No, it isn’t. With all due respect, you are just making that up.
But those would be laws that they don’t want on the books.
Paul is, and DiLorenzo is too, if an extremist (and I’ll happily concede that there are plenty of extremist libertarians to go with extreme right- and left-wingers)
Grover Norquist, I’ll also concede, has libertarian leanings on some issues; but defending corporate welfare, which is what he’s on lately, is a mortal sin as far as libertarians are concerned. AFAICT, it’s more that he’s just a single-issue guy (lower taxes for all people at all times) who is willing to subordinate social issues, than it is that he’s actually pro-gay rights, anti-drug war, etc. as a matter of any principle.
So he wasn’t calling government a disease, he was saying that getting government involved is something can have all sorts of unforseen consequences. I think that’s pretty inarguable, if expressed pungently.
Elephant: Any call for an end to drug prohibition is a de facto call for letting children do LSD.
Donkey: Any call for a free market in health care is a de facto call for letting people die in the streets.
Elephant: Any call for legal abortion is a de facto call for encouraging girls to kill babies.
Donkey: Any call for school choice is a de facto call for prohibiting children from learning.
Together: Any call for an end to the war in Iraq/Libya/Afghanistan/Yemen is a de facto call for letting the terrorists kill as many Americans as they want.
You fit right in.
That’s not trolling, and do not accuse other posters of trolling unless you are in The BBQ Pit. Leave it to the mods rather than throwing out a charge that can disrupt the thread.
Trolling would be if I was posting things with the intent of creating outrage and provoking responses. I’m not doing this. As I have said, I’d prefer this thread was a rational discussion of libertarianism. And I’m not seeking to provoke responses - I’m responding to what others have already posted.
He did declare a link between the government and being diseased. If he said the government spreads disease rather than actually being a disease, that’s a pretty fine distinction. Either way it’s a clearly negative statement about government that I feel goes beyond being a caution about unforeseen consequences.
My post was only made up to the same extent that every post in this thread has been made up. We’re all expressing our opinions here.
I feel there is a difference between Libertarian opposition to a law and Democratic/Republican opposition to a law. Democrats may object to the laws enacted by Republicans and Republicans may object to the laws enacted by Democrats. But neither party questions the legitimacy of the legislative process. Both parties acknowledge that if the other party has a majority, it has the right to enact laws.
Libertarians take this to a different level. They object to many laws as a fundamental principle not just as part of party platform. They’re not saying what legislative action they’d take if they were elected into office. They’re trying to say that there are some legislative actions that no party can take. There’s a difference between saying “Vote for us and we’ll repeal the income tax” and “The income tax is unconstitutional and no party has the power to enact it legally.”
And neither do all but the most extreme libertarians. You are repeatedly engaged in strawmanning.
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/
Do you watch the news? Do you read newspapers or the internet?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/obamacare-unconstitutional/
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/03/09/obama-rolls-back-unconstitutional-george-w-bush-signing-statement-policy
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/affirmative_01-15-03.html
No. You are stating facts without backing them up with evidence. But if it’s really just your opinion, then we can all dismiss it. Opinions don’t cut it in a debate.
But both parties throw fits when the other party tries to pass legislation that they think is unconstitutional.
Why is there a difference? All parties think that some legislation is unconstitutional and in some cases they are right.
What you don’t understand is that Libertaria would have a different constitution than what we have in the US now. Legislators in that country would support laws that adhered to the constitution. And you could be certain that different factions would have different ides about the exact details of that constitution. Libertarians aren’t clones.
These are all facts and not just your opinions? I don’t see any evidence backing these claims up.
But if it’s really just your opinion, then we can all dismiss it. Opinions don’t cut it in a debate.
They aren’t even opinions, just that crowd’s usual juvenile fantasies. They require people acting contrarily to the nature of people.
Most Democrats think making abortion illegal is contrary to the constitution.
Most Republicans think forcing states to legalize SSM is contrary to the constitution.
I’m baffled as to why you would pretend to not know that.
Furt already gave you links to the Libertarian platform.
Not opinions. Facts.
You’re citing campaign promises as facts? From a party that doesn’t have any chance of ever being elected and having to do anything about its promises?
Would you claim that it’s a fact that communism will lead to a withering away of the state? Karl Marx said it would.
No Libertarian has ever been elected to a county legislature, much less any state or national office. (The Pauls both run as Republicans.) So any claims about what Libertarians would do in power are going to be opinions. Asking for facts about Libertarian politics is like asking for a factual answer on vampires.
“What’s the best way to kill a vampire?”
“It’s a fact that sunlight kills vampires.”
“I heard wooden stakes kill vampires.”
“Wooden stakes? How about a cite for a vampire being killed by a wooden stake? And if you can’t provide a cite, that means you’re wrong and I’m right about sunlight.”
You said:
Emphasis added.
When someone tells you what they are “saying what legislative action they’d take if they were elected into office” you protest that they are not in office.
When come back, bring stationary goal posts.
You took that line out of context. What I said was "They’re not saying what legislative action they’d take if they were elected into office. They’re trying to say that there are some legislative actions that no party can take. There’s a difference between saying “Vote for us and we’ll repeal the income tax” and “The income tax is unconstitutional and no party has the power to enact it legally.”
What I was saying was the Libertarians are seeking to make fundamental changes that go beyond the kind of changes the Democrats or Republicans seek to make.
I think this may be the problem. Liberals are criticizing libertarianism that we see on TV while Libertairians are defending libertarisism as it exists in their heads.
The wealthy don’t have the votes. So they invited the racists into their fold with the Southern Strategy but soon it became obvious the liberal media would attack any appeals to racism so they embraced religious zealots. They NEED the religious zealots to win elections so they became pro-life and anti-gay. And some of the rich are religious zealots to begin with.
What are you talking about, you can grow your own wheat, mill it and bake it into bread. You can grow your own cattle and slaughter it and barbecue all summer long. You can grow your own penicillin and build your own MRI machines.
You would be free to do all of that without the government stepping in to tell you that you can’t slaughter cattle in your garage or grow penicillin in your bathtub. You would have choices in a libertarian world. Right now, what are your choices? 20,000 different kinds of bread in the bread aisle but every single one of them subject to labelling regulations that tell you what’s in them, that labelling costs money and you are not given a choice but to pay for it. Beef, grass fed beef, organic beef, all of it regulated by the big government to force you to pay that premium to reduce the incidence of things like mad cow disease, you don’t have a choice but to pay for those inspections. Dozens of different kinds of anti-biotics, all of which have been tested for efficacy to make sure they actually work, do you know how much it costs to get a drug past teh FDA? Wouldn’t you rather just take the company’s word for it and avoid the built in cost of testing? And don’t get me started on MRI machines.
I’d like to get you started on MRI machines. Because I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
It was a conservative government that did it.
WHEW, thank god the market never fucks up.
Well, we repealed prohibition so either we became libertarian or there are mechanisms in place in a democracy to fix shit like that.
Riiiight, because FDR was such an epic libertarian:
[/quote]
In 1932, the Democratic Party’s platform included a plank for the repeal of Prohibition, and Democrat Franklin Roosevelt ran for President of the United States promising repeal of federal laws of Prohibition.
[/quote]
Don’t let facts get in your way tho, you’re on a roll.