JD Vance on limited government and libertarianism:

[jmdrake]

jmdrake..

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?567363-Trump-picks-Ohio-senator-J-D-Vance-as-VP-candidate&p=7242594&viewfull=1#post7242594

Thanks! Here's my response.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...VP-candidate&p=7242793&viewfull=1#post7242793

I'm more concerned about JD Vance's connection to Peter Thiel. I think Peter Thiel with his CIA funded Palantir data mining software is at least as great of a threat to freedom as anything Bill Gates is doing. And yes I know Peter donated to Ron Paul in 2012.

 

[LibertyEagle]

If you think restricting porn is big government, or voting to give federal firefighters money when our federal lands are burning, I can't help you.

He's right about the problems with so-called libertarianism, and not every use of government authority is "big government", or has to cost money to do.

Have you checked recently how much of the U.S. is “federal land”? There is a ton! That is my issue. There should be very, very little federal land.

Currently, they are allowing illegal aliens to camp on and destroy it anyway.

‘https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/white-house-rejects-republican-bill-block-housing-migrants-federal-lan-rcna126837

 

[jmdrake]

The state of Texas has dealt with online porn by demanding they make everyone prove their age before giving them access. It seems to have gotten their attention. Not everything was meant to be dealt with at the federal level. I am not against this. If I don’t like it, I can move to a different state; just like our Founders intended. Plus, changing a bad law locally or at the state law is one heck of a lot easier than changing it at the federal level.

I agree. Of course one can use a VPN to make their computer look like you're surfing from Thailand if you want. But that's extra step the average 12 year old would have to jump through.

From a free market perspective this is probably the only phone parents should get their kids.

https://www.thelightphone.com/lightii
[MENTION=3169]Anti Federalist[/MENTION] this might be an acceptable solution for a parent that doesn't want his child sucked into the matrix but would still like him or her to have a phone for emergencies.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

If you think restricting porn is big government,...

He's right about the problems with so-called libertarianism, and not every use of government authority is "big government", or has to cost money to do.
...

The state of Texas has dealt with online porn by demanding they make everyone prove their age before giving them access. It seems to have gotten their attention. Not everything was meant to be dealt with at the federal level. I am not against this. If I don’t like it, I can move to a different state; just like our Founders intended. Plus, changing a bad law locally or at the state law is one heck of a lot easier than changing it at the federal level.

As I said in my post, if you can prove that something is an actual problem, then you must ask "what are the solutions, that once again are provable and possible".

Not to sound like a "libertarian", but prohibition of vices has long been proven to be expensive, destructive of liberties, and often counter-productive. There has to be other ways to approach them.

That doesn't mean that government, from Federal to local shouldn't do anything about anything. It would be nice if they just addressed the highest priority basics, like murder, robbery, assault, theft, fraud, kidnapping, property violations and securing the border. And let's face it, the government doesn't adequately address any of those things.

 

[LibertyEagle]

As I said in my post, if you can prove that something is an actual problem, then you must ask "what are the solutions, that once again are provable and possible".

Not to sound like a "libertarian", but prohibition of vices has long been proven to be expensive, destructive of liberties, and often counter-productive. There has to be other ways to approach them.

That doesn't mean that government, from Federal to local shouldn't do anything about anything. It would be nice if they just addressed the highest priority basics, like murder, robbery, assault, theft, fraud, kidnapping, property violations and securing the border. And let's face it, the government doesn't adequately address any of those things.

Oh, I agree. Totally. But, so many people, outside of this forum, seem to think it is the federal government who is the only government in existence and needs to make all laws. A one size fits all.

 

[jmdrake]

As I said in my post, if you can prove that something is an actual problem, then you must ask "what are the solutions, that once again are provable and possible".

Not to sound like a "libertarian", but prohibition of vices has long been proven to be expensive, destructive of liberties, and often counter-productive. There has to be other ways to approach them.

That doesn't mean that government, from Federal to local shouldn't do anything about anything. It would be nice if they just addressed the highest priority basics, like murder, robbery, assault, theft, fraud, kidnapping, property violations and securing the border. And let's face it, the government doesn't adequately address any of those things.

In this case the vice was already illegal. It's just become difficult to enforce due to technological changes and social trends. When I was a child, requiring the porno mags at the grocery store to be shrink wrapped would not have been expensive and the only "liberty" that would have impinged on is the liberty of an adult to "look before you buy." When I was old enough to go to an adult bookstore I was disappointed to find most of the magazines were shrink wrapped not to protect children (they couldn't come in anyway) but to protect profits which means the grocery stores could have done that all along and perhaps made more money. Requiring phones to have easy to set up parental controls wouldn't be expensive. For the life of me I don't know why this already isn't a thing. Then again if it's profit uber alles, Google might not want parents blocking apps from their kids. Remember the V-chip? Did you know that's still a thing? But it's pretty irrelevant because who still watches network television? Certainly not young people. And phones have made parental controls on TVs pretty much irrelevant.

