Posts: 1,216
Threads: 29
Joined: May 2016
LOL, "forward thinking", Libertarianism is warmed over 18th century ideology.
And property is the creation of the state and can only be enforced by state power protecting the Haves from the Have-Nots.
And Libertarians confuse Western culture with "human nature".
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(07-08-2016, 07:08 AM)Odin Wrote: LOL, "forward thinking", Libertarianism is warmed over 18th century ideology.
And property is the creation of the state and can only be enforced by state power protecting the Haves from the Have-Nots.
And Libertarians confuse Western culture with "human nature".
Having been defined as an anarcho-syndicalist, a left-winger with some libertarian tendencies, I would suggest reducing government authority to the welfare state, law enforcement, and defense. I find the public-private partnership repugnant: the State and the private sector must be kept separate lest we have private hustlers compelling the public to fund the gamblers and rent-seekers in the private sector.
"Western culture" is not human nature. Much of what we consider "Western culture" is freakish achievement, as with the plays of Shakespeare, the glorious achievements of painting in the High Renaissance and the Impressionist era, and the superlative counterpoint of Bach, Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. It is human nature to love these.
Crony capitalism must die whether one is to have the libertarian paradise or the Communist dream (meaning what Karl Marx sees as the end state of history, namely a world without scarcity; our modern technologies bring that nigh). Crony capitalism will always require a powerful State to enforce the poverty and compliance of people who have little stake in the system.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
07-08-2016, 01:20 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-08-2016, 01:59 PM by Eric the Green.)
(07-08-2016, 01:40 AM)Galen Wrote: (07-07-2016, 08:03 PM)Drakus79 Wrote: (07-07-2016, 07:23 PM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: Socialism does not equal a totalitarian police state; that has developed under capitalism too.
It's developed under large scale socialist governments and large scale governments with mixed economies that tend towards crony-corporatism. Neo-liberal / Neo-con policies of big government lead towards a police state. Free market competition does not lead to a police state. When governments remains small and localized with fewer strict laws less people are disenfranchised, communities are more trusting of each other, and there's less of a need for surveillance and curtailing of rights.
Exactly my point. Simply because fewer people are getting pushed around by people with guns and uniforms which for some odd reason makes this behavior acceptable.
Our gun policies in America make for lots of people being pushing around and killed by people with guns.
Most of the police states have been capitalist, such as the Pinochet regime in Chile and the dictatorships which the USA supported in places like South Korea and Taiwan for many years, on the pretext that they weren't socialist. Many police states exist in Africa, enforced with corruption that puts all the wealth, generated by the land and sold to foreign capitalist enterprises, in the hands of the ruling elite. The fascists in Europe supported and depended upon the big capitalist industries that made the weapons and made the trains run on time, while people were required to work as they were told. Banana Republics in Latin America have been based on capitalist industries who owned all the land and shipped their wealth to the USA, which backed them up with military support. Antiquated regimes in the Middle East depend on western capital to keep the oil flowing into the royal coffers to help them keep down their people. No, capitalism has led to tyranny far more often than socialism.
Meanwhile under democratic socialism the people of northern and western Europe have been happy and their needs provided for without any diminution in human rights; in fact these states are the most supportive of human rights in the world.
Free markets lead to state oligarchy and tyranny. Free markets allow the most greedy and powerful to amass wealth and control the state. People who don't see this aren't paying attention. Just remember the video store businesses that popped up in the 80s and the coffee houses in the 90s. Remember the deregulation of radio stations. The ambitious and greedy quickly grabbed up the market and most other businesses were forced out. No, free markets create monopolies and oligarchies.
The only route to a free society is a state controlled and watched by the people. Without the state, previously smaller and weaker authorities gain power and take over, becoming the defacto state. Free enterprise ends; swallowed up by big corporations, and the little guys are trampled. Pollution, horrible working conditions, outsourcing and buyouts, financial swindles and crashes, and consumer rip offs are among the results. State regulation, anti-trust and fraud laws, and taxes, are all needed to keep the wealthy few from crushing the rights and livelihoods of the many.
But without public democratic involvement, state politicians become corrupt cronies and collude with those who have wealth and power. An activist people that can pressure and vote out corrupt politicians is the basis of a free society; otherwise it can't happen. Without this pressure, corrupt politicians pass laissez faire so that business can take over the country without restraint, and then they collude with these businesses to line their own pockets and boost their own power over the people.
