# Liberty Movement > Liberty Campaigns >  Gary Johnson Just Detonated His Own Candidacy

## AuH20

Ummm? Where did he dig this up? There is no reputable libertarian resource that advocates for such an abomination. A carbon tax that transfers economic wealth to a 'basic income' program? Did he fall down the stairs before the interview?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

All anyone should need to know about carbon credits:




> Managing emissions is one of the fastest-growing segments in financial services in the City of London with a market estimated to be worth about €30 billion in 2007. Louis Redshaw, head of environmental markets at Barclays Capital predicts that "Carbon will be the world's biggest commodity market, and it could become the world's biggest market overall."[16]

----------


## Anti Federalist

Johnson and Weld are liberals, not libertarians.

----------


## presence

> These economic ideas are not good if we're starting from scratch, but in comparison to what we have now, they're a stark improvement!  But this is what always happens with libertarians...  We judge ourselves by a different standard.  For a libertarian, it's always about adherence to the ideal - never a comparison to the existing system.


I can see the concept from that perspective, at one point I op'd a thread on citizen's dividends on similar notion.  
Lately I've come to believe that any disintervention is just as bad as any other intervention.  
Generally smdh at political solutions to free market issues;
 for me agorism; direct free market action, is the moral path.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Johnson and Weld are liberals, not libertarians.


Thank You. Dang. I'm beginning to go nuts around here. How upside down it's become.

----------


## Cleaner44

The Libertarian Party has really $#@!ed things up with their 2004 nomination of Barr and their 2012/2016 nomination of Johnson. What a sad public spokesman for a great philosophy.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

Libertarians always get on me for criticizing Johnson way more than I do Trump. But this guy is carrying the libertarian banner around with him. Nobody mistakes Trump for a libertarian, not even the libertarians who support him. Under Johnson, the libertarian brand is getting sold out all so Gary can get his little irrelevant time in the spotlight. It's sickening.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> Occasionally the tree of liberty will require a carbon tax.


Oh yeah, I had forgotten about that...

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Libertarians always get on me for criticizing Johnson way more than I do Trump. But this guy is carrying the libertarian banner around with him. Nobody mistakes Trump for a libertarian, not even the libertarians who support him. Under Johnson, the libertarian brand is getting sold out all so Gary can get his little irrelevant time in the spotlight. It's sickening.


Yep. Spot on. That's my major gripe. And then to have your adherence to fundamental libertarian priciples dishonestly challenged for not going along with liberal (and sometimes patently communist) positions that are patently contrary to and aggressive toward Individual Liberty fully, is even more disturbing.

If someone is organizing (in Liberty, mind you) for Johnson (who openly admitted that he'd send men from the government with guns to force an Individual or a group of Individuals to relinquish his/their right to property...which happens to be Life and Liberty's principal support for securing Individual Liberty fully, I'd add) tells you that _you_ aren't libertarian and _you_ don't follow libertarian principles because you don't agree with that communist philosophy, then, wear it as a badge of honor.

And if someone who is organizing for Johnson has the stones to tell you that you don't have libertarian principles because you don't agree with his consideration of signing off on an illegal transfer of power from the people, wear that as a badge of honor, too.  

Because whomever tells you tht you don't have libertarian princoples for not supporting that while they are openly organizing/defending someone who openly has said that he'd do these things as president are truly the ones who don't hold an ounce of respect for Individual Liberty or its fundamental principles.

By ye fruits and whatnot. Right?

----------


## AuH20

Now you wonder? Was Gary Johnson always this way or perhaps the philosophical underpinnings escaped him? I have a feeling it's the former.

----------


## jmdrake

> Ummm? Where did he dig this up? There is no reputable libertarian resource that advocates for such an abomination. A carbon tax that transfers economic wealth to a 'basic income' program? Did he fall down the stairs before the interview?

----------


## undergroundrr

> Apart from not being nearly as objectionable as Trump and Hillary, what Johnson is or isn't doing is irrelevant.
> 
> Most of the support he's getting from Republicans, Democrats and independents (whether "moderate" or otherwise) has pretty much nothing to do with any appreciation for his "open[ness] to practical ideas" or any notion that he might be the man to "reverse America's decline." Johnson is getting the level of support he's getting merely because he's the most inoffensively milquetoast and least non-viable alternative to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. That is all. Remove the Hillary/Trump factor from this election cycle, and there is no reason to think that the bulk of Johnson's support wouldn't simply vanish.
> 
> IOW: If you could get a bucket of warm spit on the ballot in all fifty states, it might do as well as Johnson ...


Okay, that's another way of putting it.  Still, he could get himself wiped out of relevancy by outlining a nice paleo platform of legalizing discrimination, shutting down social security, legalizing heroin, privatizing the roads, open nuclear warhead carry, etc.  Which he wouldn't do because he's not a hard-liner on anything (sorry @Natural Citizen).  Maybe if he suggested a public accommodation exception for Jewish bakers he could get some of the Ayn Rand vote back.

----------


## euphemia

How does Gary Johnson wear the Libertarian label and be open to more government?  Cutting this or starting that to have more money to give people is exactly the opposite of libertarian.

----------


## CaptUSA

> How does Gary Johnson wear the Libertarian label and be open to more government?  Cutting this or starting that to have more money to give people is exactly the opposite of libertarian.


Please read the thread.  Many well-respected libertarian-leaning economist have supported these ideas.  It's not so far-fetched.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> How does Gary Johnson wear the Libertarian label and be open to more government?  Cutting this or starting that to have more money to give people is exactly the opposite of libertarian.


If you haven't noticed, the entire liberty movement is in the process of selling its soul to the devil. So that's what this is all about. Expect a lot more of it in the weeks and months to come.

----------


## AuH20

I guess Gary Johnson is running as a 'shell libertarian' sans the critical ideological foundation, as a desperate bid to reach the elusive public funding threshold? It's either that or he's compromised by outside interests.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Okay, that's another way of putting it.  Still, he could get himself wiped out of relevancy by outlining a [snide caricature having nothing to do with anything that was actually said in the post to which this is a reply].


Again, _what_ relevancy? He's only "relevant" because (and to the extent that) Hillary and Trump are so widely despised.

Apart from that, he's little more than a blandly inoffensive non-entity to those "moderates" of whom you are so enamored.

----------


## undergroundrr

> Again, _what_ relevancy? He's only "relevant" because (and to the extent that) Hillary and Trump are so widely despised.
> 
> Apart from that, he's little more than a blandly inoffensive non-entity to those "moderates" of whom you are so enamored.


LOL. Although I don't have a hatred of them, I'm hardly enamored. Moderates are the bread and butter of elections, and for the first time they may be actually considering that libertarianism isn't entirely about drugs and guns.  He's in a position to reach out to a completely different and much more useful audience than Ron Paul had access to.  Unlike the trumpies though, I would never say he's better than Ron Paul.

Yes, Gary Johnson is bland. And like trump's coarseness in the GOP primary, it's the right thing at the right time.

----------


## euphemia

> LOL. Although I don't have a hatred of them, I'm hardly enamored. Moderates are the bread and butter of elections, and for the first time they may be actually considering that libertarianism isn't entirely about drugs and guns.  He's in a position to reach out to a completely different and much more useful audience than Ron Paul had access to.  Unlike the trumpies though, I would never say he's better than Ron Paul.
> 
> Yes, Gary Johnson is bland. And like trump's coarseness in the GOP primary, it's the right thing at the right time.


It's not about saying something to get the most votes.  It is about having a sound political and moral foundation.  Johnson lacks both.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> If you haven't noticed, the entire liberty movement is in the process of selling its soul to the devil.


When you really think about it, this is patently true. If we make the effort to recognize and understand Liberty's most fundamental supporting foundation, and observe the openly organized aggression against it, this is precisely what it happening.

But I wouldn't say the entire movement. There are still some who have the fortitude to call a spade a spade when they see it. Although the devil's mininions sure do fight back when one shines the light.

----------


## undergroundrr

> It's not about saying something to get the most votes.  It is about having a sound political and moral foundation.  Johnson lacks both.


Maybe or not.  His politics is pragmatic with a libertarian bent.  Even if he didn't turn NM into a Nozick lab, he was at least a good contrarian to the progressive establishment there.  As for morality, it's not a judgement I would make of someone just because they disagree with my politics.  Perhaps the media will bring forth some fraud, wife beating and bribe taking if he starts polling at 15%.  Regardless, in his public career he seems to have conducted himself in a decent and moral way, to contrast with the hopelessly corrupt and financially conjoined trumplary.

----------


## undergroundrr

> If we recognize Liberty's most fundamental supporting foundation


Cake

----------


## euphemia

He's not a libertarian.  What he represents is the libertarian stereotype in a suit.  He does not intend for everyone to have full fundamental liberty.  He wants liberty that looks like his brand of liberty, which does not speak to the fundamental freedoms outlined in the Constitution.  He does not intend to reduce the size of government.  He left office with 20% of his people on food stamps--second only to Mississippi.  He did not reduce the size of the New Mexico government, and when you consider how pitifully few people actually work there, it is absurd to think he could take on the US Congress and get anything done.

----------


## bunklocoempire

Can you feel the Johnson knocking on your carbon tax black hole?

----------


## undergroundrr

> He's not a libertarian.  What he represents is the libertarian stereotype in a suit.  He does not intend for everyone to have full fundamental liberty.  He wants liberty that looks like his brand of liberty, which does not speak to the fundamental freedoms outlined in the Constitution.  He does not intend to reduce the size of government.  He left office with 20% of his people on food stamps--second only to Mississippi.  He did not reduce the size of the New Mexico government, and when you consider how pitifully few people actually work there, it is absurd to think he could take on the US Congress and get anything done.


Even if all that were 100% accurate and fully contextualized, it would be a drop in the bucket compared to the historical effect of trump's propping up of progressives and neocons financially and otherwise.  I'll hold that GJ did pretty well as libertarian governor of a wildly un-libertarian state.

The phrase "departs from libertarian orthodoxy" will be like a magic salve for moderate liberals and moderate conservatives. If the phrase "moderate libertarian" (I know, I know @euphemia) would catch on, that would be even better.

----------


## AuH20

> He's not a libertarian.  What he represents is the libertarian stereotype in a suit.  He does not intend for everyone to have full fundamental liberty.  He wants liberty that looks like his brand of liberty, which does not speak to the fundamental freedoms outlined in the Constitution.  He does not intend to reduce the size of government.  He left office with 20% of his people on food stamps--second only to Mississippi.  He did not reduce the size of the New Mexico government, and when you consider how pitifully few people actually work there, it is absurd to think he could take on the US Congress and get anything done.


He's essentially running as a 'lifestyle libertarian' which is a very dangerous trend for the true believers. You already have an image problem, and then this guy comes along to only reemphasize the frivolities of that same image problem. To me, Gary Johnson embodies a trendy shirt that the user will likely discard in 8 months, since he's not pushing the core educational bent.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> He's essentially running as a 'lifestyle libertarian' which is a very dangerous trend for the true believers.


He's a libertine. As is most of his organizing base. And libertine is not libertarian. It's liberal. Technically, it's culturally Marxist if we really want to go into it in any depth.

