils for you guys.
> 
> It says a lot about how far gone you guys are.


Do NOT...tell me what I believe.

You don't know and you aren't smart enough to comprehend.

So just shut your yap about what we believe, and stick to trying to prop up your strawman hero, Crazy Ron.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> NO government or organization can protect against wholesale corruption of the entire population.  If the people demand tyranny, they WILL HAVE TYRANNY.
> 
> This is why Adams noted that _"our Constitution is intended for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly unsuitable for the governance of any other."_
> 
> And likewise, no movement to abolish government will survive a demand of the people for any type of government.  Nature abhors a vacuum; and there are always power-seeking persons who would love the opportunity to coronate themselves as Grand Poobah.
> 
> There is no answer for wholesale corruption and debasement of the populace.  No structure that can make people free who wish not to be free.  THIS is why the Democrat and Libertarian desire to throw open the borders is so horrific - it brings hordes of ignorant people, who know only tyranny, into this nation - to vote away freedom in favor of the false promises of false populists.


So all those people who immigrated to the United States, or the colonies previous, knew what? Freedom? 

Most of those who come to the US are more religious and moral than the populace here today.

Your narrative is extremely inconsistent.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Do NOT...tell me what I believe.


You tell people what they believe all the time. If you don't like it, I suggest you stop it, or quit whining when others do it to you.

----------

Invayne (04-14-2014),wist43 (04-14-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Ron Paul would have already had our troops home, and ended drug prohibition.
> 
> .


RuPaul would have been blocked by Congressional NeoMarxists.

The politician's art is that of PERSUASION - and RuPaul couldn't pass a bill, much less persuade Congress to pass his so-called agenda.

WERE Congress to be so reckless as to go along with it...we would be learning that retreat is defeat; an unwon war is a lost war, that a weak power garners neither respect nor protection from fear of retribution.  

AND we'd have the greatest social experiment in history underway - one that is destined to failure and societal collapse.  It's coming, and even the stoners won't like the results of it...but there's no reason to hurry it up.

Hallucinogenic drugs -> flawed thinking -> stupid acts -> idiocracy -> conquest by foreign powers or domestic would-be despots -> tyranny and the privation that comes of tyranny, aka the Soviet Union.

----------


## wist43

> You tell people what they believe all the time. If you don't like it, I suggest you stop it, or quit whining when others do it to you.


Aren't Dan and JPT just a hoot???!!! LOL...

----------


## JustPassinThru

> You tell people what they believe all the time. If you don't like it, I suggest you stop it, or quit whining when others do it to you.


Playground rebuttal.

Point it out when you see it; IF you see it.

I think what we're seeing is the result of pot use.

----------


## wist43

> Do NOT...tell me what I believe.
> 
> You don't know and you aren't smart enough to comprehend.
> 
> So just shut your yap about what we believe, and stick to trying to prop up your strawman hero, Crazy Ron.


Will you admit you were wrong about saying Ron Paul NEVER polled above 5%??

LOL

----------


## Dan40

> The 2 of you are much more comfortable with Obama being President than Paul b/c at least Obama is keeping your wars going, and is pressing forward with militarizing federal agencies - and even though he's given some lip service to pot decriminalization, that's all it's been is lip service.
> 
> Ron Paul would have already had our troops home, and ended drug prohibition.
> 
> So a vote between the lesser of 2 evils - Obama vs Paul... Obama is the lesser of the 2 evils for you guys.
> 
> It says a lot about how far gone you guys are.


You continually talk through your ass.  There are on this forum, MANY, MANY posts where I said that Paul had no chance of being elected, because he never did.  HOWEVER I always said that if he was the candidate facing obobo in the general election, I WOULD without a second thought vote for Paul over obobo.

The reason I keep telling you that you cannot read is because your every post makes it obvious that you cannot read.  You look at the words and respond to the strange and fucked up voices in your very confused head.

Read what I write and comment on that.  NOT your preconceived and WRONG notions.

And Ron Paul would accomplish as president exactly what he accomplished as a Representative.  NOTHING AT ALL!  But that would be a world better than the ignorance and incompetence obobo has displayed.

Quit baying impotently out your ass and USE your head for something other than smoking dope.

Ask yourself, WHY do LIBERAL PROGRESSIVES want marijuana legalized everywhere?  They've sucked you in and you've become a willing FOOL.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Will you admit you were wrong about saying Ron Paul NEVER polled above 5%??
> 
> LOL


It wouldn't MATTER except to a childish, pot-addled Paulbot.

My point stands; Crazy Ron's support was in the single digits.

DEAL WITH IT.  Or else, fire up another blunt....things always look better after some good Columbian Gold...

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Playground rebuttal.


You were one of those kids who would yell insults at the other kids, and then when someone says something back, or even punched you, you ran crying to tell the teacher. It's no wonder you love bullying cops.




> Point it out when you see it; IF you see it.


Did your panties get into a bunch? 

http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...070#post278070

http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...933#post275933




> I think what we're seeing is the result of pot use.



I guess it's fine in your tiny little mind to tell people that they are on drugs when they disagree with, but it's absolutely wrong to have anyone suggest what they think you believe. Pot would be an improvement for you.

----------

Invayne (04-14-2014)

----------


## wist43

> Oh, you must mean those unscientific staged polls that are easy to rig.
> 
> EVERY random poll, along with the actual primaries, showed RuPaul's support at around FIVE PERCENT.
> 
> You can rig photo-ops and push polls, but you cannot craft an alternate reality.  
> 
> Do I need to find the photo of Mad Doctor Paul, in his hospitality room, ALL ALONE?  Can't do it on this tablet...but the image stands.  He was a movement wanting only supporters; a legend in his own mind.





> In actual primary results, Paul won the following totals, not polls, actual votes in the Republican primaries
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/pri...candidates/302
> 
> 
> State          ---- Percentage     -- Placing - Number of Participants
> Virginia              ------ 40%           ------- 2nd ------------ 2
> Maine -------- 36%           ------- 2nd                  ------------ 4
> North Dakota      28%           ------- 2nd ------------ 4
> ...





> No.  But it's sad to see someone who cannot accept facts, the results of the only polls that count - election results.
> 
> RINOs have a lot of power within the party; but they cannot magically force voters to vote in certain ways.  RuPaul was on the ballots FIVE TIMES  and lost, and lost, and lost and lost and LOST.
> 
> Deal with it.  People with any common sense at all recognize him for the deranged clown he is.





> Do NOT...tell me what I believe.
> 
> You don't know and you aren't smart enough to comprehend.
> 
> So just shut your yap about what we believe, and stick to trying to prop up your strawman hero, Crazy Ron.





> Playground rebuttal.
> 
> Point it out when you see it; IF you see it.
> 
> I think what we're seeing is the result of pot use.


Who's deranged??

I'm backing up everything I'm saying with facts - you're ranting and raving, lol...

Good gravy man... you say something that is verifiably false, and when called on it, you try to change gears, change the subject, and launch an oblique attack - I guess in the hopes that your original false statement will go by the wayside.

Ron Paul polled quite well against Barack Obama... he was every bit as viable a candidate as Romney in terms of support.

Even if he were certifably insane - it still wouldn't change the fact that he polled very closely with Obama, and in some of the polls I saw on Fox News as the campaign rolled along, he polled higher against Obama than Romney did!!!

----------


## JustPassinThru

_ "Oooh!  Ooooh!!  See that?  SIX AND A HALF PERCENT!!!

He's a LIAR!  Got that?  Liar-liar-pants-on-fire!  Ron Paul would have WON...SIX AND A HALF PERCENT!!"_

----------


## Dan40

> Hello, Mr. Dishonesty??? - did you see the post from your dishonest brother that I was replying to??
> 
> As I said, he either lied - or was ignorant of the facts. After I proved him wrong, he refused to admit to the facts... I can only assume you would like to join him in this effort, right??
> 
> He says Ron Paul never polled above 5%... I'm sure you agree with this, yes?? 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Seriously, you guys are such a laugh riot!!!
> ...