Another possible route to freedom is employee and consumer ownership of businesses. I still think regulation and taxes are necessary though.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(07-08-2016, 01:20 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The only route to a free society is a state controlled and watched by the people. Without the state, previously smaller and weaker authorities gain power and take over, becoming the defacto state. Free enterprise ends; swallowed up by big corporations, and the little guys are trampled. Pollution, horrible working conditions, outsourcing and buyouts, financial swindles and crashes, and consumer rip offs are among the results.
But without public democratic involvement, state politicians become corrupt cronies and collude with those who have wealth and power. An activist people that can pressure and vote out corrupt politicians is the basis of a free society; otherwise it can't happen. Without this pressure, corrupt politicians pass laissez faire so that business can take over the country without restraint, and then they collude with these businesses to line their own pockets and boost their own power over the people.
With this being said, how is it that you are able to support someone like Hilary Clinton? Are you crazy?
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
07-08-2016, 02:32 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-08-2016, 02:33 PM by Eric the Green.)
(07-08-2016, 01:34 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (07-08-2016, 01:20 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The only route to a free society is a state controlled and watched by the people. Without the state, previously smaller and weaker authorities gain power and take over, becoming the defacto state. Free enterprise ends; swallowed up by big corporations, and the little guys are trampled. Pollution, horrible working conditions, outsourcing and buyouts, financial swindles and crashes, and consumer rip offs are among the results.
But without public democratic involvement, state politicians become corrupt cronies and collude with those who have wealth and power. An activist people that can pressure and vote out corrupt politicians is the basis of a free society; otherwise it can't happen. Without this pressure, corrupt politicians pass laissez faire so that business can take over the country without restraint, and then they collude with these businesses to line their own pockets and boost their own power over the people.
With this being said, how is it that you are able to support someone like Hillary Clinton? Are you crazy?
That's not an unfair question, since Hillary is not the best we could hope for in this regard. But I've looked into the charges against her, and so far it appears most are exaggerated. As one article I posted made clear, she may be non-transparent at times but she is not corrupt. At least not nearly as corrupt as her opponents. Those who have made charges against the Clintons have almost always been guilty of far worse themselves, or they have no problem with the same or worse behavior by politicians on their side of the aisle.
I haven't made a final decision about whether to actually vote for her yet. Nor have I donated anything or any time to her campaign yet. The alternative of course would be Jill Stein, not the infinitely-more corrupt Mr. Trump.
Posts: 149
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2016
[quote pid='4535' dateline='1467938349']
Libertarianism is not a Utopian ideal. I think you're confusing it with anarchism. Anarchists believe in no government. Left-Anarchists also believe in no property rights, while Right-Anarchists (Anarcho-Capitalists) often get confused with libertarians but they are quite different. In Anarcho Capitalism there is no government and you have to hire security companies for defense and Dispute resolution organizations to settle common law disputes. They mainly believe in the non-aggression principle which is the idea that no person or organization should be allowed to initiate the use of force against another person or entity for any reason.
Libertarians are more like classical liberals but with modern solutions to modern day problems. They just believe in small limited government a la John Locke, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson. Namely the enlightenment era ideas of freedom of equality before the law (meaning equality of opportunity, not of outcome). Libertarians also believe in the non-aggression principle, but they have a bit of a looser interpretation as it applies to certain government actions. There's really no limit to the size of the "tribe" (not sure what you mean by that), but libertarians believe that a more localized government is preferable to a larger central government since the individual has more say. "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand.
Gary Johnson is a very moderate-left libertarian though. He defines himself more as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. But he's liberal on both spectrums for a libertarian. A lot of the more conservative and more hardcore Randian libertarians don't like him for this reason.
[/quote]
I still don't get it. "More localized government?" Like how local?
Most of all, I still maintain that Libertarianism is Utopian in the sense that the gap between where we are now and the DETAILS of what you would have to have for Libertarianism to exist are insurmountable. How do we get from HERE to THERE?
[font=Arial Black]... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition.[/font]
Posts: 39
Threads: 5
Joined: Jun 2016
07-08-2016, 05:47 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-08-2016, 06:54 PM by Drakus79.)
