Why do the Paranoid in this movement want to march backwards?

[jfriedman]

The FACT is that NEITHER candidate was the subject of the thread.

Methinks thou dost protest too much.





I've noticed.






I realize that Dot Connecting is not a popular pastime around here but . . . WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK WE'RE BORROWING ALL THAT MONEY FOR, IF NOT FOR ONGOING WARS? Note the plural.





The man said that American military bases on foreign soil are LUXURIES that we cannot afford AT THIS TIME.

That, to me, is a TYPE of thinking. Military bases ARE profitable for some. You DO realize that, yes? Moreso are they likely to be profitable to people with Investment Portfolios.













That you do not LIKE my thinking/beliefs/analyses does not make my "tactics" dishonest. Your defensiveness is making you reckless.






It's just ME that thinks so, eh? Remind me, what's he polling at?






I think he is not a Legislator TYPE. Mind, I don't think ANYONE is gonna get in office and, LIKE MAGIC, set everyone straight and ram through heretofore elusive reforms.






Because I do not approve of family dynasties in politics, I do not like Rand Paul? If A, then R?





Hold that thought, or don't.





Why are you sorry? Or are YOU being dishonest?





Maybe you should re-think Interconnectivity.





It kinda DOES when there is biased censorship, but that's not what I'm talking about.

I'M TALKING ABOUT OUR STEADFAST AND CHICKENSHIT REFUSAL TO GO AFTER WHITE COLLAR BAD GUYS.





Elsewhere you took the liberty of suggesting that my critical thinking is not up to snuff. To avoid charges of Racism, I will suggest that the pot calls the kettle Wrought Iron.





Would anything?





I KNOW everyone here isn't a lemming. People keep asking me why I'm here, that's one of the reasons. There are some uber Good Eggs mixed in with the Bad Apples. Just like in the population at large.





If we can agree on nothing else, I'm thinking we can agree that I do NOT have the temperament of a leader. Benign Dictator, MAYBE, so long as you don't countermand me.





That's right.

And the Liberty Moovement is a distinct minority among All Voters.

Ergo, I am in the Majority.





Then don't PLAY them. To each his own, yes? But tell me this. Why is it fine for YOU to disagree with ME, while MY disagreeing with YOU is cause for insult unto impolite suggestion that I remove myself from the premises?

Best retorts ever---mindbending!

 

[SimpleName]

Anyone sick of the anarchy vs libertarian arguments? Making it worse, it barely applies to this thread. Why would anarchy come up when we are talking about electing government officials? I don't think it is really even needed, since many members (probably most) seem to support voluntary government. Anarchists could have their land, but those of us who prefer government could have our land. I think both sides support this idea and yet we still have rumbles, even in threads where it is unwarranted.

I personally hate the non-compromise strategy. Just stick to principle and trust. If somebody appears to be telling the truth and is right with you on the vast majority of issues, support him/her. That's all. This has been made rather complicated.

 

[silverhandorder]

The FACT is that NEITHER candidate was the subject of the thread.

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

However my reply to you was when you were bashing Schiff.

I realize that Dot Connecting is not a popular pastime around here but . . . WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK WE'RE BORROWING ALL THAT MONEY FOR, IF NOT FOR ONGOING WARS? Note the plural.

I last I checked it was not only wars. It also being used to support a huge federal work force and huge entitlements.

Last I checked Schiff was also against war spending.

I know perfectly well that war is tied in with a lot of ills in our government, however this is not about pro war person being found out. It is about a pro liberty candidate willing to bomb Iran if it is a credible threat to us. Like for instance Iranian president saying they will nuke us with their nukes. Last I checked his last statement on this is that he does not want to bomb Iran.

The man said that American military bases on foreign soil are LUXURIES that we cannot afford AT THIS TIME.

And he was perfectly right. Even if we take the worst case scenario and say Schiff would be perfectly fine with waging war if it was funded voluntarily he is still better then 99% of current politicians. For one I know that atleast he will not wage a war if we are near bankruptcy.

As I pointed out and you agreed not all of us here are moral do gooders. We are first looking out after our back and then after some people half a world away.

That, to me, is a TYPE of thinking. Military bases ARE profitable for some. You DO realize that, yes? Moreso are they likely to be profitable to people with Investment Portfolios.

Well this has nothing to do with anything. Again keeping the worst case scenario in mind, which many here disagree with your interpretation of what he said, it would not matter if the military bases are profitable or not since Schiff according to your interpretation considers them a luxury.

That you do not LIKE my thinking/beliefs/analyses does not make my "tactics" dishonest. Your defensiveness is making you reckless.

I could care less about your views. I rather care about anyone else reading this thread and listening to your distortions if in fact you are distorting the truth. Otherwise you are clueless.

It's just ME that thinks so, eh? Remind me, what's he polling at?