Are you telling me that you DO believe in polls, after you have ridiculed me for talking about ELECTIONS?

Polls don't mean crap.  Elections ARE the final say.  Ron Paul,,,,NEVER,,,, in his long and completely undistinguished career, won even ONE contested election.  He was APPOINTED  to his seat in the House.  He had lost the general election for that seat.  The district has always been pure Republican so the Democrats never mounted a serious campaign for that seat.  Paul tried to become a US Senator, running against another Republican.  He lost.  His showings in his presidential runs have been comical.  Johnson in 2012 more than doubled Paul's results as a Libertarian Party candidate and Johnson did not get 1% of the vote.  Paul did not get one half of one percent as a Libertarian candidate.

You rant and froth about what the Constitution SAYS.  But base your position on explanations that are NOT part of the LAW.  What IS written and RATIFIED is all that is in the Constitution.  The explanations that you worship, don't mean a fucking thing.  They are NOT LAW.  The Constitution IS broad and vague in many aress, not just the N&P clause.  I WISH IT WAS NOT BROAD AND VAGUE.  But reality, something beyond your ability, is that it is broad and vague and that allows for LIBERAL interpretations of the Constitution.

But obviously you are unable to deal with the reality and HIDE in the fantasies in your jumbled , non-comprehending, juvenile head.

I am extremely conservative and at least 1000% MORE anti-obama than you could ever dream of being.  But I'm aware of and able to deal with reality.  While your wander uselessly and impotently in a fantasy world of ignorance and failure.

----------


## wist43

> _ "Oooh!  Ooooh!!  See that?  SIX AND A HALF PERCENT!!!
> 
> He's a LIAR!  Got that?  Liar-liar-pants-on-fire!  Ron Paul would have WON...SIX AND A HALF PERCENT!!"_


Smoke a joint and calm down dude...

Real Clear Politics average from 3/10 to 5/12

Obama 48.2%
Paul 40%

Of course that is a workable margin - contrary to your rantings, Paul's ideas and principles do have traction.

----------

fyrenza (04-14-2014),Invayne (04-14-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

Yeah.

Somehow election results don't EVER reflect the massaged numbers put forth by the Paulbots.

----------


## wist43

> Are you telling me that you DO believe in polls, after you have ridiculed me for talking about ELECTIONS?
> 
> Polls don't mean crap.  Elections ARE the final say.  Ron Paul,,,,NEVER,,,, in his long and completely undistinguished career, won even ONE contested election.  He was APPOINTED  to his seat in the House.  He had lost the general election for that seat.  The district has always been pure Republican so the Democrats never mounted a serious campaign for that seat.  Paul tried to become a US Senator, running against another Republican.  He lost.  His showings in his presidential runs have been comical.  Johnson in 2012 more than doubled Paul's results as a Libertarian Party candidate and Johnson did not get 1% of the vote.  Paul did not get one half of one percent as a Libertarian candidate.
> 
> You rant and froth about what the Constitution SAYS.  But base your position on explanations that are NOT part of the LAW.  What IS written and RATIFIED is all that is in the Constitution.  The explanations that you worship, don't mean a fucking thing.  They are NOT LAW.  The Constitution IS broad and vague in many aress, not just the N&P clause.  I WISH IT WAS NOT BROAD AND VAGUE.  But reality, something beyond your ability, is that it is broad and vague and that allows for LIBERAL interpretations of the Constitution.
> 
> But obviously you are unable to deal with the reality and HIDE in the fantasies in your jumbled , non-comprehending, juvenile head.
> 
> I am extremely conservative and at least 1000% MORE anti-obama than you could ever dream of being.  But I'm aware of and able to deal with reality.  While your wander uselessly and impotently in a fantasy world of ignorance and failure.


"Reality" is that the Establishment puts forth 2 statist candidates every presidential election, and gives you the option of choosing which poison you would prefer to die by.

There are always other options that do not contain poison, but most of the population has been sucked into the con game - and rationalize that if they don't vote for their idea of the lesser poison, the more toxic poison will be administered... the lesser of 2 evils.

I'm not fool enough to play that game, and voted for Johnson - and will likely vote for the libertarian again, unless Rand Paul or Ted Cruz is somehow able to make it thru, and gives voice to standing firm against the Establishment. Even then I'd have to think long and hard about whether I'd be able to vote for them as Republicans, b/c the Republican Party itself is very much controlled by the Establishment.

So we'll see... if we do have an election '16, it will be very interesting to see how the Republican Establishment goes about trying to destroy Cruz and Paul.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> "Reality" is that the Establishment puts forth 2 statist candidates every presidential election, and gives you the option of choosing which poison you would prefer to die by.
> 
> There are always other options that do not contain poison, but most of the population has been sucked into the con game - and rationalize that if they don't vote for their idea of the lesser poison, the more toxic poison will be administered... the lesser of 2 evils.
> 
> I'm not fool enough to play that game, and voted for Johnson - and will likely vote for the libertarian again, unless Rand Paul or Ted Cruz is somehow able to make it thru, and gives voice to standing firm against the Establishment. Even then I'd have to think long and hard about whether I'd be able to vote for them as Republicans, b/c the Republican Party itself is very much controlled by the Establishment.
> 
> So we'll see... if we do have an election '16, it will be very interesting to see how the Republican Establishment goes about trying to destroy Cruz and Paul.


Hey, how'd that work?...voting for a candidate with no chance of winning.

You withheld your vote from the VIABLE candidate who could have BEATEN the Magic Nimrod.

So he won and you can feel smug.  What did I say about voting emotion, as opposed to logic and strategy?

----------


## Dan40

> "Reality" is that the Establishment puts forth 2 statist candidates every presidential election, and gives you the option of choosing which poison you would prefer to die by.
> 
> There are always other options that do not contain poison, but most of the population has been sucked into the con game - and rationalize that if they don't vote for their idea of the lesser poison, the more toxic poison will be administered... the lesser of 2 evils.
> 
> I'm not fool enough to play that game, and voted for Johnson - and will likely vote for the libertarian again, unless Rand Paul or Ted Cruz is somehow able to make it thru, and gives voice to standing firm against the Establishment. Even then I'd have to think long and hard about whether I'd be able to vote for them as Republicans, b/c the Republican Party itself is very much controlled by the Establishment.
> 
> So we'll see... if we do have an election '16, it will be very interesting to see how the Republican Establishment goes about trying to destroy Cruz and Paul.


Your "fantasy reality."

""Reality" is that the Establishment puts forth 2 statist candidates  every presidential election, and gives you the option of choosing which  poison you would prefer to die by."







ACTUAL REALITY:
*reality*
re·al·i·ty
[ree-al-i-tee] 

_a real thing or fact.

real things, facts, or events taken as a whole; state of affairs: the reality of the business world 

something that exists independently of ideas concerning it

     the state of things as they are, rather than as one might wish them to be 

_

The depth of your comprehension handicap is more evident with every post.

It possible,,,likely,,,,,,,,that you are clueless to the world around you.

And you ARE FOOL enough to not wonder WHY the left wants marijuana to be legal so fools can smoke it.

----------

JustPassinThru (04-14-2014)

----------


## wist43

> Hey, how'd that work?...voting for a candidate with no chance of winning.
> 
> You withheld your vote from the VIABLE candidate who could have BEATEN the Magic Nimrod.
> 
> So he won and you can feel smug.  What did I say about voting emotion, as opposed to logic and strategy?


Obama was just more of the same poison we got from Bush - you'll forgive me if I don't view Romney as an antidote.