In fact, the libertine philosophy is patently in opposition to and aggressive toward Individual Liberty's primary foundation for moral code. Which also makes it patently aggressive toward Individual Liberty fully. When the foundation for moral code (The Natural Law) that defines/guides Individual Liberty's fundamental principles and proper Man-to-Man/Government-to-Man relations is rejected, there cannot and will not be Individual Liberty at all. To reject it's foundation for moral code is a patent rejection of the concept of Individual Liberty fully. You cannot arbitrarily reject Individual Liberty's foundation for moral code and accept its fundamental principles. That's not how it works. They must be accepted together as an Indivisible whole if there is to be any legitimate right of claim to Liberty's benefits. People who think they can be accepted and rejected piece-meal and still make a claim of right to Individual Liberty's benefits don't understand the concept of Individual Liberty. They may think they do. But they don't.

----------


## undergroundrr

> he's not pushing the core educational bent.


Except for explaining the NAP and calling out for an end to the wars on national TV. Tirelessly promoting marijuana legalization for decades until it's now mainstream.

“The future is small government, the future is no one dying in foreign interventions.” - Gary Johnson

----------


## Occam's Banana

> LOL. Although I don't have a hatred of them, I'm hardly enamored. Moderates are the bread and butter of elections, and for the first time they may be actually considering that libertarianism isn't entirely about drugs and guns.


But there is no reason to think that they are considering libertarianism _at all_.***

Johnson is nothing more to them than the most convenient anti-Hillary/anti-Trump foil.




> He's in a position to reach out to a completely different and much more useful audience than Ron Paul had access to.


It is not that _they_ are useful to _him_ - it is that _he_ is useful to _them_.

Otherwise, they'd not give him the time of day, let alone their votes ...




> Yes, Gary Johnson is bland. And like trump's coarseness in the GOP primary, it's the right thing at the right time.


It's the "right thing" for what purpose? You get more of what you subsidize - and when you subsidize bland moderation, more bland moderation is what you will get. How is doing so supposed to redound to the benefit of liberty? Should paving the way for "William Weld 2020" or the like really be our ambition?



*** And even the relatively few among them whose interest in this "libertarianism stuff" might actually be piqued are going to find in Johnson a farrago of irreconcilable "sometimes 'non-adverse-effects', sometimes 'non-aggression'" contradictions, leavened with contingently cost-beneficial analyses that don't fit either paradigm. What happens when, for example, a curious non-libertarian is confronted with Johnson's occasional espousal of the NAP (to the effect that the initiation of force is not acceptable), juxtaposed with his advocacy of policies based on the claim that choices which supposedly might have "adverse effects" may be forcibly prohibited? And if, say, lack of medical coverage can be identified as producing "adverse effects," then why should any cost-benefit analysis or "efficiency" argument be allowed to rule out state-mandated or -provided insurance? What is a non-libertarian to make of such a rat's nest? Why shouldn't such a person conclude that Johnson is just another mealy-mouthed double-talker who says nice sounding things without actually meaning them? (And note that none of this has anything to do with "hard lines" or "purism" of any kind - it is simply a question of self-consistent clarity.)

----------


## euphemia

> He's essentially running as a 'lifestyle libertarian' which is a very dangerous trend for the true believers. You already have an image problem, and then this guy comes along to only reemphasize the frivolities of that same image problem.


Comment of the day, right here.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Comment of the day, right here.


Yep.

----------


## undergroundrr

> It is not that _they_ are useful to _him_ - it is that _he_ is useful to _them_.
> 
> Otherwise, they'd not give him the time of day, let alone their votes ...


I agree.  But that's the ideal of democracy, the god that failed, for better or worse.  It's supposed to be a win for the people, and the elected is supposed to serve them sacrificially.  GJ fits into this picture pretty well.  It's not like Michael Badnarik or Harry Browne or even Bob Barr pocketed some kind of personal gain for running as LP pres candidate.  It's pretty thankless really and you're portrayed forever as a dorky freak.

Nationalists believe trump will serve them.  But there's a broad populace who just want to live their lives in peace.  Gary Johnson will appeal to them.  He speaks self-determination, he speaks peace, he speaks about getting the government out of your lives.  In the midst of that, it's always been his style to be open to ideas rather than dismiss them because they violate a libertarian dictum.  I actually respect it when he says he hasn't read the TPP yet.  It would be nice if our representatives read the bills.

----------


## euphemia

Here is the other point:  I favor Castle above all other candidates.  Trump's oddities can be overlooked because he is a businessman, and in that context, what he's doing makes a lot of sense.  Hillary is just corrupt from the ground up and lies because she is Hillary Clinton.  Gary Johnson is not without experience.  He is a former governor, and if he doesn't know how to measure his words and understand the proper position on an issue, then he really is not what he seems.

----------


## AuH20

> Here is the other point:  I favor Castle above all other candidates.  Trump's oddities can be overlooked because he is a businessman, and in that context, what he's doing makes a lot of sense.  Hillary is just corrupt from the ground up and lies because she is Hillary Clinton.  Gary Johnson is not without experience.  He is a former governor, and if he doesn't know how to measure his words and understand the proper position on an issue, then he really is not what he seems.


Here is the problem as I see it. Gary Johnson has the luxury of running on the less restrained, lesser expectation Libertarian ticket, but continues to play SJW type politics, while indulging in other virtue signaling anti-liberty positions (see Carbon Tax). Conversely, Trump is running as the candidate for a typically rigid Republican Party, yet still manages to call out the prior Republican administration for 911 as well as broaching many other taboo subjects. It's almost like the roles have been reversed when you compare the big party guy versus the small party guy. 

Gary should be the radical one, calling upon justice from on high, as opposed to Trump. If I had this type of platform as the so-called 3rd party spoiler, I would be creating havoc with the exposure I was receiving.

----------


## TheTexan

How can one detonate, that which does not exist ¿

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> He's a libertine. As is most of his organizing base. And libertine is not libertarian. It's liberal. Technically, it's culturally Marxist if we really want to go into it in any depth.
> 
> In fact, the libertine philosophy is patently in opposition to and aggressive toward Individual Liberty's primary foundation for moral code. Which also makes it patently aggressive toward Individual Liberty fully. When the foundation for moral code (The Natural Law) that defines/guides Individual Liberty's fundamental principles and proper Man-to-Man/Government-to-Man relations is rejected, there cannot and will not be Individual Liberty at all. To reject it's foundation for moral code is a patent rejection of the concept of Individual Liberty fully. You cannot arbitrarily reject Individual Liberty's foundation for moral code and accept its fundamental principles. That's not how it works. They must be accepted together as an Indivisible whole if there is to be any legitimate right of claim to Liberty's benefits. People who think they can be accepted and rejected piece-meal and still make a claim of right to Individual Liberty's benefits don't understand the concept of Individual Liberty. They may think they do. But they don't.


You keep making this statement that he's a libertine... Do you have any evidence to back up that claim or are you just going to keep making the claim until everyone believes it??

Also, I am a bit of "libertine" myself.  I believe in "LIBERTY" in all things including sex.  I reject man's "moral" code as it's defective to the max.  Total liberty would HAVE to include sexual actions or it's not "total" (can't believe I have to explain this).  The only restriction I put on liberty any action that would infringe on the liberty of another.  If you think that someone having an orgy is somehow infringing on your liberty I'd like to know how you come to that conclusion...

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> He's a libertine. As is most of his organizing base. And libertine is not libertarian. It's liberal. Technically, it's culturally Marxist if we really want to go into it in any depth.
> 
> In fact, the libertine philosophy is patently in opposition to and aggressive toward Individual Liberty's primary foundation for moral code. Which also makes it patently aggressive toward Individual Liberty fully. When the foundation for moral code (The Natural Law) that defines/guides Individual Liberty's fundamental principles and proper Man-to-Man/Government-to-Man relations is rejected, there cannot and will not be Individual Liberty at all. To reject it's foundation for moral code is a patent rejection of the concept of Individual Liberty fully. You cannot arbitrarily reject Individual Liberty's foundation for moral code and accept its fundamental principles. That's not how it works. They must be accepted together as an Indivisible whole if there is to be any legitimate right of claim to Liberty's benefits. People who think they can be accepted and rejected piece-meal and still make a claim of right to Individual Liberty's benefits don't understand the concept of Individual Liberty. They may think they do. But they don't.


You keep making this statement that he's a libertine... Do you have any evidence to back up that claim or are you just going to keep making the claim until everyone believes it??

Also, I am a bit of "libertine" myself.  I believe in "LIBERTY" in all things including sex.  I reject man's "moral" code as it's defective to the max.  Total liberty would HAVE to include sexual actions or it's not "total" (can't believe I have to explain this).  The only restriction I put on liberty is any action that would infringe on the liberty of another.  If you think that someone having an orgy is somehow infringing on your liberty I'd like to know how you come to that conclusion...

----------


## Natural Citizen

Liberty without principle, without virtue or morality, is not liberty at all. Our Constitution was made for a moral people. It is based on Natural Law. God's Law. Anti-morality is a rejection of the Natural Law (God's Law) which defines proper human relations. Proper human relations based on the Natural Law mean moral Man-to-Man/Man-to-Governemnt relations. You say that you reject man's worldly foundation for moral code but your post sounds quite the opposite. Your post sounds to me like a rejection of Gods Law. It sounds like you're promoting a Man-over-God society to justify anti-moral indulgences that are contradictory to God's Law.

There was a good book that I was reading that correctly noted that the spiritual brotherhood of men under the common fatherhood of God is a concept which is basic to our traditional philosophy of governance. This concept is the foundation for moral code that defines the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty. This is The Natural Law. 

The Natural Law (God's Law) and the arbitrary legalities of anti-moral men aren't the same. The latter is aggressive toward the former. The former, of course, being Individual Liberty's difinitive foundation.

----------


## TheTexan

> Liberty without principle, without virtue or morality, is not liberty at all. Our Constitution was made for a moral people. It is based on Natural Law. God's Law. Anti-morality is a rejection of the Natural Law (God's Law) which defines proper human relations. Proper human relations based on the Natural Law mean moral Man-to-Man/Man-to-Governemnt relations. You say that you reject man's worldly foundation for moral code but your post sounds quite the opposite. Your post sounds to me like a rejection of Gods Law. It sounds like you're promoting a Man-over-God society to justify anti-moral indulgences that are contradictory to God's Law.


Absolutely agreed.  Pushing our religious beliefs onto others, is a central pillar of liberty

----------


## TheTexan

Godless hedonist libertines, will destroy this world, with their drug fueled orgies and rock music and etc

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Absolutely agreed.  Pushing our religious beliefs onto others, is a central pillar of liberty


Nobody said anything like that.  America is a Haven For All Religions.

Here is why...from a good book I was reading. Which I'll link. It's a good book. https://www.amazon.com/American-idea...can+Principles



*The Spiritual is Supreme
*

*". . . all men are created . . . endowed by their Creator . . ." (Declaration of Independence)*



*The Principle*

1. The fundamental principle underlying the traditional American philosophy is that the Spiritual is supreme--that Man is of Divine origin and his spiritual, or religious, nature is of supreme value and importance compared with things material.



*Religious Nature*

2. This governmental philosophy is, therefore, essentially religious in nature. It is uniquely American; no other people in all history have ever made this principle the basis of their governmental philosophy. The spiritual brotherhood of men under the common fatherhood of God is a concept which is basic to this American philosophy. It expresses the spiritual relationship of God to Man and, in the light thereof, of Man to Man. To forget these truths is a most heinous offense against the spirit of traditional America because the greatest sin is the lost consciousness of sin.