 

[Snowball]

Have you checked recently how much of the U.S. is “federal land”? There is a ton! That is my issue. There should be very, very little federal land.

Currently, they are allowing illegal aliens to camp on and destroy it anyway.

‘https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/white-house-rejects-republican-bill-block-housing-migrants-federal-lan-rcna126837

It is federally-managed land, that all Americans can use, according to limitations.

I'm not going to put words in your mouth, so tell me how you feel, say, if it were put up for sale to the billionaires, do we want that?

 

[Snowball]

As I said in my post, if you can prove that something is an actual problem, then you must ask "what are the solutions, that once again are provable and possible".

Not to sound like a "libertarian", but prohibition of vices has long been proven to be expensive, destructive of liberties, and often counter-productive. There has to be other ways to approach them.

That doesn't mean that government, from Federal to local shouldn't do anything about anything. It would be nice if they just addressed the highest priority basics, like murder, robbery, assault, theft, fraud, kidnapping, property violations and securing the border. And let's face it, the government doesn't adequately address any of those things.

Pornography is not speech, and Usury is not free enterprise. We have the right to say so and make laws to that effect if we wish.

https://culturewars.com/videos/hearth-and-fire-podcast

 

[LibertyEagle]

https://x.com/altcoindailyio/status/1814097757382328406

 

[Anti Federalist]

I agree. Of course one can use a VPN to make their computer look like you're surfing from Thailand if you want. But that's extra step the average 12 year old would have to jump through.

From a free market perspective this is probably the only phone parents should get their kids.

https://www.thelightphone.com/lightii
[MENTION=3169]Anti Federalist[/MENTION] this might be an acceptable solution for a parent that doesn't want his child sucked into the matrix but would still like him or her to have a phone for emergencies.

Not a bad idea.

 

[tebowlives]

From Grok:




Here is the tweet Grok is referencing:

I'm really loving Grok as a Twitter news junkie. Saves be a butt-ton of time.

EDIT: This is a LIE by the way about Ron Paul's positions if the tweet is a legit quote.

Good info. Vance is a gutless shill.

 

[familydog]

It's the same problem I have with the MAGA catchphrase. Government and politicians didn't make it great in the first place. It never does. Government can't make anything, much less anything great. The government power he wants to use to solve those problems created those problems. It can't solve them, it can only create more.

Liberty solves problems.

Half the country wants to use power to destroy you. They have been increasingly successful for over a century. What's that saying? The side the wants to win will always beat the side that wants be left alone.

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

The side the wants to win will always beat the side that wants be left alone.

Logic cannot argue with that. Truer words have not been spoken.

 

[Occam's Banana]

What's that saying? The side the wants to win will always beat the side that wants be left alone.

Logic cannot argue with that. Truer words have not been spoken.

No. It's just a shallow false dichotomy. It's bogus in almost every respect.

At absolute best, it poorly expresses a half-truth - and the half of the truth it conceals is far more important than the half it reveals.

What any side "wants" is irrelevant. (Here's another saying: "Want in one hand, shit in the other, squeeze both, and see which comes true ...")

Wanting to win and actually winning are entirely different things.

Wanting to be left alone and actually being left alone are also entirely different things.

(Not to mention that "wanting to win" and "wanting to be left alone" are not mutually exclusive in any way - hence, the false dichotomy.)

What is relevant is not what a side "wants", but what a side has the will and wherewithal to actually do in order to get what it wants.

Consider the American Revolution as just one of myriad possible examples:

The American colonists wanted to be left alone. They won,

Britain wanted to win. They lost.
​

QED

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Good info. Vance is a gutless shill.

That is hard to say.
I know many people that have changed their ideologies over a 12 year span.

The thing about being human is that you can change.

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

It's just a shallow false dichotomy.



That's a terrible saying. It's bogus in almost every respect.

What any side "wants" is irrelevant. (Here's another saying: "Want in one hand, $#@! in the other, squeeze both, and see which comes true ...")

Wanting to win and actually winning are entirely different things.

Wanting to be left alone and actually being left alone are also entirely different things.

What is relevant is not what a side "wants", but what a side has the will and wherewithal to actually do.

The American colonists wanted to be left alone. They won,

Britain wanted to win. They lost.

QED

Also undeniable logic!

 

[familydog]

Consider the American Revolution as just one of myriad possible examples:

The American colonists wanted to be left alone. They won,

Britain wanted to win. They lost.
​

You are doing exactly what you chided me for doing.

Just because the colonists wanted to be left alone from Britain, does not mean they wanted to be left alone from their own government.

This is clear and obvious to anyone who has studied the colonial/early republic period.

 

[Matt Collins]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgSW17kdOwA​