Among the liberty movement. He would be polling much higher if he would be pro war completely and hardcore fiscal conservative. It honestly does no good to him at all to go against republican part if all he is after is power.

I think he is not a Legislator TYPE. Mind, I don't think ANYONE is gonna get in office and, LIKE MAGIC, set everyone straight and ram through heretofore elusive reforms.

Well good for you. I think that is rather a weak excuse. Create a separate thread about not participating in politics. I doubt you are convince many people who are here exactly because they do want to participate in politics.

Because I do not approve of family dynasties in politics, I do not like Rand Paul? If A, then R?

Forgive me if I am wrong.

Why are you sorry? Or are YOU being dishonest?

"I wish I could help you in this but I can't" = "I am sorry but"

As I pointed out I don't want to blow up innocent people either. It's called priorities. In any case that would only be true if your interpretation of his words was in fact correct. I doubt you will find many who would agree with you.

Maybe you should re-think Interconnectivity.

I think I already covered this how I have priorities? Plus how Schiff is Anti war.

It kinda DOES when there is biased censorship, but that's not what I'm talking about.

I'M TALKING ABOUT OUR STEADFAST AND CHICKENSHIT REFUSAL TO GO AFTER WHITE COLLAR BAD GUYS.

So you want to revolt? I don't understand your problem. As I said many of us have different priorities. I want liberty candidates in congress. You are starting to want white collar crimes persecuted. It's not like I don't want that I just don't got the time to research that plus research all the bad shit happening to us financially.

Elsewhere you took the liberty of suggesting that my critical thinking is not up to snuff. To avoid charges of Racism, I will suggest that the pot calls the kettle Wrought Iron.

That I have faith in the two men based on what I know about them. Yeah... You can say I am not capable of critical thinking but ultimately the person reading our conversation will be the judge.

Where at all does the racist charge come from tho?

Would anything?

Yes find me a quote where he says he wants to continue our current war.

I KNOW everyone here isn't a lemming. People keep asking me why I'm here, that's one of the reasons. There are some uber Good Eggs mixed in with the Bad Apples. Just like in the population at large.

I don't know what this means but I will take this as an opportunity to say that even though we might have exchanged insults that I do not hate you and I do not think you are a bad guy. You just rub me the wrong way when you constantly talk down Schiff.

Hopefully you will come around.

If we can agree on nothing else, I'm thinking we can agree that I do NOT have the temperament of a leader. Benign Dictator, MAYBE, so long as you don't countermand me.

Pshhh I would be a dicatator too.

That's right.

And the Liberty Moovement is a distinct minority among All Voters.

Ergo, I am in the Majority.

Depends I wonder if we had an informal poll taken here on Schiff.

Then don't PLAY them. To each his own, yes? But tell me this. Why is it fine for YOU to disagree with ME, while MY disagreeing with YOU is cause for insult unto impolite suggestion that I remove myself from the premises?

You can disagree all you want but this is a political forum after all. People here are interested in pushing candidates and as I said before your interpretation of what Schiff said takes leaps in logic. The man when ever the subject came up always talks non intervention. One time he has to talk to a voter that he is not sure of what the voters stance is he takes it slow. As soon as he finds out about the video he right away makes a comment clarifying his position.

You seem to come off like you don't think any candidate is worth his shit, at least the ones most of us are perfectly willing to push. If so maybe you should post in other sections of the forum that are more geared towards philosophy.

Again as I said before show me either Rand or Schiff suggesting we need to keep basses going for my faith in them to be shaken.

 

[PreDeadMan]

would anybody here support a hybrid of different governments implented in each sections of the usa?Let the anarchist live in their section, the unlimited government people, the minarchists, etc... you get my point let people pick and choose what kind of political system they want to live in or if none!... dedicate several states to them or whatever i'm sure you all get my drift

 

[PreDeadMan]

oh... and HAPPY NEW YEAR!...

 

[cheapseats]

As I pointed out and you agreed not all of us here are moral do gooders. We are first looking out after our back and then after some people half a world away.

HELLO? There is not half-a-world but a WORLD of difference between not extending charity willy nilly AND BLOWING OTHER PEOPLE TO SMITHEREENS.

...Schiff according to your interpretation considers them a luxury.

PETER SCHIFF SAID, CONCURRENT WITH HIS SENATE BID ANNOUNCEMENT, THAT OVERSEAS AMERICAN MILITARY BASES ARE LUXURIES THAT WE CANNOT AFFORD AT THIS TIME.

Military bases are EXTREMELY lucrative for a Few and wildly expensive for Taxpayers. I'll grant that this Board has more than a few Rugged Individualists who would PASS on Luxuries, thank you very much, but GENERALLY SPEAKING, Luxuries are viewed as Desirable.

Defense contracts, profits, returns on investment, these are quite WANTED in some circles. Whoever the hell's currency it is, there's MONEY to be made.