The fundamentally religious basis of this philosophy is the foundation of its moral code, which contemplates The Individual's moral duty as being created by God's Law: the Natural Law. The Individual's duty requires obedience to this Higher Law; while knowledge of this duty comes from conscience, which the religious-minded and morally-aware Individual feels duty-bound to heed. This philosophy asserts that there are moral absolutes: truths, such as those mentioned above, which are binding upon all Individuals at all times under all circumstances. This indicates some of the spiritual and moral values which are inherent in its concept of Individual Liberty-Responsibility.



*An Indivisible Whole*

3. The American philosophy, based upon this principle, is an indivisible whole and must be accepted or rejected as such. It cannot be treated piece-meal. Its fundamentals and its implicit meanings and obligations must be accepted together with its benefits.



*The Individual's Self-respect*

4. The concept of Man's spiritual nature, and the resulting concept of the supreme dignity and value of each Individual, provide the fundamental basis for each Individual's self-respect and the consequent mutual respect among Individual's. This self-respect as well as this mutual respect are the outgrowth of, and evidenced by, The Individual's maintenance of his God-given, unalienable rights. They are maintained by requiring that government and other Individuals respect them, as well as by his dedication to his own unceasing growth toward realization of his highest potential--spiritually, morally, intellectually, in every aspect of life. This is in order that he may merit maximum respect by self and by others.



*Some Things Excluded*

5. This concept of Man's spiritual nature excludes any idea of intrusion by government into this Man-to-Man spiritual relationship. It excludes the anti-moral precept that the end justifies the means and the related idea that the means can be separated from the end when judging them morally. This concept therefore excludes necessarily any idea of attempting to do good by force--for instance, through coercion of Man by Government, whether or not claimed to be for his own good or for the so-called common good or general welfare.

It excludes disbelief in--even doubt as to the existence of--God as the Creator of Man: and therefore excludes all ideas, theories and schools of thought--however ethical and lofty in intentions--which reject affirmative and positive belief in God as Man's Creator.



*The Truly American Concept*

6. Only those ideas, programs and practices, regarding things governmental, which are consistent with the concept that "The Spiritual is supreme" can justly be claimed to be truly American traditionally. Anything and everything governmental, which is in conflict with this concept, is non-American--judged by traditional belief.

This applies particularly to that which is agnostic, or atheistic--neutral about, or hostile to, positive and affirmative belief in this concept based upon belief in God as Man's Creator. There is not room for doubt, much less disbelief, in this regard from the standpoint of the traditional American philosophy. Its indivisible nature makes this inescapably true. This pertains, of course, to the realm of ideas and not to any person; it is the conflicting idea which is classified as non-American, according to this philosophy.



*America a Haven For All Religions*

7. The traditional American philosophy teaches that belief in God is the fundamental link which unites the adherents of all religions in a spiritual brotherhood. This philosophy allows for no differentiation between them in this unifying conviction: ". . . all men are created . . . endowed by their Creator . . ." This philosophy is all inclusive as to believers in God. Although America was originally colonized predominantly by adherents of the Christian religion, and principally by Protestants, the Founding Fathers steadfastly conformed to this all-embracing character of the approach of the American philosophy to religion. This was expressly and affirmatively indicated in the proclamation of 1776 of the fundamental American philosophy, of its basic principles, in the Declaration of Independence. This was further indicated, negatively, in 1787-1788 by the Framers and Ratifiers of the Constitution--as a "blueprint" for the structure of the then proposed Federal government, with strictly limited powers--by not permitting it to possess any power with regard to religion. This implied prohibition against the Federal government was reinforced by the addition of the First Amendment expressly prohibiting it, through the Congress, from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."--the words "an establishment of religion" being intended to mean, specifically and only, a church or religious organization which is established, supported and preferred by the government, like the Church of England establishments then existing in some of the States.



*The Conclusion*

8. Belief in Man's Divine origin is the foundation of the fundamental American principle which controls his relationship to government: that Man--The Individual--is of supreme dignity and value because of his spiritual nature.




*Quotes that support this principle.......
*

*AMERICANS A RELIGIOUS PEOPLE*




> From the day of the Declaration . . . They [the American people] were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of the Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledged as the rules of their conduct.
> 
> John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State (Oration celebrating July 4, 1821)




*FAITH IN GOD SUFFICIENT, WITHOUT "PROOF"*




> The sceptical philosophers claim and exercise the privilege of assuming, without proof, the very first principles of their philosophy; and yet they require, from others, a proof of everything by reasoning. They are unreasonable in both points . . .
> 
> U.S. Supreme Court Justice James Wilson (Lectures, 1790-1791)




*RIGHT AND MORAL DUTY TO WORSHIP GOD*




> It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe.
> 
> Massachusetts Bill of Rights, 1780




*RELIGION, MORALITY, LIBERTY
*



> Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. 'Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.
> 
> (Emphasis his) President George Washington, Farewell Address




*RELIGIOUS BELIEF (TYPICAL OF THE FOUNDERS) OF BENJAMIN FRANKLIN--FAMED AS A SCIENTIST--FALSELY CLAIMED BY SOME TO HAVE BEEN AN ATHEIST*




> I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? . . . I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel . . .
> 
> In Federal [Framing] Convention, 1787, making a motion for Prayer (Note: emphasis Franklin's; word "God" underscored twice in original.)





> I never doubted, for instance, the existence of a Deity; that he made the world and governed it by his providence; that the most acceptable service of God was the doing good to man; that our souls are immortal; and that all crimes will be punished, and virtue rewarded, either here or hereafter.
> 
> "Autobiography"





> . . . I can only shew my Gratitude for these mercies from God, by a readiness to help his other Children and my Brethren . . . Even the mix'd imperfect Pleasures we enjoy in this World, are rather from God's Goodness than our Merit; how much more such Happiness of Heaven. For my own part I have not the Vanity to think I deserve it, the Folly to expect it, nor the Ambition to desire it; but content myself in submitting to the Will and Disposal of that God who made me . . .
> 
> Letter to Joseph Huey, 1753





> I BELIEVE there is one supreme, most perfect Being . . . Also, when I stretch my imagination through and beyond our system of planets, beyond the visible fixed stars themselves, into that space that is every way infinite, and conceive it filled with suns like ours, each with a chorus of worlds for ever moving round him; then this little ball on which we move, seems, even in my narrow imagination, to be almost nothing, and myself less than nothing, and of no sort of consequence . . . That I may be preserved from atheism . . . Help me, O Father! . . . For all thy innumerable benefits; for life, and reason . . . My good God, I thank thee!
> 
> "Articles of Belief "1728 (Note: written by Franklin when 22 years of age)



*
RELIGION MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL*




> . . . every encroachment upon religion, of all things the most important, ought to be considered as the greatest imposition . . . By religion, I mean an inward habitual reverence for, and devotedness to the Deity, with such external homage, either public or private, as the worshiper believes most acceptable to him. According to this definition, it is impossible for human laws to regulate religion without destroying it; for they cannot compel inward religious reverence, that being altogether mental and of a spiritual nature; nor can they enforce outward religious homage, because all such homage is either a man's own choice, and then it is not compelled, or it is repugnant to it, and then it cannot be religious the consciences of men are not the objects of human legislation . . .[any delegation of power over religion to public officials] . . .would be a mere nullity, and the compact by which it was ceded, altogether nugatory, the rights of conscience being immutably personal and absolutely inalienable, nor can the state or community as such have any concern in the matter.
> 
> (Attributed to) William Livingston, Governor of N.J., 1778 (Emphasis in first line added; all other emphasis per the original.)



*
THE INDIVIDUAL'S RELIGION AND VIRTUE THE KEY TO PUBLIC HAPPINESS AND LIBERTY
*



> . . . I fully agree in Opinion with a very celebrated Author, that "Freedom or Slavery will prevail in a (City or) Country according as the Disposition & Manners of the People render them fit for the one or the other"; and I have long been convincd that our Enemies have made it an Object, to eradicate from the Minds of the People in general a Sense of true Religion & Virtue, in hopes thereby the more easily to carry their Point of enslaving them. Indeed my Friend, this is a Subject so important in my Mind, that I know not how to leave it. Revelation assures us that "Righteousness exalteth a Nation"--Communities are dealt with in this World by the wise and just Ruler of the Universe. He rewards or punishes them according to their general Character. The diminution of publick Virtue is usually attended with that of publick Happiness, and the public Liberty will not long survive the total Extinction of Morals. ("convincd" in original.)
> 
> Samuel Adams (Letter to John Scollay, 1776)

----------


## undergroundrr

> Godless hedonist libertines, will destroy this world, with their drug fueled orgies and rock music and etc


+rep.  

If I might offer potential new slogans for the CP - 

No Liberty For Libertines!

or maybe - We're For Liberty's Fundamentals, Not Libertine Fundaments.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> +rep.  
> 
> If I might offer potential new slogans for the CP - 
> 
> No Liberty For Libertines!
> 
> or maybe - We're For Liberty's Fundamentals, Not Libertine Fundaments.


- neg for low value posting.

----------


## eleganz

The pure libertarian message can only go so far, or that is what those seeking mass appeal seem to think.  Until our unadulterated ideology becomes more widely accepted, I think some here may need to get used to it or quit following politics altogether or you'd be too disappointed too much of the time.

If I was running for office, I wouldn't bring the entire libertarian message with me either.

----------


## undergroundrr

> - neg for low value posting.


Whatever you need to do to get your blood pressure back down. I'm glad to help a brother out. Anyhow, the rep came up positive in the end.

----------


## euphemia

> +rep.  
> 
> If I might offer potential new slogans for the CP - 
> 
> No Liberty For Libertines!
> 
> or maybe - We're For Liberty's Fundamentals, Not Libertine Fundaments.


I think you are missing the point.  Some of us feel that Gary Johnson wants to take away fundamental liberties that are very clear in the Constitutiton.  He is running for office for which he will have to swear an oath to protect and defend those rights.  If he can't do that, he should not run.  I live a fairly quiet life, and I stand to lose the freedoms that mean the most to me.  It's not abut what you want to do. It's about what you will be responsible for.

----------


## CaptUSA

> I think you are missing the point.  Some of us feel that Gary Johnson wants to take away fundamental liberties that are very clear in the Constitutiton.  He is running for office for which he will have to swear an oath to protect and defend those rights.  If he can't do that, he should not run.  I live a fairly quiet life, and I stand to lose the freedoms that mean the most to me.  It's not abut what you want to do. It's about what you will be responsible for.


I hear ya.  But you are comparing him to your ideal.  I do it, too.  It's what pisses me off about him.  But you stand to lose those freedoms and more if the other candidates are elected.  On a scale of 1 to 100, 1 being completely statist tyrants and 100 being completely state-free, Gary ranks about a 55 or 60 to me.  Castle is about 65-70 (but with limited ballot access).  But the other 3 candidates are all under 10.  

In other words, make sure you are using the right context in your decision-making.  I'm still undecided as to whether I go Johnson or write in Paul.  I guess it will depend on if I want to go with my strict principles or pragmatic principles on election day.

----------


## osan

> I don't support it, but...
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...income/375600/
> 
> Also Charles Murray and Thomas Sowell spoke about it as well.  The idea is to replace our current system of welfare with this.  It's a transitioning tool.  Thomas Paine, believe it or not, advocated something a little similar in his day.  (as reparations from the Crown)
> 
> But hey, I wouldn't expect this to come through in a tweet or soundbite.  Much easier to dismiss completely.