I'm sure you voted for Bush twice - he gave us illegimate wars, and led the charge to rape our Bill of Rights. Did nothing to reduce the size or scope of government, offered up more progressive engineering in education, did nothing to rein in the EPA, BLM, Fish and Wildlife, did nothing to secure our borders, on and on...

You voted for all that - and you're trying to tell me we all should be voting for that?? 

No JPT, that's nuts... that's statism, and I will never vote for statism - crazy as that may seem to you. I will vote for principle every time, and will not budge. I will never take that first step on the slippery slope - whereas you're so far down the in the abyss  I can't even see you.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Obama was just more of the same poison we got from Bush - you'll forgive me if I don't view Romney as an antidote.


Because to you, the world is all about smoking dope and buggering other men.  Right?

Some of us can draw sharper lines.

----------


## michaelr

> Because to you, the world is all about smoking dope and buggering other men.  Right?
> 
> Some of us can draw sharper lines.


I think you should smoke pot, you obviously are brain damaged. You don't see Romney, Obama, and Bush as the same, then you're just incapable of noticing the initial next to their name runs only as deep as the paper it sits on. You're brainwashed!

----------

fyrenza (04-14-2014),Invayne (04-14-2014)

----------


## Maximatic

Notice how he cuts out the part where you tell him why and replaces it with his own version of why you say what you say.

______↓↓Rational discussion is impossible with this guy.↓↓




> Because to you, the world is all about smoking dope and buggering other men.  Right?
> 
> Some of us can draw sharper lines.

----------

Invayne (04-14-2014),michaelr (04-14-2014)

----------


## fyrenza

> Are you telling me that you DO believe in polls, after you have ridiculed me for talking about ELECTIONS?
> 
> Polls don't mean crap.  Elections ARE the final say. 
> 
> ...


You say ^that,^ even KNOWING about voter fraud, and how easily it can be used to skew elections?

I'm more of a mind to trust the POLLS, where the actual folks had their actual "vote" counted, correctly.

----------

Invayne (04-14-2014),michaelr (04-14-2014)

----------


## hoytmonger

Don't argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Case in point...




> Because to you, the world is all about smoking dope and buggering other men.  Right?
> 
> Some of us can draw sharper lines.

----------

Invayne (04-14-2014),michaelr (04-14-2014)

----------


## Invayne

> Do NOT...tell me what I believe.


The only one that's telling on you...is you.  :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------

michaelr (04-14-2014)

----------


## fyrenza

They aren't really "idiots" ~

they're where I was, at one time :

I voted for Dubya, twice,
actually thinking that I was doing the "right" thing;
I believed that Homeland Security was for protecting all of us/US,
and didn't, for a moment, consider what it would look like, Today.

At one of the first forums I joined,
a friend started explaining the whole 2 Sides of the SAME Coin scam to me,
and it was amazing, because it was all so true.

I started exploring Conspiracy Theories.
Heck, I'd read a BUNCH of spy novels and mysteries,
and already knew that if you could dream it up?
It could be "do-able,"
not to speak of the fact that a lot of the information was available
for any reader to verify for themselves.

I started looking around,
and getting further and further away from any PC bullspit,
looking at IT as if It was the lie,
and was absolutely shocked to find out that most of what I had considered News and truth
just wasn't,

and the proofs were Right There, the whole time,

I just hadn't seen them.

A good friend told me that the News I've seen has ALWAYS been slanted,
and available for direction of lean to the highest bidder,
because it is intrinsically a TOOL for shaping public opinion.

Of course it is.
How did I NOT see it, for all of those years?
But I sure enough didn't.

They come back, to argue with you,
and some of it might be starting making sense,

so I truly applaud your efforts,
and your 
(dare I say it?  ROFL!) civility 
and respectful, for the most part, responses.

----------



----------


## Dan40

> You say ^that,^ even KNOWING about voter fraud, and how easily it can be used to skew elections?
> 
> I'm more of a mind to trust the POLLS, where the actual folks had their actual "vote" counted, correctly.


Add every poll in history together and count those that came to power from polls.

Answer: 0.

Polls are crap, but they are not important.  VOTING IS IMPORTANT.  Voter fraud MUST be corrected.  When we have a problem, WE FIX IT, we don't opt for a poll that doesn't mean a thing to anyone.

Why would I have to post something so obvious?  YOU are better than that.

----------


## fyrenza

Oh!  lol

No, I'm just saying that I trust the valid (i.e.Gallup) polls more than voting,
because they have no reason to try to cheat,

and it's a little naive not to consider that ALL of the voting machines 
in all of the "important" areas, 
were hacked.

Look at the company responsible for ObozoCare's websites,
and tell me anyone was vetted for any position,
and it's Ground Floor programmers that can create the back-doors.

I'm sorry, but I'm actually ^THAT^ paranoid, these days.

----------


## Dan40

> Oh!  lol
> 
> No, I'm just saying that I trust the valid (i.e.Gallup) polls more than voting,
> because they have no reason to try to cheat,
> 
> and it's a little naive not to consider that ALL of the voting machines 
> in all of the "important" areas, 
> were hacked.
> 
> ...


Paranoia is a complete utter waste of time.  ANGER is a motivator.  That's why libertarian whiners piss me off.  All they have is whiny paranoia.

We NEED anger, action, and accomplishments!

Libertarians claim there is NO difference between Democrats and Republicans.  That is stupid bullshit.  I'm not a Republican because I don't trust them 98% of the time.  Democrats, ZERO to infinity.  So Republicans are BETTER.  NOT GOOD, just better than democrats.  Libertarians have accomplished NOTHING.  Nothing at all.  So why not team up?  "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."  Once power is taken away from the left, THEN work on straightening out the Republicans.

It would beat endless impotent incessant whining.

----------


## fyrenza

But the repugs are PAID to lead us/US all down One Path,

just from a different angle than the demonrats ~

it all leads to the SAME corral.

WHY would you ever admit to voting for something you consider less than?

Strategy of that sort is a fool's game ~
you're playing Tic-Tac-Toe against chess masters,
who are already into their 15th planned move against you.

<sigh>

----------


## wist43

> Paranoia is a complete utter waste of time.  ANGER is a motivator.  That's why libertarian whiners piss me off.  All they have is whiny paranoia.
> 
> We NEED anger, action, and accomplishments!
> 
> Libertarians claim there is NO difference between Democrats and Republicans.  That is stupid bullshit.  I'm not a Republican because I don't trust them 98% of the time.  Democrats, ZERO to infinity.  So Republicans are BETTER.  NOT GOOD, just better than democrats.  Libertarians have accomplished NOTHING.  Nothing at all.  So why not team up?  "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."  Once power is taken away from the left, THEN work on straightening out the Republicans.
> 
> It would beat endless impotent incessant whining.


It isn't paranoia when they really are bankrupting us; and really are gutting our Bill of Rights; and really are militarizing the police; and really are making law outside of constitutional authority; on and on...

The wonder of it all is - how in heavens name can so few catch on??

You say the Republicans and Democrats are different - how are they different?? They may give different sounding speeches, and pander to different constituency groups, and pay off different organizations and corporate interests - but at the end of the day, they are both playing the exact same game - and that game has nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution.

--------------------------------------------

As for libertarians - we have done nothing??

We have kept the hope of liberty alive. It lives in us, and we will not compromise its principles - principles that we can't even get someone like you to recognize.

You're not a young man Dan - yet you hold the approximate views that I held when I was just learning about governance and history, when I was between the ages of 16-18. By the time I was in my mid-20's my understanding of our situation had grown exponentially, and I knew even then that the game was rigged.

How is it that a man of advancing years is only as insightful and informed as kid of 16?? My excuse was - I was a kid. What is your excuse??

----------


## hoytmonger

> Add every poll in history together and count those that came to power from polls.
> 
> Answer: 0.
> 
> Polls are crap, but they are not important.  VOTING IS IMPORTANT.  Voter fraud MUST be corrected.  When we have a problem, WE FIX IT, we don't opt for a poll that doesn't mean a thing to anyone.
> 
> Why would I have to post something so obvious?  YOU are better than that.