I doubt you are convince many people who are here exactly because they do want to participate in politics.

I am arguing that that's part o' the problem.

"I wish I could help you in this but I can't" = "I am sorry but"

But you DON'T wish you could help. You are STILL insincere.

As I pointed out I don't want to blow up innocent people either. It's called priorities.

You bet.

I am suggesting that NOT BLOWING STRANGERS TO KINGDOM COME IS RIGHTLY THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY.

I want liberty candidates in congress.

Liberty candidates for whom WAR is not a priority? I'm thinking I can't think of a more egregious violation of Liberty than Collateral Damage.

You are starting to want white collar crimes persecuted. It's not like I don't want that I just don't got the time to research that plus research all the bad shit happening to us financially.

In very much the same way that WAR is pivotal to our staggering debt, unethical swashbuckling by conscienceless Robber Barons is at the very HEART of the financial sector meltdown.

You discriminate against Dots.

That I have faith in the two men based on what I know about them. Yeah... You can say I am not capable of critical thinking but ultimately the person reading our conversation will be the judge.

Dear Person Reading Our Conversation:

Take heed. Investing such Faith in HUMANS as to absolve oneself of critical thinking is a BAD THING.

I don't know what this means but I will take this as an opportunity to say that even though we might have exchanged insults that I do not hate you and I do not think you are a bad guy. You just rub me the wrong way when you constantly talk down Schiff.

I appreciate that. Insofar as I do not CONSTANTLY talk about Schiff, I am guardedly optimistic.

Peace.

Hopefully you will come around.

Right back atcha.

Pshhh I would be a dicatator too.

I so seldom have an opportunity to quote George Bush, but it really WOULD be easier.

You can disagree all you want but this is a political forum after all. People here are interested in pushing candidates . . .

I've noticed. Personalities over Principles. Like I said, part o' the problem.

Just so we're clear, Liberty does not equal New Candidates/Different Politicians.

If so maybe you should post in other sections of the forum that are more geared towards philosophy.

Maybe YOU should post in the candidate forums. Politics, Governance and THE FUTURE THAT WILL BECOME THE HISTORY BY WHICH WE ARE KNOWN are grander and more consequential than ANY specific person.

 

[john_anderson_ii]

http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

If we have a disagreement about who owns a piece of property, it's not a police matter.

Are you serious? Of course it's a police matter! If I believe you have stolen a piece of property from me, what am I going to do? Am I going to file a civil suit for an allegedly criminal act? No, I'm going to file a police report so that a criminal investigation can take place. Theft is a crime, and in this area we must differentiate between civil and criminal proceedings. This is where free men need a legitimate, lawful government. I'm sure independent, interconnected private enterprises could work out when it comes to civil disputes, but criminal cases require a specific level of non-personal interest.

It would be a matter between my judicial services, and yours.

In my given example I expressly cited your opinion that you shouldn't have to pay for any judicial or legal services but that's not really important to the debate.

For example, today, many companies work together. In the banking industry, my Visa card works at other companies ATM's, transfers, etc. I can name numerous other industries where this also happens. Contractual easements. It happens quite a lot in the cell phone sector where my Verizon service can call and connect with AT&T and vice versa. It would obviously be in everyones best interest to have fair outcomes, or else both parties lose customers. Consumer Reports, and other independant agencies would rate the quality of service. People would be free to shop around who has the best service and who most closely follows their own morals.

In most laymen cases, it would obviously be in the best interest of the companies involved to have a fair and balanced outcome. However, you are forgetting the select few cases where people of privilege become above law. For instance, in this cell phone-centric conversation, the CEO of Intel, whom has at least one part in every phone, commits a crime. If these companies, who are working together, collectively loose should they convict, or are collectively bought out, you no longer have equal application of the law, and in effect, you have showgunism. Just another classic case of an Anarchy, devolving into a dictatorship. Anarchy cannot exist sustainably because anarchy cannot provide Entrepreneurs with the stability required to perform a business task.

Seriously, you don't honestly believe that some of the smartest men in the world working on this Governmental theory would overlook something that is in plain sight?

No, I don't, and neither should you. That would just be arrogant.

If I was inside their jurisdiction (IE your property) and committed a crime according to the laws of your property (Under their services), then yes it should be held in their court room and under their jurisdiction.

Here is where your idea of government through no government breaks down. If you were inside their jurisdiction? Who is "their?" If you committed a crime while on my property, the laws of my property could be deranged and inhumane, and outright ghastly, and still you would be made to suffer them. You would have no recourse of fair trial, no recourse of equal treatment of the law, hell you wouldn't even have the right to be represented nor to not incriminate yourself.

This is no different than if I go overseas and commit a crime. You don't see foreigners being unfairly handled and persecuted on an intentional basis overseas do you?