Lesser evil, eh?

In practical terms it might make sense in that were we to cut all welfare off from Monday to Tuesday, we'd better have plenty of ammo on hand because things would go wild in no time flat.

However, words are important.  They form our realities in ways most people may never come close to realizing, and in others that I suspect nobody can realize.  They set up psychological walls, paths, and other conduite that have the nearly universal habit of taking on lives of their own and can steer perception into places unsound.

Setting up a "universal basic income system"  (I'm assuming that is what UBI means) sets up a whole different set of expectations than "phasing out welfare" does, even when the stated purpose of the former is the latter.  

Recall, for example, how the "war tax" was simply left on the books and practically folded into the extant income tax structure.  "Oh don't worry (be happy), it's a _WAR_ tax.  We need it in order to fight the eville NAZIs and those genetic mutants, the _JAPS!_  You don't want them to take over the world, _do you?_  When the nasty old war goes away, so will the war tax.  Promise."

Look how well _that_ turned out.

There are innumerable other examples of this bait-and-switch government chicanery.  How about the grease-job Theye did on us with the whole Eye-rack nonsense, only there it was bull$#@!-musical-chairs with going after 9/11 terr'ists... I mean... WMDs... erm, no what I really meant was Bin Laden... OH WAIT...

The moment we would accede to this so-called UBI, it would rapidly set as concrete in the minds of people, many of whom would instantly and ever so conveniently forget about the "phasing out welfare" part.  Add to that the further dishonesty of people who, just as with the Second Amendment, would in time begin to alter the truth by saying that it all means something other than what it means.  "Oh, that's not what people meant... 'phasing out welfare' clearly meant altering the benefits system, which is why I voted for it.  I never would have voted in favor had I been under the impression that it was meant eliminate all welfare benefits."  And so on, _ad vomitum_.

Therefore, I must conclude that men like Hayek and Johnson have not given this notion its due and circumspect consideration.

In principle, I am all for yanking the welfare nipple from everyone's mouths before the end of today.  In practical terms, I would be satisfied with phasing it out over the coming five years.  That, of course, will never happen... at least not until the financial system collapses under the strain of Federal Reserve monkey business, at which point we are probably back to shooting... unless we are instantly transitioned to a system of open slavery where we are all conscripted "temporarily" to work in exchange for government-dole to cover basic subsistence.  

That is a very likely place toward which I see Themme steering this Titanic upon which we all so merrily sail.  It makes eminent sense - an emergency so vast and immediate; so utterly terrifying to the vast majority of Americans that the shock of its sudden and unavoidable rise will leave them no time to gather their senses in any numbers and they will simply say "yes, anything you want, just save us".  Introduce enough terror and any dissenting voices can be snuffed out (literally and physically) with the blessings and cheers of the Meaner.

In that case, I would suspect the list of waivers to be perhaps short, but devastating, yet the Meaner will sign away his rights with a great sense of relief.  He may even experience a giddy euphoria, subconsciously sensing that the term of responsibility to himself, for himself, has come to an end and that he will now be able to ride that wave of mass-inertia, no longer having to burden himself with thought.  Just be a good MereCog and do as you are told and everything else will be taken care of.

Under more sane circumstances I would agree that Johnson would have committed campaign suicide with such a suggestion.  But we are living in a wall-less nuthouse with the worst of the loonies running the show.  So many people are so hopelessly submerged in their perceptual distortions that they either fail to notice what is happening around them, or they simply do not care, preoccupied as they are with playing with their toes and belly-button lint.  And the psychosis seems to be getting worse almost by the day now.

----------


## osan

> And this would be a voluntary replacement to the non-voluntary system in place?


Oh how you misunderstand.  Income tax IS voluntary.  The IRS sez so.  And you can take _that_ to the bank!

----------


## osan

> Better than what we have now.


I'd rather you chop one leg and both arms off than both arms and both legs?

----------


## osan

> Eventually, y'all are going to run out of excuses for this clown. I understand. We like to count our names. We want to maybe get some personal pride back that was lost during past elections. But is it worth it? Is throwing out the baby with the bath water really worth it? We keep seeing that word "purist" arrogantly thrown around. But these are fundamentals, boys. There is a difference. And denial doesn't change that.


Pony up the rep, mothercopulators.  This is on the money, and it's a large sum.

----------


## CaptUSA

> Setting up a "universal basic income system"  (I'm assuming that is what UBI means) sets up a whole different set of expectations than "phasing out welfare" does, even when the stated purpose of the former is the latter.


Yes.  This is like giving methadone to a heroin addict.  Something that can reduce the pain and unpleasantness of the withdrawal symptoms.  Obviously, if you weren't addicted in the first place, no one would suggest taking methadone.  But that's not where we are.  However, as Hazlitt finally (after about 30 years) pointed out, the methadone has its own problems.

Like I said, I don't support the idea, but I am informed about it and understand why many libertarian economists do.  In _A Conflict of Visions_, Sowell wrote about the "constrained" and "unconstrained" visions.  The constrained vision sees the world as it is, whereas the unconstrained vision sees the world as the way they want it to be.   When using the unconstrained vision and a libertarian mindset, this idea looks bad.  But when using the constrained vision and a libertarian mindset, this idea seems like a reasonable trade-off which could actually create societal benefits and would wean dependency.  Most successful economists employ the constrained vision since it relies on empirical evidence.

----------


## osan

> So Friedman, Hayek, Sowell...  They lack the fundamentals, too?
> 
> Henry Hazlitt, too.
> 
> Sorry folks.  If we're going to start ousting people based on this, we're really going to lose most of our top economists.


It would appear they'd not thought this through very well and for the reasons I posted a few places above.

It is WAY too easy to discount the power that words bring to the human table in such issues as this.  If they advocated for such a thing, they did so erroneously... unless, of course all their speak of property rights was all in light-hearted jest... you know, along the lines of Edison's quip to Tesla that Nikki just didn't understand American humor.

You set up another, "better" welfare system, call it something else, and tell people it is a temporary bridge to ultimate elimination, and it will be another ten thousand years before you can manufacture enough explosive to have even the least hope of dislodging it pursuant to promise.

Half measures avail us nothing and these word-games are endlessly more dangerous than most people will give credit.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> The pure libertarian message can only go so far, or that is what those seeking mass appeal seem to think.  Until our unadulterated ideology becomes more widely accepted, I think some here may need to get used to it or quit following politics altogether or you'd be too disappointed too much of the time.


I am never disappointed in the outcomes of electoral politics. That's because I never expect anything from them.

To invoke a crusty cliché, having such expectations is like putting the cart before the horse.

Election outcomes are lagging indicators (carts), not leading ones (horses). They are effects, not causes.

If your ambition is to challenge and eventually change the status quo, and insofar as voting is to have any significant role in that endeavor, then you don't change attitudes by getting votes - you get votes from changing*** attitudes. Any stratagem that centers on catering to (or not offending) prevailing sensibilities in order to garner more votes is only going to lead to further assimilation with (not reformation of) the status quo. As I said earlier, you will always get more of what you subsidize. Note that the progressives, for example, did not achieve their many successes over the last century and more by means of ingratiatingly placative conciliation.



*** I mean the word "changing" here in an adjective rather than transitive sense (though the transitive sense can be applied as well, of course).

----------


## osan

> Yes.  This is like giving methadone to a heroin addict.  Something that can reduce the pain and unpleasantness of the withdrawal symptoms.  Obviously, if you weren't addicted in the first place, no one would suggest taking methadone.  But that's not where we are.  However, as Hazlitt finally (after about 30 years) pointed out, the methadone has its own problems.


It took him _30 years_ to figure this out?

If I am walking by a pier in a raging storm and I observe a man whom I know jump into the waters, I have choices to make.  I can jump in after him at great peril to myself or I can leave him to drown.  Ignoring the hows but assuming that I know this man jumped in for reasons that no rational man would find valid, but only stupid, I will choose to leave him to his devices.  

People addicted to drugs, whether heroin or welfare, merit no help.  They chose their lots and as far as I am concerned they may reap what they sow.  I have no desire for conflict, but my desire to be pillaged is even smaller.  I make no war on my fellows, but if he comes to my door with war, I will return it in kind.  If we yank the welfare rug from beneath the feet of the parasites and they riot, I see no moral issue with putting them down by whatever means become necessary, even if that means killing them to the man.

Enough is enough already.  I am fed up with equivocating and making excuses for the rank failure of others to respect the rights of those around them as they wail and shriek about the non-existent claims they assert to be fundamental.  "We need our WEAVES!"  Yeah, _muh weeves_...




> Like I said, I don't support the idea, but I am informed about it and understand why many libertarian economists do.


The reason being that they prove themselves to be less than libertarian.  Walking away from the basis of one's purported personal philosophy because he wishes to avoid the ugly conflicts that arise on the path from where one stands to the place he intends on going will not lead one to that place, but rather will cause him to walk about in circles as a man wandering thus in a barren and life-consuming desert.

This is pure and thinly veiled cowardice.  It is nothing nobler.




> In _A Conflict of Visions_, Sowell wrote about the "constrained" and "unconstrained" visions.  The constrained vision sees the world as it is,


Famous last words.  Perception is a _very_ tricky thing, and _VERY_ powerful.  As convinced as you or I may be about the world as it is (or should be), so is the jihadist who runs about hither-thither sawing off the heads of people.  At some point, if you and I wish to survive we will be required by cold hard reality to make the choice to physically kill those with whom the conflict has arisen... let us call him Johnny Jihad just for conversation's sake.  The conflict at hand is one of an irreconcilable nature.  Johnny is _not_ going to be persuaded to cease and desist with logic, reason, or appeals to mercy, justice, or simple charity.  He is going to hunt us and he is going to saw off our heads.  That is, unless we stop him without equivocation, which of course means killing him. 

Oh yes, we could black-bag him to some desert island in the middle of the South Pacific, but that is an insufficient solution.  Firstly, he remains alive and with him his intentions, perceptions, objectives, and so on.  Secondly, there are millions like him - capturing each is rife with risk in itself.  Then there is the practical problem of storage space for such people, not to mention the risks posed by large gatherings of such people, even on desert islands.  And the list goes on, the point being that not only from the standpoint of principle, but of pragmatics, the only real solution is to kill him.  That puts you and me behind the 8-ball of having to make a choice that we don't want to make, but must in any event if we wish to keep our heads.

So it is with the welfare state.  At some point all the bull$#@! and excuses are going to have to go by the wayside if we are not to be bled dry, the vestigial threads of our prosperity flushed down the drain of some housing project in Chicago.




> whereas the unconstrained vision sees the world as the way they want it to be.


Are you implying that there is no place for the normative?




> When using the unconstrained vision and a libertarian mindset, this idea looks bad.


Because it IS bad.  Very bad.  Worse than those with other normative visions are apparently willing to admit.  And here we see that those who claim the "constrained" vision are actually naught more than those of the bunnies-and-light _unconstrained_ variety, masquerading as realists.  "Oooo look at us... we see things as they _are_...  That makes us credible and truthful, and therefore you have to listen to and do as we say..."  It is precisely the goal of the vigorously masturbating progressive (or other fantasizer) to peddle his bull$#@! normative views as those of hard and unassailable reality.  I have borne witness to this phenomenon countless tens of thousands of times and I see it made manifest daily.