Voting means nothing. It's merely the illusion of political involvement for the subjects.

"Those that cast the votes decide nothing, those that count the votes decide everything." -Joseph Stalin 

Who's counting your vote?

When has an 'elected' official reversed the course of the state... for that matter, when has the state ever been reduced in size and scope? Believing that voting will change the state is folly... it's a _utopian fantasy_.

----------

Invayne (04-14-2014)

----------


## michaelr

> Voting means nothing. It's merely the illusion of political involvement for the subjects.
> 
> "Those that cast the votes decide nothing, those that count the votes decide everything." -Joseph Stalin 
> 
> Who's counting your vote?
> 
> When has an 'elected' official reversed the course of the state... for that matter, when has the state ever been reduced in size and scope? Believing that voting will change the state is folly... it's a _utopian fantasy_.


Hell, best case scenario is they give you political twins. You're supposed to vote ''R'' or ''D'' but you get what the establishment pays for, you get ''E''!

----------


## fyrenza

<sigh>

THEY have a plan,
and when even their most glaring "mistakes" are just pooh-pooh'ed,
and they're allowed to say the bullshit things in response that they are,
with NO recriminations,

they're laughing up their sleeves, and all the way to the banks that they own.

----------


## hoytmonger

> Hell, best case scenario is they give you political twins. You're supposed to vote ''R'' or ''D'' but you get what the establishment pays for, you get ''E''!


You consistently get "F'd"

----------

fyrenza (04-14-2014),Invayne (04-14-2014),michaelr (04-14-2014)

----------


## michaelr

> You consistently get "F'd"


I don't understand why people can't see this. Once you do, there is no going back. This path this country has been on, well it ain't by mistake, and it's ''bipartisan''. 

People buy into things like free trade because both parties do it. To support their parties they must support it, then they even use the same excuses, removing barriers. Guess what? They never existed!

----------


## Invayne



----------

michaelr (04-14-2014),wist43 (04-15-2014)

----------


## michaelr

> 


That's about the size of it!

----------


## Dan40

> 


And libertarianism doesn't get a call at all.

----------


## JustPassinThru

That's what it's come to.

Nihilism as a construct.  No difference between Reagan and 0bombah...which I guess is true if your life centers around POT.

----------

Jim Scott (04-17-2014)

----------


## RMNIXON

What gets me is that I seem to get more grief from the Hard Core Libertarians, that I quite often agree with, than from Liberals who I almost never agree with!

----------


## Dan40

> What gets me is that I seem to get more grief from the Hard Core Libertarians, that I quite often agree with, than from Liberals who I almost never agree with!


I don't find even a smidgen of difference between Hard Core Libertarians and Liberals.  Evasive, Intransigent, and untruthful.  Is there a difference in philosophy?
Hard to tell, one can't talk to either group without getting vilified.

----------


## wist43

> What gets me is that I seem to get more grief from the Hard Core Libertarians, that I quite often agree with, than from Liberals who I almost never agree with!


I've explained this phenomenon to you guys before - it is perfectly logical why this is the case.

You don't get much grief from liberals b/c you and liberals both agree on the same ground rules - or at least the basics of the ground rules, i.e. that the progressive interpretations of the Constitution given to the both of you by the progressive SC over the past 80 years are valid, and are "the law of the land".

Since you and liberals can agree on that - all there is left to argue about is how to divvy up the pie. You each get your share - using the same interpretations of the Constitution given you by the SC - they get to terrorize companies with laws they make at the EPA; you get to bust pot smokers with laws you make at the DEA; you both agree the FDA can make any law it wants; you get to drone bomb some ragheads; they get to fund lesbians... on and on.

You may disagree on how the pie is to be divvied up, but you both agree on how the pie is to be made. And since each of you gets something you want - you're more willing to kiss and make nice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Libertarians disagree with both of you about the ground rules. Libertarians do not accept open-ended interpretations of the Constitution - so we are at odds right there.

We believe in national defense - at least most of us do; but at the same time, almost none of us agree with national offense - so that is a biggy there.

We believe in personal freedom, and freedom of choice - you don't. You want to tell people what they can, and cannot put in their bodies. I for one might agree with some of the prohibition arguments on the state level, but we can never get to that discussion b/c you conservatives and neocons will never give up on the centralized power of drug enforcement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The rift between us - even though we agree on more issues together than either one of us agrees with liberals - is principle. Principle is not negotiable to us - whereas it means nothing to you. So we're stuck.

----------

Invayne (04-16-2014)

----------


## Dan40

> I've explained this phenomenon to you guys before - it is perfectly logical why this is the case.
> 
> You don't get much grief from liberals b/c you and liberals both agree on the same ground rules - or at least the basics of the ground rules, i.e. that the progressive interpretations of the Constitution given to the both of you by the progressive SC over the past 80 years are valid, and are "the law of the land".
> 
> Since you and liberals can agree on that - all there is left to argue about is how to divvy up the pie. You each get your share - using the same interpretations of the Constitution given you by the SC - they get to terrorize companies with laws they make at the EPA; you get to bust pot smokers with laws you make at the DEA; you both agree the FDA can make any law it wants; you get to drone bomb some ragheads; they get to fund lesbians... on and on.
> 
> You may disagree on how the pie is to be divvied up, but you both agree on how the pie is to be made. And since each of you gets something you want - you're more willing to kiss and make nice.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...


The rift is due to your utter misconceptions of what conservatives hold dear.  And the immature notion that to disagree with YOU is to agree with the "other side."

When we disagree with you,,,,,,,,,,,THAT'S IT,,,,,,full stop.  WE ARE ONLY DISAGREEING WITH YOU.  We are NOT agreeing with anyone else.  When I agree with something or someone, I will tell you that.

We we point out ACCURATELY that the Constitution is filled with broad and vague clauses.  We are ONLY pointing out FACTUALLY, that it IS.  We are not agreeing with what liberals have been able to do with that broadness and vagueness.

You try to deny that the openings are there.  That's silly, they are there.  Explanations that are not in the Constitution, don't mean a wit.  NOTHING!

How to stop liberals from prostituting the Constitution?  Only one way, you take their power away at the ELECTIONS.  You claim the elections are a waste of time.
If you believe that, what good is the Constitution?  If you let them take elections without a fight, YOU give them all the power they need to destroy the Constitution.  And over the last 42 years, the liberals have done a terrific job of destroying the Constitution while YOU sat on your 'principles."

Wake up.  ITS POLITICS,  There are no principles in politics.  You worship Ron Paul for standing on his principles.  That's bullshit.  He flipped, he flopped, he changed sides and back.  He made deal after deal, but he stunk at dealing and got screwed like a camp follower.

You need to hook up with whomever will help wrest the power away from the liberals.  THEN see how your "principles" apply, when YOU have the political power.

There's an old saying about principle and money.

"Its not the money, its the principle!"

Whenever someone says that,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,ITS THE MONEY!

Same goes for politics.  ITS THE POWER.

----------

Jim Scott (04-17-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> The rift is due to your utter misconceptions of what conservatives hold dear.  And the immature notion that to disagree with YOU is to agree with the "other side."


The difference between a libertarian and a conservative progressive, such as yourself, is that it doesn't matter what the libertarian holds dear. By his principles, he does not believe it right to force others to accept his moral values. As for what you and your liberal counterparts hold dear, it doesn't matter to us. What matters is that you insist on forcing your morals onto others.  Your type of conservative is hypocritical in the extreme, claiming some rights, and denying rights to others, thus having no principle other than what you believe makes right and what those on the other side believe must be wrong.