(07-08-2016, 07:08 AM)Odin Wrote: And property is the creation of the state and can only be enforced by state power protecting the Haves from the Have-Nots.
Your definition of property is either really skewed, or you're being obtuse. You don't need the state to have or defend property rights. Individuals have been defending their own property since time immemorial. Even animals defend their own territory without the help of a government.
Now if you were to say the state helps to enable a situation in which the haves can enforce a monopoly on property, I would agree with you. The state enabled the situation in which escaped slaves were forced to return to their masters. The state enables the situation in which huge corporations can lobby for more leverage over smaller businesses and institute government bailouts to the wealthiest 1%. The state enables the situation in which the central banks can keep borrowing against our children's future to keep their corrupt system afloat and keep the oligarchs in power. Yes, the state enables those types of corrupted property rights. But libertarians are opposed to that.
Quote:I still don't get it. "More localized government?" Like how local?
Most of all, I still maintain that Libertarianism is Utopian in the sense that the gap between where we are now and the DETAILS of what you would have to have for Libertarianism to exist are insurmountable. How do we get from HERE to THERE?
Look at the way Johnson governed NM. He was very selective about which laws passed, vetoing most of them, and made sure each went through a rigorous cost/benefit analysis. He also promised not to use the power of the executive action unless there was a national emergency, and would probably undo several executive actions if he became president. His running mate, Bill Weld governed Massachusetts in a similar fashion. Both were Republican governors in heavily blue states, yet they were very popular in their states serving two terms. Why? Because they weren't your typical Republican NeoCons. They were the sort of classically liberal Republicans that you used to see in both parties once upon a time.
Generally, as a libertarian, you try to take more of a hands off approach to the executive office so as not to step on people's rights. When a tragedy happens, you try not to use it to your political advantage to set an agenda. The hope is to reverse the police state. Try to be nicer to each other. Set a tone of peace love and kindness rather than divisiveness and us vs. them approach. Try to defend people's rights rather than restrict them. Try to remove laws rather than add to them. It's actually very easy.
There is no getting "there". It's all a spectrum, sometimes we go too far one way, and have to reverse course. Right now we're too far in the authoritarian / oligarchy / police state direction and need to reverse course. And I acknowledge that once we do reverse course maybe things will go too far in the other direction and we may have to pull the breaks. But the ends don't justify the means. It's all means.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(07-07-2016, 07:39 PM)Drakus79 Wrote: Quote:Libertarian-"ism" is utopian idea. What do you even mean by Libertarianism at the ground level?
Would property rights still be respected? If so, who or what would enforce them? Would there still be courts, police, etc to adjudicate disagreements among the libertines? Or would the strongest Libertines simply declare ownership of properties and then defend them themselves?
Would it be allowed in a Libertarian society to band together into groups, for mutual support, protection, etc.? Any limits to the size of the tribes?
What in your mind distinguishes Libertarians from Anarchists?
That should be a good start ... if you find these too easy to answer, let me know and I'll trot out some more ground-level questions. These Utopian views from the 90,000 foot level leave a lot of detail undefined, for my tastes.
Libertarianism is not a Utopian ideal. I think you're confusing it with anarchism. Anarchists believe in no government. Left-Anarchists also believe in no property rights, while Right-Anarchists (Anarcho-Capitalists) often get confused with libertarians but they are quite different. In Anarcho Capitalism there is no government and you have to hire security companies for defense and Dispute resolution organizations to settle common law disputes. They mainly believe in the non-aggression principle which is the idea that no person or organization should be allowed to initiate the use of force against another person or entity for any reason.
Libertarians are more like classical liberals but with modern solutions to modern day problems. They just believe in small limited government a la John Locke, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson. Namely the enlightenment era ideas of freedom of equality before the law (meaning equality of opportunity, not of outcome). Libertarians also believe in the non-aggression principle, but they have a bit of a looser interpretation as it applies to certain government actions. There's really no limit to the size of the "tribe" (not sure what you mean by that), but libertarians believe that a more localized government is preferable to a larger central government since the individual has more say. "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand.
Gary Johnson is a very moderate-left libertarian though. He defines himself more as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. But he's liberal on both spectrums for a libertarian. A lot of the more conservative and more hardcore Randian libertarians don't like him for this reason.