> But when using the constrained vision and a libertarian mindset, this idea seems like a reasonable trade-off which could actually create societal benefits and would wean dependency.  Most successful economists employ the constrained vision since it relies on empirical evidence.


"Seems"  My penis "seems" like it goes on forever, or so I am told by my stable.

It may "seem" reasonable, but I am here to destroy that failed perception.  Temporary $#@! has the worst habit of becoming permanent.  Evading the ugly bumps in the road that _we_ have put there in order to avoid jostling the feelings of some is no solution... recall wandering in circles in hot places that kill you without mercy.

At the end of the day, there is no soft, cuddly, warm and fuzzy solution to getting us out of the corner into which we have painted ourselves with paint that is not only instantly fatal on contact, but never dries.  We are in $#@! up to our eyeballs.  The brand of thinking that you are describing (not meaning to say it is YOUR thinking, mind you) completely ignores and discounts this reality in favor of bunnies and light and unicorn poo.  There will be no gentle transition out of this - not because it is absolutely impossible, but because it is virtually so due to the nature of the human animal.

We have thousands of years of the same old $#@! as examples of what we are and how we behave.  What there leads anyone to conclude that all of a sudden we are going to act differently this _time?_  This is the classic mistake we make over and over again.  Is it not time we cut the $#@! and get down to some sense about this sort of thing?  Our refusal to do so says both bad and good things about us - the good being that nobody wants to be the bad guy such that others are hurt.  Fair enough and in fact commendable.  The bad there, however, being that we get ourselves into $#@! in the first place precisely because of the aforementioned good, we fail to learn from our mistakes, and we would often rather flirt with our own destruction than come to reality's sense and do what must be done in order to preserve ourselves.

Am I obliged to live as a rape victim in order to spare the delicate feelings of others?  Where does one draw that line?

The fact is that if we want to be free people, and that "if" stands in deep question at this point, some very ugly $#@! is going to be the price we will have to pay to get it.  That probably means lots of dead bodies.  If that price is too high, then I say to the wad who claim to want liberty:  




> *SHUT THE $#@! UP, GO HOME, SETTLE WITH YOUR STATUS AS A SLAVE, AND STOP BOTHERING YOURSELVES AND THE REST OF US WITH YOUR HALF-BAKED, COWARDLY SOLUTIONS.*


It really is as simple as that.  We are deep in the feces and some of us will not make it out of the septic tank, if even any will... unless of course you think that someone is likely to invent the anti-gravity suit with nothing more than floaters. tampons, and spent condoms as resource materials.

----------


## osan

> The pure libertarian message can only go so far, or that is what those seeking mass appeal seem to think.  Until our unadulterated ideology becomes more widely accepted, I think some here may need to get used to it or quit following politics altogether or you'd be too disappointed too much of the time.
> 
> If I was running for office, I wouldn't bring the entire libertarian message with me either.


This is the Oprah Winfrey method.

She started out with a show so horrid as to bare no good mention.  But according to her, she whored herself pursuant to the goal of gaining enough power to call her own shots.

On this method I admit to being torn.  My inner pragmatist am approve.  My inner idealist am vomit.  They regularly approach each other with long knives.

My life is a living hell.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Originally Posted by osan
> 
> 
> Setting up a "universal basic income system" (I'm assuming that is what UBI means) sets up a whole different set of expectations than "phasing out welfare" does, even when the stated purpose of the former is the latter.
> 
> 
> Yes.  This is like giving methadone to a heroin addict.  Something that can reduce the pain and unpleasantness of the withdrawal symptoms.  Obviously, if you weren't addicted in the first place, no one would suggest taking methadone.  But that's not where we are.  However, as Hazlitt finally (after about 30 years) pointed out, the methadone has its own problems.
> 
> Like I said, I don't support the idea, but I am informed about it and understand why many libertarian economists do.  In _A Conflict of Visions_, Sowell wrote about the "constrained" and "unconstrained" visions.  The constrained vision sees the world as it is, whereas the unconstrained vision sees the world as the way they want it to be.   When using the unconstrained vision and a libertarian mindset, this idea looks bad.  But when using the constrained vision and a libertarian mindset, *this idea seems like a reasonable trade-off which could actually create societal benefits and would wean dependency*.  Most successful economists employ the constrained vision since it relies on empirical evidence.


 How can giving everyone a guaranteed basic income wean anyone from dependency? Indeed, how can it serve to do anything other than "universalize" dependency to the greatest extent possible?

And what is being "traded off" with what ("reasonably" or otherwise)? The idea is supposed to be that a "UBI" would replace current welfare schemes, rather than serve as an addendum to them. But if it ever actually came to it, I see no reason to think that the former would happen, and no reason to think that the latter would not. And in any case, the "UBI" is every bit as much an "unconstrained vision" as any of those other welfare schemes have always been. A "universal basic income" cannot sensibly be said to be a "constrained vision," regardless of what else it might be considered in relation to.

(I will leave unaddressed the reification involved in invoking alleged "societal" benefits, as distinct from the benefits endowed upon _some_ people in society at the expense of the others ...)

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Note that the progressives, for example, did not achieve their many successes over the last century and more by means of ingratiatingly placative conciliation.


We give these guys too much credit for strategy, as if they were brilliant strateticians and that's why they won.  Some of them were brilliant(ish) and we can appreciate that.  But that's not why they triumphed.  Progressivism has biology on its side.  That's a pretty big advantage.  Hard to fight biology.  

Especially when you don't know you're fighting biology.  Then you just keep losing, losing, losing, and never understand why.  Welcome to the story of the right in the 20th and 21st centuries!

----------


## CaptUSA

> How can giving everyone a guaranteed basic income wean anyone from dependency? Indeed, how can it serve to do anything other than "universalize" dependency to the greatest extent possible?


I think you need to look into it a little.  The way it's structured, it actually encourages people to earn more (instead of punishing them) and removes dictates about how they can spend.  It's supposed to be a sort of seeding mechanism for the free market for those in poverty.  Watch the Friedman video I posted.  

But I agree with you (and Buckley) that political forces would ruin it faster than it was implemented.  Which would wipe out any trade-off over the current system.


*Mostly, though, I just wish people would actually learn and understand what they're talking about before they criticize it.  You would think that there must have been a reason it appealed to Hayek, Hazlitt, Friedman, Sowell, Murray, and others...  Maybe people would want to, you know,_ think_ about what they're talking about???!!

----------


## Smitty

Johnson is just using the Libertarian Party to see how many disgruntled deadbeat Bernie supporters he can get to vote for him. He knows he's not going to win. He knows that nothing he is doing will further the Libertarian message

He's just being an attention whore on the Libertarian Party's dime.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Originally Posted by Occam's Banana
> 
> 
> Note that the progressives, for example, did not achieve their many successes over the last century and more by means of ingratiatingly placative conciliation.
> 
> 
> We give these guys too much credit for strategy, as if they were brilliant strateticians and that's why they won.  Some of them were brilliant(ish) and we can appreciate that.  But that's not why they triumphed.  Progressivism has biology on its side.  That's a pretty big advantage.  Hard to fight biology.  
> 
> Especially when you don't know you're fighting biology.  Then you just keep losing, losing, losing, and never understand why.  Welcome to the story of the right in the 20th and 21st centuries!


I didn't praise progressives for being brilliant strategists.

I simply noted that they did not achieve their political objectives by trying to be unobjectionable milquetoasts.

----------


## undergroundrr

> I think you are missing the point.  Some of us feel that Gary Johnson wants to take away fundamental liberties that are very clear in the Constitutiton.  He is running for office for which he will have to swear an oath to protect and defend those rights.  If he can't do that, he should not run.  I live a fairly quiet life, and I stand to lose the freedoms that mean the most to me.  It's not abut what you want to do. It's about what you will be responsible for.


I empathize with that. For myself, the freedoms of my wife and 6 young ones depending on us come into the picture.  Some people get a good feeling from trump and believe he will protect them.  A donald "Bomb the $#@! Out of 'Em" trump presidency is not going to protect the freedoms of my kids.  It's more likely they'll end up conscripted and sent to IED-land.  trump is also horrid on civil liberties, eminent domain, health care, the Federal Reserve, etc.

Your libertarian/not libertarian determination doesn't even begin to concern me.  Johnson is way, way better in every way concerning rights and civil liberties than trumplary.  Even more importantly, a good showing for the LP would go a long way toward changing the mindset of Americans fundamentally.

----------


## CaptUSA

> Your libertarian/not libertarian determination doesn't even begin to concern me.  Johnson is way, way better in every way concerning rights and civil liberties than trumplary.  Even more importantly, a good showing for the LP would go a long way toward changing the mindset of Americans fundamentally.


I find this to be a valid argument and it is why I remain undecided.  I could write-in Paul like I've done for the last two cycles or I could throw the LP a bone.

----------


## Foreigner

It's a good thing if it replaces all other welfare on a 1-1 basis. Then there would be zero administration of it needed, so you end up with significant savings.

----------


## CaptUSA

For further reference if anyone is actually interested in why many libertarian thinkers have proposed this and similar ideas in the past:

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/welfar...-basic-income/

https://www.amazon.co.uk/In-Our-Hand.../dp/0844742236

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/welfar...-a-living-wage

http://www.libertarianism.org/column...e-basic-income

and finally, Hazlitt's rebuttal:
https://mises.org/library/fallacies-negative-income-tax




> It is true that a "negative income tax" (which is a misleading name for a tapered-off guaranteed income) would not have quite as destructive an effect on incentives as would a straight guaranteed income. In fact, some thirty years ago I put forward a similar proposal myself. This appeared in an article in The Annalist (a weekly then published by the New York Times) of January 4, 1939. I suggested what I called a "tapering subsidy," a relief payment that would be reduced by only $1 for every $2 the relief recipient earned by himself.
> 
> But I abandoned the proposal when I realized that it leads straight into a dilemma, which is precisely the dilemma of the negative income tax: either it is altogether inadequate at the lower end of the scale of self-earnings, or it is unjustifiably excessive at the higher end.


There.  Hopefully, at least now we can discuss this knowledgably instead of the stupid, knee-jerk reactions of the ill-informed.

----------


## Natural Citizen

The absolute surest, quickest, way to make Individuals or groups of Individuals economically dependent upon government (therefore subservient to government) is for government to subsidize Individuals or group of Individuals. It's a pretty basic algorithm. The means cannot be separated from the end when judged morally. The ending is the same no matter the means.

----------


## undergroundrr

> The absolute surest, quickest, way to make Individuals or groups of Individuals economically dependent upon government (therefore subservient to government) is for government to subsidize Individuals or group of Individuals. It's a pretty basic algorithm.


I agree. So are transitional programs ever advisable?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> So are transitional programs ever advisable?


Only if you also agree that it is moral and constitutional to violate the primary principles of freedom of association and the principles of private property. The principles of association exists for the purpose of  freedom of association in self-governance. And, of course, the right to property is the principal support for The Individual's right to Life and Liberty itself. 

Also, taking from others in order to achieve social reform is anti-private property. Congress is not authorized to tax and spend as it pleases just because it thinks something like this will serve the "general welfare." It needs authorization. Consent. And we must, again, reflect the principles of association in order to place that into relative, functional, context. The principles of property and freedom of association. Which I mentioned.