> Wake up.  ITS POLITICS,  There are no principles in politics.  You worship Ron Paul for standing on his principles.  That's bullshit.  He flipped, he flopped, he changed sides and back.  He made deal after deal, but he stunk at dealing and got screwed like a camp follower.


He's a politician. Considering that every politician you voted for in your life has done the same thing, I think you ought to like him. After all, he's swimming in the same mud you demand everyone jump into with you. Just because you sold out, or have been a sellout since day one, doesn't mean everyone else has to be just so you can feel better about that darkness in your soul.




> You need to hook up with whomever will help wrest the power away from the liberals.  THEN see how your "principles" apply, when YOU have the political power.


In other words, be a sellout conservative progressive like you, who spends his entire life griping about liberals and hoping that some people will get elected to fix everything. Then, turning into a bitter, senile old man who insults everyone who disagrees with him, and still continues to vote for self-serving politicians. No thanks, Dan. If there are any "libertarians" who would do that, that I will be sure to send them your way.

----------

hoytmonger (04-15-2014)

----------


## Maximatic

> He's a politician. Considering that every politician you voted for in your life has done the same thing, I think you ought to like him. After all, he's swimming in the same mud you demand everyone jump into with you. Just because you sold out, or have been a sellout since day one, doesn't mean everyone else has to be just so you can feel better about that darkness in your soul.


I think it's all about winning for him, which means getting elected and, once elected, getting bills passed, which means increasing the size of government, which means helping the progressives; ie: doing their bidding.

He lives in the real world where he votes for the man of another man's choosing, hoping that the guy who was chosen for him to vote for sponsors some bills that that are consistent with what the opposition wants so some of them will pass. Yes, it accomplishes the opposite of what they claim to want but, in the "real world", that's how you win.

----------


## Dan40

> The difference between a libertarian and a conservative progressive, such as yourself, is that it doesn't matter what the libertarian holds dear. By his principles, he does not believe it right to force others to accept his moral values. As for what you and your liberal counterparts hold dear, it doesn't matter to us. What matters is that you insist on forcing your morals onto others.  Your type of conservative is hypocritical in the extreme, claiming some rights, and denying rights to others, thus having no principle other than what you believe makes right and what those on the other side believe must be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> He's a politician. Considering that every politician you voted for in your life has done the same thing, I think you ought to like him. After all, he's swimming in the same mud you demand everyone jump into with you. Just because you sold out, or have been a sellout since day one, doesn't mean everyone else has to be just so you can feel better about that darkness in your soul.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, be a sellout conservative progressive like you, who spends his entire life griping about liberals and hoping that some people will get elected to fix everything. Then, turning into a bitter, senile old man who insults everyone who disagrees with him, and still continues to vote for self-serving politicians. No thanks, Dan. If there are any "libertarians" who would do that, that I will be sure to send them your way.


As usual, you stupidly mislabel me.  After I've often told you the correct label.  Libertarian learning challenge?

And you expound foolishly about politics as you do about most things.  You obviously read a lot and allow others to form every opinion you've ever had.  Your problem, not mine.

And you don't understand the first thing about politics.  I have more principles than you'll ever read about.  But principles have a time and place.  If someone is trying to kill you, what principles of clean honorable fighting apply?  NONE.  You do what you can to win.  Politics is a place with no principles.  PERIOD.  So idiotically, you go into the political fight, fighting the liberals game.  And you worship Ron Paul, a man that is a career POLITICIAN.  In case you missed that.  A career POLITICIAN.  He had no principles, HIS RECORD PROVES THAT.  Being a bad politician that got the short end of every deal he made, does not equal principles.  It equals incompetence.

So you libertarians will rest on your principles while liberals destroy the nation.

USELESS!  COWARDS!

----------


## RMNIXON

> Since you and liberals can agree on that - all there is left to argue about is how to divvy up the pie. You each get your share - using the same interpretations of the Constitution given you by the SC - they get to terrorize companies with laws they make at the EPA; you get to bust pot smokers with laws you make at the DEA; you both agree the FDA can make any law it wants; you get to drone bomb some ragheads; they get to fund lesbians... on and on.
> 
> You may disagree on how the pie is to be divvied up, but you both agree on how the pie is to be made. And since each of you gets something you want - you're more willing to kiss and make nice.....
> 
> *We believe in personal freedom, and freedom of choice - you don't.*



Once again you are telling me what I think and believe under the label of a Conservative, and nearly none of it is true. And I certainly don't make nor support deals or trade offs.

So now you know why I don't bother. 

And why should I when everything I am imagined to think and believe is like hard cement in you head.

----------


## Maximatic

> So you libertarians will rest on your principles while liberals destroy the nation.
> 
> USELESS!  COWARDS!


The guys _you do vote for_ are destroying civilization. What they do is just as damaging to every individual as what their opposition does, their opposition is just more open about that.




> And you don't understand the first thing about politics.


This is the same mistaken assumption that every statist makes about us. We *DO* understand politics. We understand it all too well. Our understanding of it is more complete than yours. We look at the whole picture in the context of the possible and the necessary. We see the inevitable outcome of the path you're on, which is a violent anti-human cycle that repeats endlessly. We've asked if that cycle can be avoided, and the answer we came to is; yes, there is a way out of it. It's difficult, but it can be done, and it's so much better that it _is_ worth striving for.
You don't look at the whole picture. You have tunnel vision. You look at everything, only in the context of the current political climate, the next election. Your outlook presupposes that the cycle is necessary, if you even recognize it as a cycle, that the political game you're playing, the one that was chosen for you by others before you were born, is, not just the only game in town, but the only and the best _possible_ game. Your vision is so short sighted that you don't even see that _your own vote_ is destructive of your end goal, so short sighted that your end goal shifts over time to better approximate the end goal *of your opposition*.

----------


## wist43

> Once again you are telling me what I think and believe under the label of a Conservative, and nearly none of it is true. And I certainly don't make nor support deals or trade offs.
> 
> So now you know why I don't bother. 
> 
> And why should I when everything I am imagined to think and believe is like hard cement in you head.


Is drug prohibition on the federal level constitutional?? Is the Patriot Act and NDAA constitutional?? Is the DEA, EPA, and FDA making law under the "necessary and proper clause" constitutional??

Simple enough questions. What say you??

----------


## Longshot

> I don't find even a smidgen of difference between Hard Core Libertarians and Liberals.


Minimum wage laws?

----------


## wist43

> I don't find even a smidgen of difference between Hard Core Libertarians and Liberals.  Evasive, Intransigent, and untruthful.  Is there a difference in philosophy?
> 
> Hard to tell, one can't talk to either group without getting vilified.


"Evasive, untruthful"??

Good God man - you're a piece of work.

I've asked you a thousand times to cite for me one simple enumerated power, and all you do is post over and over again the _necessary and proper clause -_ never cite an enumerated power; but then deny that you agree with liberals that the _necessary and proper clause_ is, or should be, a grant of power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is so laughable... how can anyone who has watched you flop around this one simple question conclude anything other than you are a fundamentally dishonest person??

Seriously dude, you take the cake!!

----------


## wist43

> Minimum wage laws?


Longshot, go ahead and ask Dan where the FedGov gets the constitutional authority for drug prohibition, I dare ya, lol...  :Smile: 

It's a hoot watching him flop around and never answer, lol...

----------


## RMNIXON

> I don't find even a smidgen of difference between Hard Core Libertarians and Liberals.  Evasive, Intransigent, and untruthful.  Is there a difference in philosophy?
> Hard to tell, one can't talk to either group without getting vilified.



Lets not forget rude and arrogant. Tend to go overboard with their sense of self importance. 

And above all they share solidarity in their passionate hate for Conservatives and public displays of envy.

----------

Jim Scott (04-17-2014)

----------


## Dan40

> Longshot, go ahead and ask Dan where the FedGov gets the constitutional authority for drug prohibition, I dare ya, lol... 
> 
> It's a hoot watching him flop around and never answer, lol...