Maybe you don't watch enough discover or A&E, but this ignorance is just sick and wrong. People are put to death in Singapore over hashish, tourists are sentenced to 5 to 10 years for public drunkenness in Korea.

The one thing that stems from this talk, and the one thing that anarchists just don't get no matter how the evidence is presented, is one simple equation. "If you don't choose a form of government for yourself, and a way of trading and relating with the outside world, then an outside world will be chosen for you, and they will then tell you what to do, That's the only possible outcome.


Who's going to hire them? Say if they start to steal from others, who is going to pay for their services? No one. So, how then, do you plan on paying them to rampage around for you? If they then, do violate others liberties, thats when your private police and judiciary get involved and protect you, no differently than the "public" police now, except that private police couldn't be as barbaric as they are now because you could simply stop paying them and choose another police department that has better customer service. A wonderful thing about voluntary services, they actually have to provide something someone wants. With taxes, they can do whatever the hell they want and have no repercussions.[/QUOTE]

 

[InterestedParticipant]

Kudos Matthew. IMHO the most useful and most important post I've seen here in a long time.

Here's my take. First off there must be an absolute minimum that the entire movement agrees upon - kind of a quality bar. The premise is that anything less than "this" won't be acceptable. Now where to set the bar - that would depend largely upon the general political and social atmosphere.

But it's true that many libertarians are ideologues, and some are even staunch ideologues, and personally I despise staunch believers in just about anything, even libertarianism.

I honestly don't think the time has come for libertarianism. The time is coming, mind you, but it's not here yet. The movement hasn't reached critical mass yet. It'll take something big - financial meltdown, hyperinflation - something serious and big to turn "the people" towards libertarianism en masse.

The current state of affairs - politically, socially and especially economically - is not sustainable for much longer. We're just leaving an interesting decade and we have a far more interesting one ahead of us.


Iyad

Why would anyone who believe in individual liberty agree to some kind of "quality bar" for candidates that is developed an arbitrary abstraction called the "movement"? How is group consensus commensurate with individual liberty?

 

[Pauls' Revere]

The ONLY way to prevent this inevitable slide (if it's possible at all) is to go in with 100% dedication to "pure" liberty and never give an inch.

First you have to get them in there...

I have never understood how people can get elected on the platform and promise of change and reform.. only to go in and within 6 or so months totally conform to the system. It's like they get brainwashed or just give up.

Yes, and this is what will happen to the movement and then we will lose all credibility just like the GOP and Dems.

NO SELLOUTS!

 

[__27__]

Yes, and this is what will happen to the movement and then we will lose all credibility just like the GOP and Dems.

NO SELLOUTS!

Minarchy! ©

"Selling out principles for political gain since 1776!"

 

[Vessol]

There are certain key elements in the group belief I think most will agree on.

Free Market Economics
Non-Intervention Foreign Policy
Not Trampling on Civil Rights

I don't care how much Politician A says he hates Obama and obamacare and taxes, if he's for an interventionist foreign policy, I do not support him.

Or Politician B is totally against the wars and wants to bring our troops home, but loves social programs and a state controlled economy. Same thoughts as A.

These really aren't that hard of things to "adhere" by, on many other subjects many other people disagree on, but these big three I think are the key and must be "followed"

 

[Galileo Galilei]

If you looked at Liberty-minded candidates on a scale from Communist to Libertarian (or whatever), wouldn't you support the candidates who are closer to the Libertarian extreme? Why then, do certain people lose their minds when certain Libertarian candidates reveal themselves to be 98.5% perfect rather than the 100% perfect we were really hoping for? How spoiled are we?

You are confusing 98.5% perfect with 30% perfect.

A candidate who is ulra-conservative on fiscal matters, but is pro-war actually produces an increase in spending.

Because the discretionary spending you can cut on domestic spending is much less than our discretionary spending on war and overseas military operations.

And usually those who say they are ultra-conservative on spending turn out to have war as a higher priority than domestic cuts anyway.

 

[pacelli]

What's with the campaign against the noids? The only people who are going to reject a candidate are going to be the paranoids? What's up with that?

 

[cindy25]

Scott Brown had to be an exception, because he is the 41st vote against Obamacare.

 

[payme_rick]

As AF said, over time, and it usually doesn't take all that long, that 98.5% drops to something totally unacceptable.

I get you guys, I really do... I just can't agree...

To the first point... "98.5% dropping to 80, 60, 30 then nothing" does make sense to me and does happen... so instead, we'll let the 30.5%'er get in, so they can go from there to 15, to -15, then -45 then maybe -100%?

There are two problems here: 1. Elected official tends to trend toward tyranny after time in office; 2. Public keeps going along with it...

the solution is keeping the public on these guys (98.5%'ers) asses, so they don't have a chance to get down below 60%... not electing them and electing them again and again, but electing them and gettting their asses out of there...