Federalist no 10 might be be a good read here (Jefferson's thoughts on it.) Probably the Massachusetts Resolutions, too (Otis and Adams' thoughts on it.) Unconstitutional and despotic, I think is what those two called it.

That's actually a very deep discussion. Which kind of gets me chuckling given that we've been accused of not thinking things through all the way.

The problem is that y'alls solution becomes a patent rejection of our most fundamental supporting principles of self-governance and is effectively/affectively aggressive toward the right to Life and Liberty. You just don't see it because you're focused on this "campaign" fodder. I get it. This is the nature of fragmented logic.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Dang. I just thought of a new sig line. I'm running out of space down there, though. 

*"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance." (Declaration of Independence)*

Can I get a holla back?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I didn't praise progressives for being brilliant strategists.
> 
> I simply noted that they did not achieve their political objectives by trying to be unobjectionable milquetoasts.


I didn't mean you in particular.  My point is just that they didn't really "_achieve_" their objectives.  More they fell into it.  It fell into their laps.  It was going to happen regardless.  The progression to the left is a feature of all civilizational declines, as far as we know.  From Cato (both of them) to Elagabalus to Arcadius.  Weaker, weaker, weaker.  Softer, softer, softer.  More spoiled, more spoiled, more spoiled.  That's the progression we're going through now.  The left just rode the wave, they didn't make it.

But I agree with your point, too, and am 100% in favor of not being tasteless, salt-less, bland, dry wafers. Gotta shake things up!




 This is a revolution -- yes, some feelings will be hurt!

----------


## undergroundrr

> Only if you also agree to violate the primary principles of freedom of association and the principles of private property. The principles of association exists for the purpose of  freedom of association in self-governance.
> 
> Also, taking from others in order to achieve social reform is anti-private property. Congress is not authorized to tax and spend as it pleases just because it thinks something like this will serve the "general welfare." It needs authorization. Consent. And we must, again, reflect the principles of association in order to place that into relative, functional, context. The principles of property and freedom of association. Which I mentioned.
> 
> Federalist no 10 might be be a good read here (Jefferson's thoughts on it.) Probably the Massachusetts Resolutions, too (Otis and Adams' thoughts on it.) Unconstitutional and despotic, I think is what those two called it.
> 
> That's actually a very deep discussion. Which kind of gets me chuckling given that we've been accused of not thinking things through all the way.
> 
> The problem is that y'alls solution becomes a patent rejection of our most fundamental supporting principles of self-governance and is effectively/affectively aggressive toward the right to Life and Liberty. You just don't see it because you're focused on this "campaign" fodder. I get it. This is the nature of fragmented logic.


I'm with you.  Eliminate the welfare and warfare states wholesale.  However...

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I think you need to look into it a little. [...] Watch the Friedman video I posted. [...]
> 
> *Mostly, though, I just wish people would actually learn and understand what they're talking about before they criticize it.  You would think that there must have been a reason it appealed to Hayek, Hazlitt, Friedman, Sowell, Murray, and others...  Maybe people would want to, you know,_ think_ about what they're talking about???!!


I think you need to not presume, merely because I am critical of the idea, that I am unfamiliar with it and that I "need to look into it a little" (or that I have failed to "understand what they're talking about"). Nor have I given any cause to suggest that I do not "want to, you know,_ think_ about what they're talking about???!!" ...

This is not a new or obscure issue. I have seen the Friedman video before, as well as other presentations by him on the subject. Over the all-too-many years and in a variety of venues, I have encountered the thoughts of Hazlitt, Murray and others on the matter (including those of the left- and so-called "thick" libertarians who have offered more recent but lesser-known expositions of the same general idea). I have also encountered and examined a number of "second hand" analyses of the idea (both "pro" and "con"), and various rebuttals to it offered by Rothbard, Hazlitt (again), Block, Woods, _et al._




> The way it's structured, it actually encourages people to earn more (instead of punishing them) and removes dictates about how they can spend. It's supposed to be a sort of seeding mechanism for the free market for those in poverty.


And that supposition is wrong. You cannot motivate people to earn by granting them what they have not earned.*** Human motivations simply do not work that way. You always get more of what you subsidize - and if you subsidize "not earning" (which can only be done at the expense of those who _do_ earn, which will, in turn, serve to further disincentivize _them_ from earning, too), then _ceteris paribus_, you will, on net, get _more_ "not earning," _not_ less. (Fiddling with contingent details, such as by "remov[ing] dictates about how [recipients] can spend," would do nothing to alleviate this dynamic - and if anything, that particular example would actually reinforce it by increasing the dole's utility.)

Things like "universal basic incomes" and "basic income guarantees" and etc. are essentially just unemployment benefits without the unemployment requirement. They will no more "encourage people to earn more" than unemployment benefits do. Just the opposite - _especially_ on the margin, where their effects will most perniciously foster _more_ dependency, _not_ less ... (except, ironically, within the theoretical realm of just the sort of "unconstrained" vision to which you referred earlier ...)



*** With regard to Friedman's "Negative Income Tax" in particular, this applies to those who would receive net disbursements - that is, to those who would receive "refunds" greater than what, if anything, they paid. That is the relevant margin. (In the case of those who would _not_ receive such disbursements under Friedman's plan, but who would only get a reduction in tax liability, his scheme is just an elaborate tax break mechanism, and is not essentially different from any other tax break, except perhaps in its complexity.)

----------


## Occam's Banana

> [...] and finally, Hazlitt's rebuttal:
> https://mises.org/library/fallacies-negative-income-tax
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				It is true that a "negative income tax" (which is a misleading name for a tapered-off guaranteed income) would not have quite as destructive an effect on incentives as would a straight guaranteed income. [...]
> ...


Hazlitt's "Fallacies of the Negative Income Tax" is one of my favorites on the subject.

And Hazlitt's statement above illustrates why talk of being "open" to "NITs" and "UBIs" and "BIGs" is so foolish.

_We do not currently have_ "a tapered-off guaranteed income."

_We do not currently have_ "a straight guaranteed income."

Given that either would have a "destructive ... effect on incentives," why should the adoption of either be considered a positive thing?

Saying that one is not as bad as the other is irrelevant to that question - as noted, _we do not currently have either one_.

So why in the world should we be "open" to adding either of them to the already destructive mess that we _do_ currently have?

----------


## osan

> We give these guys too much credit for strategy


Count me out of that crowd.  They aren't called "useful idiots", with the emphasis on IDIOTS, for no reason.

But they had a few exceedingly shrewd teachers such as Alinsky, Cloward, and Piven.  All that was needed by the real strategists was to convince their ever-so-eager lap stooges to accept without question the validity of the basic premises of the progressives, abusing language most cunningly such that their dullard tools took the bait including hook, line, and sinker.

No great cadre of eville geniuses need sit in dark, smoke-filled rooms licking their chops while they hatch their endlessly complex and subtle plans for world domination.  All they need do is get the basic tactics down, tailor them such that human proclivity takes over as a matter of second nature, and get the children on board with anger, envy, outrage, and a synthesized sense of the injustice of it all in a context of being owed a safe and peaceful world.  The kids do the rest.  Why are Theye successful?  Because the tolerances are very low, which is to say the range of acceptable results is so broad as to make failure nearly impossible.  Increased ENTROPY is Theire goal and loosing vast hordes of self-absorbed, entitled, ignorant, ragingly pissed off brats upon the world willy-nilly is virtually guaranteed to bring you success, ESPECIALLY in a world where "government" has taken the policy position of preventing those whom the ill-bred little bastards attack from defending themselves.  And even in those cases where someone whops one of the little $#@!ers in the head with a 2x4, Theye STILL win all around because entropy has still been increased.

The central goal for Themme is the destruction of order, which is in some measure part and parcel with freedom.  Theye do not want your freedom, so they must perforce want order also to be disrupted.  Chaos is the stage setting Theye seek so that when the time is right the men with guns can be sent in with orders to take no prisoners, so to speak.  Chaos weakens the meaner.  Couple that with trained-in FAIL (Fear Avarice Ignorance Lassitude) and the average man is reduced to a red-hot mess when his cozy, familiar synthetic world is crushed by cold, hard reality.  He will have no idea what to do and will be putty in the tyrant's hand.

The road to destruction is easily transformed into a super-highway once you achieve a few simple goals.  Those have all been achieved.  It is now only a matter of deciding when the time is right to spring the trap.  I could be wrong, but it seems we are rapidly approaching the threshold of that event.

I could be wrong on any single point, or even all of it.  All I know is that were I in Theire shoes, this is how I would proceed.  The people would believe that the events were organic in origin and would naturally look to Themme for answers and salvation.  It is the perfect set up and we are making it easy as pie for Themme.




> Some of them were brilliant(ish)


Perhaps, but I see them as merely cunning.  The two look very similar, but mesuspects they are not quite the same.




> Progressivism has biology on its side.  That's a pretty big advantage.  Hard to fight biology.


Now THIS is a brilliant insight and it is absolutely and unarguably true.  That is why ENTROPY wins the day.

Pony up the rep, cheap bastardos.  Helmuth earned his keep today, and then some.




> Especially when you don't know you're fighting biology.  Then you just keep losing, losing, losing, and never understand why.  Welcome to the story of the right in the 20th and 21st centuries!


Somewhere in Sun Tzu's "The Art Of War" he astutely observes that the best/most effective war is that which nobody is even aware is going on.  It is quiet in the most important ways.  The dragon appears as a playful, cute, and cuddly kitten, but removes your spleen as you hug it, pet it, and call it George.

----------


## undergroundrr

> So why in the world should we be "open" to adding either of them to the already destructive mess that we _do_ currently have?


Is the discussion about adding it to the top or about replacing the current welfare system with it? I was assuming the latter.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Actually, the tyrannical abuse of the power to tax was the main thing that provoked the American Revolution in 1776. If we go by that model, then....you know...Heh. Carpe Diem, mofos! That's actually where I start to give osan's remedies a little more consideration as to their logic. The remedy is justifiable by that model. Because tyranny through taxation is absolutely the fastest way to elevate government over Man. And it must be opposed and safeguarded against at its very mention.

----------


## osan

> *Mostly, though, I just wish people would actually learn and understand what they're talking about before they criticize it.  You would think that there must have been a reason it appealed to Hayek, Hazlitt, Friedman, Sowell, Murray, and others...  Maybe people would want to, you know,_ think_ about what they're talking about???!!


I have thought about it.  Carefully.

It is pure FAIL.  Why?  Because it fails to take into account human nature in the same way as does Marxism and its equally bankrupt offshoots.  Oh the workers' communist paradise... nobody goes hungry, nobody is homeless, everybody has food and healthcare and condoms...  Sounds great to piles of people.  It was not, however, so great for all the people butchered under those circumstances, nor for the great hordes who existed, toiled, and died in the misery of the slave.

The fantasizers are the most despicable of all cowards.  They concoct or otherwise accept a demented fairly tale of flawlessly perfect human world where, if only the basic needs of people are met, we evolve as one into a species of saints, free of envy, avarice, hatred, fear, and greed.  Such people ought not be running loosely among us, but rather should be kept in locked cages where they can do little to no harm.

----------


## osan

> Actually, the tyrannical abuse of the power to tax was the main thing that provoked the American Revolution in 1776. If we go by that model, then....you know...Heh. Carpe Diem, mofos! That's actually where I start to give osan's remedies a little more consideration as to their logic. The remedy is justifiable by that model. Because tyranny through taxation is absolutely the fastest way to elevate government over Man. And it must be opposed and safeguarded against at its very mention.