Why do you insist on being a lying little piss ant?  You asked and I answered long ago.

Liberals get the authority by winning elections that you are too fucking dumb to CONTEST.  YOU hide behind imaginary principles and waste votes, ENABLING liberals to win.
And when they have the POWER, then they take advantage of the broadness and vagueness.  And you walk around feeling superior when you are the dumb fucks that ALLOWED the liberals to win.

I want to beat the crap out of the liberals on every level.  You want to make lofty speeches and poke fun at those of us FIGHTING for this nation.

If you're afraid to join the fight, and you ARE,,,,, STFU.

----------


## Dan40

> I think it's all about winning for him, which means getting elected and, once elected, getting bills passed, which means increasing the size of government, which means helping the progressives; ie: doing their bidding.
> 
> He lives in the real world where he votes for the man of another man's choosing, hoping that the guy who was chosen for him to vote for sponsors some bills that that are consistent with what the opposition wants so some of them will pass. Yes, it accomplishes the opposite of what they claim to want but, in the "real world", that's how you win.


Hey GENIUS.  Tell me how to shrink the government WITHOUT holding the power?

Fucking Magic?  No that hasn't worked for you enablers in 42 years.  The liberals HAVE the power.  You REFUSE to do anything to take the power away from them.  YOU quit before there is a fight.  How do you get bad laws REPEALED without the voting power in DC?  More libertarian fucking magic?

Day by day I'm becoming more and more convinced you libertarians are afraid to fight and you're too dumb to be of use in the battle anyway.

If you are not part of the solution, you are the problem just as much as the lying liberals.

----------


## Dan40

> "Evasive, untruthful"??
> 
> Good God man - you're a piece of work.
> 
> I've asked you a thousand times to cite for me one simple enumerated power, and all you do is post over and over again the _necessary and proper clause -_ never cite an enumerated power; but then deny that you agree with liberals that the _necessary and proper clause_ is, or should be, a grant of power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> It is so laughable... how can anyone who has watched you flop around this one simple question conclude anything other than you are a fundamentally dishonest person??
> 
> Seriously dude, you take the cake!!


If you could read, you'd see where I've answered your every question.  But since you cannot read, you only see the words thru the spastic filter in your head.

I copied the N&P clause and pasted it  for you.

Below that I posted, THERE is an enumerated power.

You fucking didn't understand it.

You quoted it and said I said THERE is an enumerated power but didn't post one.  It was there ABOVE that sentence.

I don't know why I bother talking to a rock head that doesn't know anything about his country, its laws, and its procedures.  

Seriously dude, your brain IS cake.

----------


## Maximatic

> Hey GENIUS.  Tell me how to shrink the government WITHOUT holding the power?
> 
> Fucking Magic?  No that hasn't worked for you enablers in 42 years.  The liberals HAVE the power.  You REFUSE to do anything to take the power away from them.  YOU quit before there is a fight.  How do you get bad laws REPEALED without the voting power in DC?  More libertarian fucking magic?
> 
> Day by day I'm becoming more and more convinced you libertarians are afraid to fight and you're too dumb to be of use in the battle anyway.
> 
> If you are not part of the solution, you are the problem just as much as the lying liberals.


Take that power away from them and give it to whom, Republicans? They had control for six straight years, just a few years ago. They didn't shrink the government. They're not interested in shrinking it. If you think they are, you must be deluded.

The only battle that matters is over the minds of people.

----------

wist43 (04-16-2014)

----------


## Dan40

> Take that power away from them and give it to whom, Republicans? They had control for six straight years, just a few years ago. They didn't shrink the government. They're not interested in shrinking it. If you think they are, you must be deluded.
> 
> The only battle that matters is over the minds of people.


Useless horse crap.  You either HAVE the power, or you are subjected to the power.

Libertarians are willing happy subjects that DO NOTHING

----------


## wist43

> If you could read, you'd see where I've answered your every question.  But since you cannot read, you only see the words thru the spastic filter in your head.
> 
> I copied the N&P clause and pasted it  for you.
> 
> Below that I posted, THERE is an enumerated power.
> 
> You fucking didn't understand it.
> 
> You quoted it and said I said THERE is an enumerated power but didn't post one.  It was there ABOVE that sentence.
> ...


I love ya Dan, I really do... nobody makes me laugh like you  :Smile: 

Okay, I quoted your exact post and provided the link - so given your above comments, let's try again - I'm literally LOL as I do this...

Here's the link to your exact post -

http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...l=1#post269940

Here is a cut and paste from that post - your exact words...




> You pick the words that allow you to self indulge in useless escapes into brainless potland.
> 
> *To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper* for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
> 
> 
> There is an enumerated power.


So, if you are saying that N&P is an actual "enumerated power", why do you get your panties in a twist when I say you agree with liberals on the interpretation of the clause?? - b/c that's what they argue.

I say the N&P clause is not a grant of power, but is exactly what the Constitution says it is, and how our FF explained it in their writings, it is simply the vehicle that allows the FedGov to write laws for the "... foregoing powers".

I asked you, which of the "foregoing powers", a.k.a. enumerated powers - authorizes the FedGov to engage in drug prohibition. To that question, you just keep posting the N&P clause - but also deny that you agree with the progressive interpretation of the clause.

See the problem there??  :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

You're wrapped up in your own tautology - too funny!!!!  :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## Dan40

> I say the N&P clause is not a grant of power, but is exactly what the Constitution says it is, and how our FF explained it in their writings, it is simply the vehicle that allows the FedGov to write laws for the "... foregoing powers".
> 
> I asked you, which of the "foregoing powers", a.k.a. enumerated powers - authorizes the FedGov to engage in drug prohibition. To that question, you just keep posting the N&P clause - but also deny that you agree with the progressive interpretation of the clause.


Really?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2411573/posts


Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;


*SOME POWERS SKIPPED TO SAVE SPACE.*


To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

_To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
_

http://pmc.princeton.edu/powersofcongress.php

Article I, Section 8: Congressional Powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;...
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value therof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Aprropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia...;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States,...
_To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof._

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers

List of enumerated powers

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    To borrow on the credit of the United States;

    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

    To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

    To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

    To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

    To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

    To provide and maintain a Navy;

    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

_To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof._
__________________________________________________  ___________________

All of the above and a hundred more like them say,,,,,,,,,YOU don't know what you are talking about.

YOU make such complete dumb ass claims as Wilson's explanation is the important thing,,,,,,,,,,,,,NOT what is the actual LAW!

Now I'm betting you'll find some loser lying libertarian site that contradicts all of these other sites. [there are many more I could post]

If you do, it don't mean shit.

I proved my case.  You prove yours and we have a tie.  Unless you'd like to count the sites that agree with me that the N&P is a power, vs the sites you can come up with that it is not a power.

You will get crushed.



The Constitution is specific in areas, and it is vague in others.  When I tell you the FACT that this is how liberals take advantage, you call me names you stupid shit.  I don't agree with the liberals.  I probably disagree with them 1000% more than you and I work against them.  You sit on your false principles and do nothing

The Constitution has openings for them.  I don't like that, but I know its real.  You hide your head in the sand and accuse me of agreeing with liberals.  I do not.  But I can read and you cannot.  I can read when a document has openings, you sprout platitudes.  How to stop the liberals from taking advantage of the openings that are clearly there to anyone that can read?  Take the power away from them.

Some of your other mindless coward libertarians claim electing Republicans is just as bad.  I have not claimed it is good.  IT IS A START.  The tea party has had a positive effect on the Republican Party.  Now the GOP is rejecting the tea party.  That is progress.  You cowards have made NONE.  Can the tea party EVENTUALLY turn the Republican Party around?  Maybe, maybe not, but we ARE having an effect, that they are fighting us is good, Nobody wants to rock their pleasure boat, so the GOP is fighting us.  You,,,,,,,,,,do not one fucking thing,,,,,,,,,,nothing, you have no effect on the Democrats, you have no effect on the Republicans, you have no effect on the nation.  You have some good ideas, and you have some not so good ideas.  That is fairly normal.  But in 42 years your ideas good or bad have come to nothing.  You're ignored by the Democrats, the Republicans and the nation.