In the mind of the socially clueless, we are all the same.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(07-06-2016, 07:45 PM)Drakus79 Wrote: Socialism is failing because it's running out of money. You can only tax the private sector for so long until they free market runs out of money to tax. Fortunately the FED can still do QE5 and QE6 till the cow comes home ... or until GDP drops below the deficit ... or until the dollar collapses from inflation. Fortunately the oligarchs are hoarding the monopoly money the FED has created so inflation hasn't happened yet. So I guess the system will just have to collapse when a populist revolution takes place. Hey that explains the popularity of Trump!
They just don't understand that our money doesn't grow on tree's like big government money appears to do to them.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
07-08-2016, 07:12 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-08-2016, 07:23 PM by Eric the Green.)
(07-08-2016, 05:47 PM)Drakus79 Wrote: (07-08-2016, 07:08 AM)Odin Wrote: And property is the creation of the state and can only be enforced by state power protecting the Haves from the Have-Nots.
Your definition of property is either really skewed, or you're being obtuse. You don't need the state to have or defend property rights. Individuals have been defending their own property since time immemorial. Even animals defend their own territory without the help of a government.
That's called barbarism. At first people just wander around and have no real property at all. Then people take up arms and defend themselves against ambitious neighbors who want control, and to fend off pirates, brigands and invaders. Fighting is very severe and brutal. Eventually the most powerful fighters take over your region and demand payment in kind for protection. This is called feudalism. Eventually the most powerful feudal lords become the kings of their region. Well, it's back to the state then! But instead of civilized society, you have tyranny. I'm surprised you don't know this history. Did you see the Civilization episode one I linked here?
In civilization, however, property and money become government programs, and protecting it becomes the chief occupation of the state. Deeds are issued and money is coined. It's a much easier way to do things and allows for more activities in life than fighting and defending your property and losing anyway to the most brutal guy in your neighborhood, region or country.
Quote:Now if you were to say the state helps to enable a situation in which the haves can enforce a monopoly on property, I would agree with you. The state enabled the situation in which escaped slaves were forced to return to their masters. The state enables the situation in which huge corporations can lobby for more leverage over smaller businesses and institute government bailouts to the wealthiest 1%. The state enables the situation in which the central banks can keep borrowing against our children's future to keep their corrupt system afloat and keep the oligarchs in power. Yes, the state enables those types of corrupted property rights. But libertarians are opposed to that.
I just don't know where you libertarian guys get this notion. Was this a Generation X fad? I just don't get it.
The state doesn't have to do anything to create and "enforce" a monopoly, beyond its usual assignment of protecting property. The most successful, greedy and ambitious company in the "free market" buys out the competition or forces it out of business in short order. Mutual collusion follows and you have the oligarchy; no state activity needed. Big business can lobby for power because it controls government by spending money on campaigns and getting their guys in there who will refuse to outlaw such lobbying. Government bailouts did not create the 1%; the 1% created the bailouts by crashing the economy. Slavery existed because government did not outlaw it in certain areas, as it should have. Wealthy planters took advantage and controlled the government to protect their "property" until Abe took over and won the civil war.
Quote:Look at the way Johnson governed NM. He was very selective about which laws passed, vetoing most of them, and made sure each went through a rigorous cost/benefit analysis. He also promised not to use the power of the executive action unless there was a national emergency, and would probably undo several executive actions if he became president. His running mate, Bill Weld governed Massachusetts in a similar fashion. Both were Republican governors in heavily blue states, yet they were very popular in their states serving two terms. Why? Because they weren't your typical Republican NeoCons. They were classically liberal Republicans that you used to see in both parties once upon a time.
Generally, as a libertarian, you try to take more of a hands off approach to the executive office so as not to step on people's rights. When a tragedy happens, you try not to use it to your political advantage to set an agenda. The hope is to reverse the trend of what's going on USA for the past 40 years. Reverse the police state. Try to be nicer to each other. Set a tone of peace love and kindness rather than divisiveness and us vs. them approach. Try to defend people's rights rather than restrict them. Try to remove laws rather than add to them. It's actually very easy.
There is no getting "there". It's all a spectrum, sometimes we go too far one way, and have to reverse course. Right now we're too far in the authoritarian / oligarchy / police state direction and need to reverse course. And I acknowledge that once we do reverse course maybe things will go too far in the other direction and we may have to pull the breaks. But the ends don't justify the means. It's all means.
