Amash denounces armed protests in Michigan

[devil21]

Wait, people here still care about this clown?

We learned Amash's true loyalties when he threw his support in the shredding of the Constitution, and more importantly our god given natural rights, in an effort to destroy a politician he simply didn't like.

I assume you think the WWE is real too right?

 

[Krugminator2]

Apparently,, just another petty Authoritarian..

Libertarian or classical liberal is what you are looking for. Courts, police and a military are essential parts of a free society. The absence of them is not freedom. It is mob tyranny.

Anachism is not libertarianism.

 

[devil21]

Libertarian or classical liberal is what you are looking for. Courts, police and a military are essential parts of a free society. The absence of them is not freedom. It is mob tyranny.

Anachism is not libertarianism.

What passes for courts, police and military today sure isn't an essential part of a "free" society. The notion that this is a "free" society is laughable to anyone with any understanding of how the legal system really works. Corporate contract violation enforcers enforcing victimless crimes, for example, are not what free societies require.

 

[pcosmar]

Anachism is not libertarianism.

Authoritarianism is the Polar opposite of Liberty.

Police are only needed to enforce BAD LAW.

Good people enforce natural Laws by course,,

They are totally unnecessary for a Free society..

 

[Krugminator2]

Police are only needed to enforce BAD LAW.

Good people enforce natural Laws by course,,

They are totally unnecessary for a Free society..

The entirety of world history indicates that what you say is wrong.

Mob justice is not justice. It is jungle rule. Your worldview would reduce to human life to the level of wild animals. The people who survive and rise to the top would do so not through merit and voluntary trade, but only though brute force or with the help of a gang.

 

[Krugminator2]

What passes for courts, police and military today sure isn't an essential part of a "free" society. The notion that this is a "free" society is laughable to anyone with any understanding of how the legal system really works. Corporate contract violation enforcers enforcing victimless crimes, for example, are not what free societies require.

There is a lot wrong with the legal system.

But the United States is infinitely freer than Somalia, which is what you would have without police. No police = Complete loss of freedom. Unless of course you think living the life of a wild animal in the jungle is freedom.

 

[PAF]

The entirety of world history indicates that what you say is wrong.

Mob justice is not justice. It is jungle rule. Your worldview would reduce to human life to the level of wild animals. The people who survive and rise to the top would do so not through merit and voluntary trade, but only though brute force or with the help of a gang.

Bush Sr, when promising a New World Order, also said... “not the law of the jungle”:



Your posts have been troubling, to say the least.

 

[Krugminator2]

Bush Sr, when promising a New World Order, also said... “not the law of the jungle”:


Your posts have been troubling, to say the least.

You know who also talks like that? Actual liberty loving people. Sorry, I am not an anti-government collectivist. Anarchists are as evil as Communists.

If a society provided no organized protection against force, it would compel every citizen to go about armed, to turn his home into a fortress, to shoot any strangers approaching his door—or to join a protective gang of citizens who would fight other gangs, formed for the same purpose, and thus bring about the degeneration of that society into the chaos of gang-rule, i.e., rule by brute force, into perpetual tribal warfare of prehistorical savages.

The use of physical force—even its retaliatory use—cannot be left at the discretion of individual citizens......—the use of force against one man cannot be left to the arbitrary decision of another.

Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: . . . a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government.

Picture a band of strangers marching down Main Street, submachine guns at the ready. When confronted by the police, the leader of the band announces: “Me and the boys are only here to see that justice is done, so you have no right to interfere with us.” According to the “libertarian” anarchists, in such a confrontation the police are morally bound to withdraw, on pain of betraying the rights of self-defense and free trade.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anarchism.html

 

[PAF]

You know who also talks like that? Actual liberty loving people. Sorry, I am not an anti-government collectivist. Anarchists are as evil as Communists.

“Anti-government” and “collectivist” are complete contrary to one another.

See ya on the other side. Or, maybe I won’t ;-)

 

[Krugminator2]

“Anti-government” and “collectivist” are complete contrary to one another.

Someone smarter and more important to freedom than you or me disagrees.

Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs.

All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies who are anarchists instead of leftist collectivists; but anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet libertarians combine capitalism and anarchism.

They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. Anarchists are the scum of the intellectual world

http://aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-ideas/ayn-rand-q-on-a-on-libertarianism.html

 

[RonPaulRocksMyWorld]

One thing I learned from the Virginia rally a few months ago is that armed protesters don't get shot, tazed, sprayed, or shut down. The cops pretty much just let them be because they don't want to force an armed conflict (cops would probably lose).

And while I too prefer not having armed people at a protest, the reality is that in many cases it is now necessary to protect oneself from government abuse. Justin's messaging is wrong and once again throws his base under the bus.

At this point he may not even get the LP nomination.

John McAfee should get the nomination over Amash. One is a real Libertarian and the other...well I'm not going to resort to name calling. If only we could convince Dr. Ron Paul to run again, can't really use the "he's too old" argument this time around.

 

[CCTelander]

Libertarian or classical liberal is what you are looking for. Courts, police and a military are essential parts of a free society. The absence of them is not freedom. It is mob tyranny.

Anachism is not libertarianism.

Libertarian principles, if followed to their logical conclusion, lead one ineluctably to statelessness. It's an inarguable fact whether it pleases you or not.

Libertarianism = anarchism.

 

[CCTelander]

“Anti-government” and “collectivist” are complete contrary to one another.

See ya on the other side. Or, maybe I won’t ;-)

You're talking to a guy who thinks gun ownership should require a license. 'Nuff said.

 

[Krugminator2]

Libertarian principles, if followed to their logical conclusion, lead one ineluctably to statelessness. It's an inarguable fact whether it pleases you or not.

Libertarianism = anarchism.

Given that anarchism can't work and results in a total loss of freedom, it is hard to see how it is logical.

 

[PAF]

Someone smarter and more important to freedom than you or me disagrees.

What makes you believe she is much smarter than me?

While I like and respect Ayn Rand, I do not agree with her 100%. Recall that she and Ron Paul differ and she shunned him at one point.

I am a sovereign individual, which seems by the wayside around here anymore, I can and will promote free markets and abide by the NAP on my own.

Btw, my sig is Ayn’s, which I hold to my heart.

Maybe check out Larken Rose. He and I see eye to eye ;-)

 

[PAF]

You're talking to a guy who thinks gun ownership should require a license. 'Nuff said.

Yep.

 

[CCTelander]

Given that anarchism can't work and results in a total loss of freedom, it is hard to see how it is logical.

Wow. Your totally unsupported statements presented as gospel truth have convinced me. Who do I talk to about converting to Randian objectiveism? Not.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

amash is worse than Hillary because Amash is a parasite who has no allegiance except money .

 

[PAF]

amash is worse than Hillary because Amash is a parasite who has no allegiance except money .

Fixed it :o

 

[Matt Collins]

John McAfee should get the nomination over Amash. One is a real Libertarian and the other...well I'm not going to resort to name calling. If only we could convince Dr. Ron Paul to run again, can't really use the "he's too old" argument this time around.

uhhh..... Justin does have credibility since he has been a Congressman for X years, McAfee does not have credibility.

Last time around the LP needed McAfee's name recognition, Austin's marketing skills, and Gary's credibility. If they were able to merge those 3 it would have been a great candidate.