And here is the clincher.  The libertarian movement or the Libertarian Party, whatever label you wish to hide behind is your choice.  Whatever the name,,,,,,,,you DON'T make progress.  As people join up on one end, they drop out in disgust on the other.   I was a libertarian, didn't like everything, but liked enough of the ideas to agree with the whole.  But I cannot stand losers.  That's why I'm gone, and why your most experienced people drop OUT.  The neophytes join, the experienced leave.  A recipe for failure.

And allowing the liberals to keep power is another recipe for failure.

----------


## hoytmonger

The state is a recipe for failure. Empowering the state by participating in it expands it... the size and scope of government cannot be limited. 

Promulgating the concept of liberty to those open to the idea marginalizes the state... which is one reason that the majority of politicians, both left and right, never use the word.

----------


## wist43

> Unless you'd like to count the sites that agree with me that the N&P is a power, vs the sites you can come up with that it is not a power


Okay, cool... so we're finally there - _necessary and proper_ is inandof itself a power!!!

 :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

Yes, you are right... Ruth Bader Ginsburgh, Barack Obama, John Roberts, John Paul Stevens, Felix Frankfurter, Earl Warren, Sonia Sotomayor, Steven Breyer, Hugo Black, Lyndon Johnson, Franklin Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Tip O'Neill, Jimmy Carter, on and on and on, lol... 

The names just keep spinning off my brain... Yes, you are certainly in very crowed company when you say N&P is a power inandof itself... Yes, you all agree, the Constitution is open-ended and the power of the FedGov is limitless.

You'll never get lonely looking for compatriots to agree with you on that  :Wink:

----------


## wist43

*Here are 2 different takes on the necessary and proper clause - 1 liberal, 1 conservative.
*
*The liberal one...* _necessary and proper,_ duh - of course it means the FedGov can do whatever Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi say  :Wink: 

Be still Dan's beating heart, lol...

http://prospect.org/article/necessary-and-proper

"Liberals should take a page from the Tea Partiers and wave their pocket Constitutions around and ask, what part of regulating commerce between the states don't you understand?" Balkin says. "What part of tax and provide for the general welfare don't you understand?"   

"The phrases "necessary and proper" and "provide for the general welfare" might be somewhat disquieting to conservatives. But those phrases are as much a part of the Constitution as the "right of the People to keep and bear arms." The Constitution meant to grant "limited and enumerated powers" to the federal government actually grants some pretty broad ones."

--------------------------------------------------

*The conservative one... common sense - Dan wants no part of this interpretation, lol...*

http://www.conservativeactionalerts....ary-or-proper/

"Quite simply it was through the deception of the Progressives evolving our Constitution from a rock-solid framework limited to what it actually said to a living document that is constantly being re-interpreted. Thus without amendment, without debate, without a vote our leaders have nudged us from land of liberty to the centrally-planned surveillance state..."

"The necessary and proper clause was added to the Constitution by the Committee of Detail with no debate. Nor was it the subject of any debate during the remainder of the Convention. The reason why this clause was neither attacked nor defended during the Convention becomes clear from the statements of the Framers during the ratification process. James Wilson, one of the most eloquent defenders of the Constitution, a signer of the Constitution, and one of the first justices of the Supreme Court, said that this clause gave the federal government no more or other powers than those already enumerated in Section 8 of Article I and that “It is saying no more than that the powers we have already particularly given, shall be effectually carried into execution.”

"... Eventually the Federalists won the day and the Constitution was ratified. The result? The interpretation of this clause that was generally accepted by the ratification conventions was that it added no new or expandable powers to the federal government."

"Since the New Deal era, Progressives have argued that the Necessary and Proper Clause expands the powers of the federal government to any it deems necessary and proper. In other words the federal government has all the power necessary to do whatever they want about anything they want."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

You see Dan - you are agreeing with, and fighting for the progressive cause.

I am agreeing with, and fighting for the conservative, constitutional, limited government cause.

----------


## Longshot

> Longshot, go ahead and ask Dan where the FedGov gets the constitutional authority for drug prohibition, I dare ya, lol...


Because they say they have it, I suppose.

I was just providing one glaring example of where there is much more than a smidgen of difference between libertarians and liberals.

Here's another: gun control.

----------


## wist43

> Because they say they have it, I suppose.
> 
> I was just providing one glaring example of where there is much more than a smidgen of difference between libertarians and liberals.
> 
> Here's another: gun control.


As you can see from the above exchange, Dan is determined to hold that the Constitution is a completely open-ended document that really means anything anyone wants it to mean - depending on wind direction.

Dan claims to be a conservative, then bends over backward to carry water for the Big Government side.

It's amazing.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The 2 examples I provided of liberal vs conservative interpretations used to be the common arguments _for and against_ going back decades. Unfortunately, many "conservatives" have been duped into fighting against the Constitution and limited government, and against their own interests by arguing progressive positions on the Constitution.

It's both inexplicable and sad.

----------


## Katzndogz

> Longshot, go ahead and ask Dan where the FedGov gets the constitutional authority for drug prohibition, I dare ya, lol... 
> 
> It's a hoot watching him flop around and never answer, lol...


From the FDA's creation in 1904 and the Harrison Act of 1914.

----------


## Dan40

> As you can see from the above exchange, Dan is determined to hold that the Constitution is a completely open-ended document that really means anything anyone wants it to mean - depending on wind direction.
> 
> Dan claims to be a conservative, then bends over backward to carry water for the Big Government side.
> 
> It's amazing.
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The 2 examples I provided of liberal vs conservative interpretations used to be the common arguments _for and against_ going back decades. Unfortunately, many "conservatives" have been duped into fighting against the Constitution and limited government, and against their own interests by arguing progressive positions on the Constitution.
> ...


What is sad is your intentional lying.  Where did I say I approve of what liberals do to the Constitution?  No where that's where, LIAR!  That you are too stupid and closed minded to see that the Liberals DO have openings is your ignorance.  You want to lie about me.  I want to STOP the liberals use of the Constitution.  I have a purpose, you have a childish, useless whine.

----------


## wist43

> From the FDA's creation in 1904 and the Harrison Act of 1914.


Katz, we've been over this... 

You can't cite "laws", when I'm asking for Constitutional authority. The laws you cite are usually predicated upon the "necessary and proper" clause, which gets us arguing original intent and common sense vs. tortured interpretations for the purpose expanding government's scope and power.

Historically, conservatives had argued original intent and common sense, and progressive/liberals arguing 'anything goes'.

As everyone can see, Dan is an example of a supposed conservative that has joined forces with the liberals in arguing interpretation. He may argue til the cows come home for small government, but he doesn't argue for limited government - there's a big difference.

As I've tried to explain, small government is a function of limited government. If you don't have limited government by way of a strictly interpreted, constraining Constitution - it is only a matter of time before government explodes, and begins to rob the people of their property and liberty.

The government robbing the people of their property and liberty?? We're there - and we certainly didn't get there b/c the government was accepting the arguments of conservatives and our Founding Fathers with respect to interpretation.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (04-17-2014)

----------


## wist43

> What is sad is your intentional lying.  Where did I say I approve of what liberals do to the Constitution?  No where that's where, LIAR!  That you are too stupid and closed minded to see that the Liberals DO have openings is your ignorance.  You want to lie about me.  I want to STOP the liberals use of the Constitution.  I have a purpose, you have a childish, useless whine.


You are a cheerleader for the DEA and drug prohibition - and as such you have to accept the progressive definition of the _necessary and proper clause.