Let me be clear, lest anyone misunderstand: I don't WANT these "remedies", but I see no way around them if we really want our freedom.

I would make a great progressive, were it not for the pesky part of me that stubbornly refuses to allow the rest to give in to the forceful allure of my "feelings".  I want no less than any retarded progressive (department of redundancy department seal) for the world to be one giant safe space; where everybody is sucking everybody else's dicks and it is fun-squirty time every minute of every day.  Nothing would please me more than to see the world _that_ happy and safe and sane.  But it's not.  It is hard, cold, and endlessly dangerous in so many ways that, were the meaner to grasp the fullness of it, he would for the first time in his miserably worthless existence acquire the sense and the courage to eat his own bullet.

----------


## osan

> Weaker, weaker, weaker.  Softer, softer, softer.  More spoiled, more spoiled, more spoiled.  That's the progression we're going through now.  The left just rode the wave, they didn't make it.


Valid point and good observation.  However, I would modify that to say that they didn't just ride the wave.  They augmented it, and rather greatly at that.  The technologies of men have been employed to great effect to amp up the rush toward chaos.




> But I agree with your point, too, and am 100% in favor of not being tasteless, salt-less, bland, dry wafers. Gotta shake things up!


And there is where yet another shrewd aspect of the progressive stands out.  They act like no milquetoast, as Banana Boy points out.  Yet, they go into $#@!-storm conniptions if the other side emulates their behavior, screeching "racist", "sexist", and so forth until the enemy is running for all he is worth, tail between his legs.

You have to hand it to these bastards for brass.




> This is a revolution -- yes, some feelings will be hurt!


Gwyn-a-hafta-be mo'n jus fillins gittin hoit.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Let me be clear, lest anyone misunderstand: I don't WANT these "remedies", but I see no way around them if we really want our freedom.


Yeah, I know. But the fundamental truth of the matter is that tyranny through taxation will (and should) always be considered and treated as just cause for prompt, remedial, effective action by those who are worthy of being free men. Those who are worthy of Individual Liberty and its heritage as it relates to our particular history. Now, I underlined what I said here about being worthy. Some may not understand that and take it the wrong way. Determined men are worthy men. And that, too, is a deep discussion if we want to go into it. You'll likely understand why I stress that.It goes directly back to the American Revolution of 1776 and why that all went down in the first place.   




> I would make a great progressive, were it not for the pesky part of me that stubbornly refuses to allow the rest to give in to the forceful allure of my "feelings".  I want no less than any retarded progressive (department of redundancy department seal) for the world to be one giant safe space; where everybody is sucking everybody else's dicks and it is fun-squirty time every minute of every day.  Nothing would please me more than to see the world _that_ happy and safe and sane.  But it's not.  It is hard, cold, and endlessly dangerous in so many ways that, were the meaner to grasp the fullness of it, he would for the first time in his miserably worthless existence acquire the sense and the courage to eat his own bullet.


Mm. Yeah. For some reason it is becoming popular that people think that they have a right t ohave their feelings addressed. That's something else, too. We've mentioned cultural Marxism in context. Albeit in passing.

But like the holster theory. People need to see Liberty things. Liberty dialogue is no different in that regard. It, too, needs to be heard and read.

----------


## osan

> I think you are missing the point.  Some of us feel that Gary Johnson wants to take away fundamental liberties that are very clear in the Constitutiton.  He is running for office for which he will have to swear an oath to protect and defend those rights.  If he can't do that, he should not run.  I live a fairly quiet life, and I stand to lose the freedoms that mean the most to me.  It's not abut what you want to do. It's about what you will be responsible for.


There has to be some truth to this. Just look at the fup-nut he has running with him.  The man is just this side of a bald-faced communist.  Wants to disarm everyone.  

Him AND the dildo he rode in on.  No copulating way.

----------


## osan

> Yeah, I know. But the fundamental truth of the matter is that tyranny through taxation will (and should) always be considered and treated as just cause for prompt, remedial, effective action by those who are worthy of being free men. Those who are worthy of Individual Liberty and its heritiage as it relates to our particular history. Now, I underlined what I said here about being worthy. Some may not understand that and take it the wrong way. Determined men are worthy men. And that, too, is a deep discussion if we want to go into it. You'll likely understand why I stress that.


Perhaps it is.. AHEM... WORHTY of its own thread?

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Is the discussion about adding it to the top or about replacing the current welfare system with it? I was assuming the latter.


As I noted before (emphasis added):




> [W]hat is being "traded off" with what ("reasonably" or otherwise)? *The idea is supposed to be that a "UBI" would replace current welfare schemes, rather than serve as an addendum to them. But if it ever actually came to it, I see no reason to think that the former would happen, and no reason to think that the latter would not.* And in any case, the "UBI" is every bit as much an "unconstrained vision" as any of those other welfare schemes have always been. A "universal basic income" cannot sensibly be said to be a "constrained vision," regardless of what else it might be considered in relation to.


If we are to be "open" to otherwise unacceptable schemes like UBIs or UBI-variants on the pretext that such proposals would abolish (rather than extend) what we already have, then why speak of making such substitutions at all? Just abolish and have done with it.

As Thomas Sowell (one of the authorities invoked in this thread) said in an analogous context:

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Valid point and good observation.  However, I would modify that to say that they didn't just ride the wave.  They augmented it, and rather greatly at that.


 Well right, absolutely.  Every choice of every individual either augments the trend or curtails it.  The "collective" society is nothing but lots of individuals.  None of us are slaves to biology.  None of us are helpless before some "fate".  We always have the option before us to _buck_ the trend, and to _fight_ evil, Cato the Younger-style.

I choose to fight.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Perhaps it is.. AHEM... WORHTY of its own thread?



Eh. Probably. But we get back to "feelings." And the truth stings. People don't want to hear the truth. The truth isn't pretty. It isn't convenient. The truth demands responsibility. And responsibility demands a long, hard look at the self. Sour grapes and all of that happy horse pucky come into play.

----------


## CaptUSA

Ok, let me try this a different way...

Try comparing this welfare system to what we have* now*.  Not to a Utopian system.  To the current system.  It's incredibly easy to dismiss this idea when comparing it to NO welfare, but that's not what we have.  But if the left is so bent on having a welfare system, this gives them one that is more effective, costs less, and gives people more freedom.  Again - more freedom than what we have now.  Not what we would have in a Utopian world.  

Anyone care to do the comparison??  Because, as Friedman would say, "can you defend the current system over this system?"

----------


## Natural Citizen

I contend that potential danger (not just present danger) is the crux of the issue. But, again, I'm looking at it from a purely fundamental perspective. The potential danger is the reason for constitutional safeguards in the first place. Then again, I agree that what we have isn't constitutional either. And this goes back to what osan was saying about the nature of men. I don't know if it was this topic or another one that he mentioned that bit of reality but it's true. It doesn't matter if were comparing the two. The end result remains the same. The means cannot logistically be separated from the ending. You're left with a government over Man scenario either way. It's still contrary to the principles of property and association. And patently aggressive toward them. And even other fundamentals that we haven't mentioned here.

----------


## CaptUSA

> I contend that potential danger (not just present danger) is the crux of the issue. But, again, I'm looking at it from a purely fundamental perspective. The potential danger is the reason for constitutional safeguards. Then again, I agree that wha twe have isn't constitutional either. And this goes back to what osan was saying about the nature of men. I don't know if it was this topic or another one but it's true. It doesn't matter if were comparing the two. The end result remains the same. You're left wit ha government over Man scenario.


Anyone else care to try?  (told you it wasn't going to be easy)

----------


## Natural Citizen

Well. I provided the answer in the most fundamental way. Ultimately, it is the only true answer (well...that and muskets). You're free to dismiss it. But I am not of the view that principles can be accepted and rejected piece-meal. They must be accepted as an Indivisible whole wit hit's moral foundation if we're truly looking at it from a position of securing Individual Liberty. Principles define Liberty. Not policy.

----------


## osan

> I choose to fight.


Hear hear.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Yeah, me too. Carpe Diem, boys.

----------


## osan

> Eh. Probably. But we get back to "feelings." And the truth stings. People don't want to hear the truth. The truth isn't pretty. It isn't convenient. The truth demands responsibility. And responsibility demands a long, hard look at the self. Sour grapes and all of that happy horse pucky come into play.


Which leads us back to the functional nature of the contemporary average man.  http://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com...cessities.html

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Which leads us back to the functional nature of the contemporary average man.  http://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com...cessities.html


Hm. I'll read that all the way through in a bit.  I have to jump off here and make something to eat. But if  the functional nature of the contemporary average man is any indication of its contents it ought to be a good read. That's actually a well written blog. I've read through it before. Just here and there.

----------


## CaptUSA

> Well. I provided the answer in the most fundamental way. Ultimately, it is the only true answer (well...that and muskets). You're free to dismiss it. But I am not of the view that principles can be accepted and rejected piece-meal. They must be accepted as an Indivisible whole wit hit's moral foundation if we're truly looking at it from a position of securing Individual Liberty. Principles define Liberty. Not policy.


I'm not dismissing it; I'm making a point.

While the majority of the country spends their time bickering over which candidate will grow the current system and which one will grow the current system an infinitesimally amount slower, WE - in here - spend our time arguing over which system is nearest Utopia! 

Don't you see that we are always bound to fail?  We can never defend ANY system against each person's depiction of what Utopia means to them.  I was member of the LP for 20 years, but gave up on them years ago.  When Ron Paul came around, I changed my registration.  This is the problem!  This is the circular firing squad!

We compare ourselves to perfection - not to the status quo.  Yeah, that gives us the feelz in an internet forum, but it doesn't do us any good in reality.  I don't like the idea of a guaranteed basic income either, but compared to the current system, it's $#@!ing fantastic!!!!  

So then... does ANYONE want to compare Johnson's plan to the status quo?  Or just to something that doesn't exist now?!

----------


## bunklocoempire

> All anyone should need to know about carbon credits:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				Managing emissions is one of the fastest-growing segments in financial services in the City of London with a market estimated to be worth about 30 billion in 2007. Louis Redshaw, head of environmental markets at Barclays Capital predicts that "Carbon will be the world's biggest commodity market, and it could become the world's biggest market overall."[16]


Yep.  It's already a done deal, _time to hitch all wagons_ as they like to do.

If by chance some would like to know more on the subject... Soros is a pretty good authority on the benefits of mandetory   _algoreism_.

The Corbett Report Episode 113 - Meet George Soros
It's all good, but following @ 23:35 with Soros and Rose's grave concerns and solutions offered, _you KNOW this is the ONLY plan._
Totally transparent, _but not_.

----------  

 500 years later, we have the atheists selling indulgences to atheists so as not to offend _Gaia_, and to help their fellow man transition to...?
   Watch out for those black holes, Gary.

----------


## CaptUSA

> 500 years later, we have the atheists selling indulgences to atheists so as not to offend _Gaia_, and to help their fellow man transition to...?
>    Watch out for those black holes, Gary.


You're confusing carbon credits with the tax Gary's talking about.  He wasn't talking cap and trade.  But yeah, still unsavory.