_I'm not making that up - that is your stated position.

If that is your stated position, you are in agreement with the progressives with regard to that interpretation. If you are in agreement with them in that interpretation - you cannot deny them their liberal boondoggles and abuses of power on constitutional grounds. As I've logically pointed out, you can only oppose their idiocy with merit arguments.

As such, you have no principles to back you up - you're simply involved in a "he said/she said" pissing contest.

----------


## Dan40

> You are a cheerleader for the DEA and drug prohibition - and as such you have to accept the progressive definition of the _necessary and proper clause.
> 
> _I'm not making that up - that is your stated position.
> 
> If that is your stated position, you are in agreement with the progressives with regard to that interpretation. If you are in agreement with them in that interpretation - you cannot deny them their liberal boondoggles and abuses of power on constitutional grounds. As I've logically pointed out, you can only oppose their idiocy with merit arguments.
> 
> As such, you have no principles to back you up - you're simply involved in a "he said/she said" pissing contest.


I note your cowardly avoidance of the N&P clause as an enumerated power.  

And I understand your misinterpretations of the written word.  Since you came unequipped with any form of logic, it is unfair of me to chastise you for being unable to grasp logic.

That the Constitution is NOT ironclad is a FACT.  It is not an agreement with anyone.  Your claim the the Constitution is ironclad is an agreement with fantasy and idiocy, and cannot ever do anything to correct the problem.  But you don't even recognize there is a problem to be corrected.  You just want to whine and fantasize that you have the superior position.  But you are a total waste of time.

----------

RMNIXON (04-17-2014)

----------


## Hansel

I find it odd that some people claim the other guy is misinterpreting the constipation when he himself has to interpret it to make that claim.
Sounds like a form of mental  masturbation to me. Get three of these armchair experts going at it and you have a circle jerk.  :Wtf20:

----------


## Dan40

> I find it odd that some people claim the other guy is misinterpreting the constipation when he himself has to interpret it to make that claim.
> Sounds like a form of mental  masturbation to me. Get three of these armchair experts going at it and you have a circle jerk.


Well one idiot says that thousands of laws that DO exist cannot exist because the Constitution does not allow them to exist.

And the other says that thousands of laws do exist regardless of what the other idiot thinks the Constitution says.  And I ask WHAT are we doing to change that?

It does no good to mindlessly insist that what IS, is not.  The misuse of the Constitution is a fact, not a talking point.  Fixing the problem should be the obvious course of action, not whining and bullshitting about imaginary "principles."

----------


## wist43

> I find it odd that some people claim the other guy is misinterpreting the constipation when he himself has to interpret it to make that claim.
> Sounds like a form of mental  masturbation to me. Get three of these armchair experts going at it and you have a circle jerk.


What we're dealing with here is the logical and the honest vs. the illogical and dishonest.

Here is the sentence -

"The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers..."

The honest and logical look at that and say 'Congress has the power to make laws related to the foregoing powers'... the foregoing powers are the "enumerated powers". Simple, logical, duh...

The illogical and dishonest person with an agenda looks at that sentence and says - 'foregoing powers, schmogoing powers' - necessary and proper means I can do anything I want.

One is logical, one is not.

Unfortunately, the dishonest have carried the day by way of circumventing every intentionally placed obstacle to stop them from seizing unlimited power. By simply having 5 dishonest people with an agenda sitting on the Supreme Court, they have completely flipped our Constitution on its head, and we are now dying the predictable death that comes with unlimited government.

----------

Longshot (04-17-2014),Sled Dog (04-18-2014)

----------


## wist43

I've posted many quotes from our founders showing that they did not intend the _necessary and proper clause_ to be a grant of power. 

They didn't even conceive that anyone would be so dull and stupid as to contend such and thing, and the clause itself was never even debated during the con-con!!! Why should it be - it speaks for itself, and no rational, honest person would look at it any other way. It is a qualification for the "foregoing powers". Period.

Our Founding Fathers ultimately had to argue the issue after the Constitution had been sent to the states for ratification, b/c some were looking for ways to empower the FedGov beyond its obviously limited scope. Ultimately, the Federalists won the argument, and the nonsensical attempts at trying to find power within the clause were scuttled, and the Constitution was ratified with everyone understanding that the _necessary and proper clause_ was exactly what it so obviously is - a qualification to empower Congress to write laws related to the enumerated powers.

It was not intended, and could never logically be construed as an enumerated power itself.

Yet here we are all these years later - progressive/liberals, wanting an open-ended grant of power which completely removes the Constitution as an impediment to their schemes, have successfully rewritten the Constitution by simply saying the Constitution means anything they say it means - so shut up and enjoy your Obamacare.

Only an idiot would look at the _necessary and proper clause_ and conclude it was a grant of power - enter from stage left, Dan, lol  :Wink:

----------

Longshot (04-19-2014)

----------


## Maximatic

> Well one idiot says that thousands of laws that DO exist cannot exist because the Constitution does not allow them to exist.
> 
> And the other says that thousands of laws do exist regardless of what the other idiot thinks the Constitution says.  And I ask WHAT are we doing to change that?
> 
> It does no good to mindlessly insist that what IS, is not.  The misuse of the Constitution is a fact, not a talking point.  Fixing the problem should be the obvious course of action, not whining and bullshitting about imaginary "principles."


That's when the Voluntarist comes in and says:

"Here's the solution."

To which you respond:

"THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE! STOP DREAMING! You have to have POWER! You don't know anything about politics and POWER! The only solution is to vote, but not in the primaries because I'm a registered independent, with POWER... and I only vote for the ones with POWER!

...MOR PAWR!!!"

----------

BleedingHeadKen (04-18-2014),Longshot (04-17-2014)

----------


## hoytmonger

> ...MOR PAWR!!!"

----------


## wist43

> I find it odd that some people claim the other guy is misinterpreting the constipation when he himself has to interpret it to make that claim.
> Sounds like a form of mental  masturbation to me. Get three of these armchair experts going at it and you have a circle jerk.


Couple of things strike me about your post here @Hansel

1) You refer to the contention that government should be limited with great contempt.
A) Seems like a bizzare thing to have contempt for?? Your motto then would be, "... unlimited government for all!!"??

2) It has always been thus - argument over sabotage with respect to inserting these incendiary clauses has been discussed. That notwithstanding, the reason the clauses didn't generate any debate, or at least little discussion outside of the Committee of Detail, was that the clauses seemed such straight foward introductions and qualifiers to their sentences, that no one viewed them as being incendiary.

A) When the Constitution went to the states for ratification, it was then that the possible incendiary meanings of these phrases came to the forefront of debate. It was ulitmately settled upon that the phases were innocuous in terms of grants of power, but were the obvious qualifiers they were intended to be.

B) Even John Marshall, in the famous _McCullah vs. Maryland_ SC decision cited the clauses as only pertaining to an enumerated power. The ruling still allowed for an expansive interpretation of the _necessary and proper clause_ but only within the boundaries of the enumerated powers.

3. Since the progressives have finally opened Pandora's Box all those decades ago, by expanding precedent upon precedent - we are so far removed from the meaning of how the Constitution was supposed to function, that when someone comes along and speaks the language of limited, republican government, it seems akin to "_mental masturbation"_ to the average Amerikan.

A) That's sad.

----------


## gainso

ticks CAN'T "leave you alone". they will literally DIE if they can't sneak or force you to give them the blood that they have to have.  They are not CAPABLE of supporting themselves or having an original thought, and down deep, they KNOW it. They KNOW that they MUST have others under their thumbs, or under an illusion, because they CAN'T survive by trading or by logic.  The great majority of people are ticks.  that's why the libertarians will never have a majority, and why we'll always need guns and skill with them, as well as knowledge of how to be maximally effective at causing tyrants to lose trillions of $, with minimum effort or risk on our part.

----------