----------


## osan

> I'm not dismissing it; I'm making a point.
> 
> While the majority of the country spends their time bickering over which candidate will grow the current system and which one will grow the current system an infinitesimally amount slower, WE - in here - spend our time arguing over which system is nearest Utopia! 
> 
> Don't you see that we are always bound to fail?  We can never defend ANY system against each person's depiction of what Utopia means to them.  I was member of the LP for 20 years, but gave up on them years ago.  When Ron Paul came around, I changed my registration.  This is the problem!  This is the circular firing squad!
> 
> We compare ourselves to perfection - not to the status quo.  Yeah, that gives us the feelz in an internet forum, but it doesn't do us any good in reality.  I don't like the idea of a guaranteed basic income either, but compared to the current system, it's $#@!ing fantastic!!!!  
> 
> So then... does ANYONE want to compare Johnson's plan to the status quo?  Or just to something that doesn't exist now?!


Methinks your use of "Utopia" is ill-advised - though perhaps I am mistaken.

I have no desire for utopia, which for me is a vision of pure hell.  I want a free world, not a utopian one.  I want the challenges of life so long as I am free to meet them in my own ways.

Utopia is just another collectivist, centrally planned hell hole that ignores human praxeological reality.  Without the threat of death or gross dismemberment present at all times, people quickly forget themselves and adopt God complex mentality where they think they are somehow entitled to, or are at least immune from the consequences of mistreating others.  I say that the potential for death should be standing at everyone's shoulders when they interact with others.  That does NOT mean we have to be in constant ripping fear.  Death is a man's best advisor for he keeps a man right-sized and respectful of those things that merit respect.

Imagine how different even schools would be if children knew that any misbehavior on their parts might result in a merciless ass-whooping.  That is missing now and look at how the little darlings tend to comport themselves.

It is a tough but beautiful world out there and people are choosing to shrink from the common challenges like sissy-men.  It is not just disgusting to behold, it is self-destructive.

----------


## euphemia

> Ok, let me try this a different way...
> 
> Try comparing this welfare system to what we have* now*.  Not to a Utopian system.  To the current system.  It's incredibly easy to dismiss this idea when comparing it to NO welfare, but that's not what we have.  But if the left is so bent on having a welfare system, this gives them one that is more effective, costs less, and gives people more freedom.  Again - more freedom than what we have now.  Not what we would have in a Utopian world.  
> 
> Anyone care to do the comparison??  Because, as Friedman would say, "can you defend the current system over this system?"


I can't defend either one.  Any time there is a transfer of wealth, it never goes down, it always goes up.  It still means I work to pay government for over half the year.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Which leads us back to the functional nature of the contemporary average man.  http://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com...cessities.html


That was a darned good blog post there. In fact, it reminded me of something. Which I added to my sig-line there at the top of the other quotes

I would note, though, that Christian ethics are counterintuitively broad given that we have so many different "congregations" (under a single banner of Christianity) who have organized to kind of re-engineer Natural Law to suit their own social/political indulgences/preferences. So, then, morality, itself, has been broadly rejected given that it has been tailored to the whims of anti-moral men. Again, we get into legalities versus lawfulnness. 

I'll tell you, man, there's likely about a dozen threads that could be made out of this one thread alone.

Good stuff, though, man.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Ok, let me try this a different way...
> 
> Try comparing this welfare system to what we have* now*.  Not to a Utopian system.  To the current system. [...] Not what we would have in a Utopian world.


I'm starting to think there needs to be an equivalent to Godwin's Law with respect to invocations of "Utopianism" ...




> It's incredibly easy to dismiss this idea when comparing it to NO welfare, but that's not what we have.  But if the left is so bent on having a welfare system, this gives them one that is more effective, costs less, and gives people more freedom.  Again - more freedom than what we have now. [...]
> 
> Anyone care to do the comparison??  Because, as Friedman would say, "can you defend the current system over this system?"


I can't "defend the current system over this system." So what?

Why should I want to defend either with respect to the other? For what purpose, other than as a purely theoretical exercise?

Can you defend Soviet Communism over "the current system?"
No? Then is that to be taken as any kind of warrant for "the current system?"
No? Then why should an inability to "defend the current system over this system" be taken as any kind of warrant for "this system?"

We do not presently have any kind of non-academic choice between "this idea" and "what we have *now*" - _and the prospect that we ever will is not one bit less "Utopian" than the prospect for a "NO welfare" scenario supposedly is_. If the latter prospect is to be dismissed as unrealistically "Utopian," then so is the former - and if the former is _not_ to be so dismissed, then neither is the latter.

As I already pointed out in post #132, if you're going to be "Utopian" enough to seriously entertain the prospect of abolishing "what we have *now*" and replacing it with "this idea," then why not just stop at abolishing "what we have *now*?" And if catering to what "the left is so bent on having" is to be the excuse for being "open" to "this idea," then we're just going to end up with the worst of _both_ "this idea" _and_ "what we have *now*." Thus, the question of whether "this idea" is relatively "better" than "what we have *now*" is either academic (at best) or dangerously counterproductive ... ("Look! Even the libertarians agree with us that there needs to be a 'guaranteed basic income' ...")

----------


## osan

> That was a darned good blog post there. In fact, it reminded me of something. Which I added to my sig-line there at the top of the other quotes
> 
> I would note, though, that Christian ethics are counterintuitively broad given that we have so many different "congregations" (under a single banner of Christianity) who have organized to kind of re-engineer Natural Law to suit their own social/political indulgences/preferences. So, then, morality, itself, has been broadly rejected given that it has been tailored to the whims of anti-moral men. Again, we get into legalities versus lawfulnness. 
> 
> I'll tell you, man, there's likely about a dozen threads that could be made out of this one thread alone.
> 
> Good stuff, though, man.


Muchas gracias.  They are my effort to understand things with the hope that others will gain something of value as well.

If you think those threads are worthwhile, by all means fire 'em up.

----------


## osan

> I'm starting to think there needs to be an equivalent to Godwin's Law with respect to invocations of "Utopianism"


Banana's Law:




> If an online discussion revolving around social or political ideals goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Utopia

----------


## presence

*Georgism*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
*Georgism* (also known as *geoism*[1] and *geonomics*) is an economic philosophy holding that the economic value derived from land, including natural resources and natural opportunities, should belong equally to all residents of a community, but that people own the value that they create themselves.[2][3][4]  The Georgist paradigm offers solutions to social and ecological  problems, relying on principles of land rights and public finance which  attempt to integrate economic efficiency with social justice.[5][6]
 Georgism is concerned with the distribution of economic rent caused by natural monopolies, pollution, and the control of commons, including title over natural resources and other contrived privileges (e.g., intellectual property). Any natural resource, which is inherently limited in supply, can generate economic rent, but the classical and most significant example of 'land monopoly' involves the extraction of common ground rent from valuable urban locations. Georgists argue that taxing economic rent is efficient, fair, and equitable. The main Georgist policy tool is a tax assessed on land value.  Georgists argue that revenues from a land value tax (LVT) can reduce or  eliminate existing taxes on labor and investment that are unfair and  inefficient. Some Georgists also advocate for the return of surplus  public revenue back to the people through a basic income or citizen's dividend.
 Economists since Adam Smith have observed that, unlike other taxes, a public levy on land value does not cause economic inefficiency.[7] A land value tax is often said to have progressive tax  effects, in that it is paid primarily by the wealthy (the landowners),  and it cannot be passed on to tenants, workers, or users of land.[8][9] Land value capture would reduce economic inequality,  increase wages, remove incentives to misuse real estate, and reduce the  vulnerability that economies face from credit and property bubbles.[10]
 The philosophical basis of Georgism dates back to several early proponents such as John Locke,[11] Baruch Spinoza,[12] and Thomas Paine,[13] but the concept of gaining public revenues from natural resource privileges was widely popularized by the economist and social reformer Henry George and his first book, _Progress and Poverty_, published in 1879.
 Georgist ideas were popular and influential in the late 19th and early 20th century.[14]  Political parties, institutions and communities were founded based on  Georgist principles during that time. Early followers of Henry George's  economic philosophy called themselves _Single Taxers_, associated  with the idea of raising public revenue exclusively from land and  privileges, but the term is now considered a misnomer because Georgists  usually support multiple mechanisms for government funding. In classical  and Georgist economics, the term 'land' is defined as all locations,  natural opportunities, resources, physical forces, and government  privileges over economic domains, which is closely related to the  concept of commons.[15] _Georgism_ was coined later, and some prefer the term _geoism_ or _geonomics_ to distinguish their beliefs from those of Henry George.[16][17]

----------


## William Tell

> *GJ:*  Well, that it does exist and that it is man-caused. I think a great  example of the free market at work in addressing carbon emission --  were all demanding less carbon emission -- is the coal industry. Obama  has not brought an end to the coal industry. The free market has brought  an end to the coal industry. The free market with its pricing of coal  right now, and I didnt look at the paper before I walked in, but I lost  a whole lot of money in coal. I didnt think there was any way that  coal was going to actually be bankrupted. But it has been bankrupted.
> 
> 
> The  price of coal today is $9. Well, all the marginal coal that costs $11  to mine, you cant make that up with volume. So all the marginal coal  assets are gone. So whats left, and right now weve got 37% of the grid  is coal. Well, all of that coal is coming from Wyoming -- and I dont  want to say all of it. The coal thats easy to mine, that actually can  be mined at $8.25, where a profit can be made -- thats whats fueling  the 37% load. But nobody is building a new coal plant when natural gas  is much cheaper than even the low point of coal right now. Effectively,  coal is bankrupt. Theres not going to be any new coal plants built.  Its not going to happen given what I think is the free market.
> 
> *Im open also to the notion of a carbon tax. That it does have an  impact, that it ends up being revenue-neutral. Im not looking at this  as a revenue generator, as much as there are costs associated with,  there are health and safety issues with carbon.*


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/edito...nap-story.html

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> *Georgism*


Well, are we to take it from your attempt to primer us that you are a supporter of Georgism,  @presence?

----------


## presence

> Well, are we to take it from your attempt to primer us that you are a supporter of Georgism,  @presence?


Georgism proper, no.  

 I was moreso asserting "which branch of libertarianism" Johnson might find scholars willing to support his assertion to tax carbon. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

I am a supporter of anarcho-georgism as a means to assert one's claim to property in a free market.   That is, if I pay someone to mow my grass while I'm away from my vacation home I'm asserting my possession through good will with the locals; averting adverse possession claims and squatting. 

With regard to pollution I think a good way to offset negative externalities is through charitable giving to the community; I suspect upon implementation of practices which produce positive externalities, the individuals in the community will be more likely to respect your property rights to waste streams.

----------


## PierzStyx

> So Friedman, Hayek, Sowell...  They lack the fundamentals, too?
> 
> Henry Hazlitt, too.
> 
> Sorry folks.  If we're going to start ousting people based on this, we're really going to lose most of our top economists.



Friedman wasn't a libertarian. But economists in general aren't political. They're economists. Politicians end up adopting these economists as if they are their own. But they aren't.

Hayek wasn't either. He was an economist. Especially early in his career he thought there might be room for some government action, something seen in The Road to Serfdom. But he eventually came to the conclusion that government shouldn't be involved.

And I can accept the ideas of an economist without buying into their politics when they DO get political. Thus I can be a free market supporter without agreeing with every idea von Hayek ever had about government.

On the other hand, I cannot support a politician without empowering them to do everything they want, including violate my liberty at will. So no thank you. I'd rather not have a Johnson up my arse.

----------