How is not passing laws "moderate?" The people of NM probably needed a lot of those laws. Laws are passed to protect the people from rapacious, greedy business people, as well as criminals. Business is not a criminal enterprise, but when it pollutes and violates the right of consumers and workers and trashes the economy, laws have to be passed. If business apologists like yourself and other libertarians want fewer laws, then the solution is for business to behave itself, and contribute so much to society that no welfare programs are even necessary. THAT would be "trying to be nice to each other," but I don't see that Utopia happening any time soon. The recent history of business rules it out for the foreseeable future, in fact.
Removing laws is not something that adds to peoples' rights, in itself. It depends on the law. Rights must be protected by law, or they don't exist except in theory. When tragedies happen, laws are often needed to prevent such tragedies from happening again. And they often work. The trend of the past 40 years has already been hands off. The result is the economic decline and inequality that we see. More laissez faire would just be more irresponsibility and neglect. I don't see irresponsibility as a solution to society's problems. The people and their government need to take a hands-on approach instead.
The police state exists in America mostly in communities of color. That's because the state you want to further dismantle, has already been drastically dismantled. Social workers have been fired; programs cut. Now all the social and economic problems have been dumped into the lap of the police, who are not able to handle them. The solution these last 40 years has been to arrest as many young black men as possible and put them in jail, or just shoot them. It doesn't work. We need the war on poverty back. We need government programs. We need better education. We need higher wages. We need communities working together, black and white, with awareness of what real needs are. Just to let things take their course, as you want, will not work.
Posts: 39
Threads: 5
Joined: Jun 2016
07-08-2016, 07:20 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-09-2016, 10:44 AM by Drakus79.)
You act as though libertarians will suddenly remove all laws. How many times to I have to say libertarianism is not anarchism. Did you not read the part where I said he puts each law through a cost benefit analysis before he decides to veto it or not? Why don't you actually look at their results before you make judgement call? NM and MA were very happy with both terms that Gary Johnson and Bill Weld served and they are very blue states, so I don't think you have too much to worry about.
As far as collusion of business goes. Yes. I acknowledge that can happen in the absence of government. Even Randians believe that one of the few roles governments should take in the free market should be to break up trusts. Adam Smith said this in "Wealth of Nations". But monopolies and oligopolies cannot become nearly as powerful in a truly free market if there's no big government lobby or central bank to bail it out or to pass laws giving them leverage over the little guy. Do you really think Hillary Clinton, given her sponsors, will stand up to corporatists and break up trusts? Of course not! The reason why there hasn't been a trust busting president since TR is because the big corporations haven't just been colluding with themselves, they've been colluding WITH government.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
07-08-2016, 07:36 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-08-2016, 07:38 PM by Eric the Green.)
(07-08-2016, 07:20 PM)Drakus79 Wrote: You act as though libertarians will suddenly remove all laws. How many times to I have to say libertarianism is not anarchism.
You wrote "Try to remove laws rather than add to them." I did not write that.
Quote:Did you not read the part where I said he puts each law through a cost benefit analysis before he decides to veto it or not? Why don't you actually look at their results before you make judgement call? NM and MA were very happy with both terms that Gary Johnson and Bill Weld served and they are very blue states, so I don't think you have too much to worry about.
Because it's clear as you said that he did not allow very many laws to be passed. The results are that NM is still a backward state with poor services and poor social mobility and with strong tendencies to violence. It is not a "heavily blue state," but a recent, moderate one due to immigration. Past domination by libertarian Republicans has given MN lots of problems which only Democratic rule can correct over a long period in the future. Even in MA and other blue states, tempting libertarian slogans can hold sway and moderate Republicans can win. Fortunately MA had a long history of Democratic rule which puts it in the forefront of states on all the scales of development and fairness.
Posts: 39
Threads: 5
Joined: Jun 2016
07-08-2016, 08:10 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-08-2016, 08:13 PM by Drakus79.)
I think it's a bit unfair to categorize NM as a backward state considering it's a mostly rural southwestern desert state with few big cities and unlike CA, it didn't really grow during the gold rush, whereas MA benefits from being part of the northeastern block that is the New York-Boston-New England megalopolis. That's pretty much been the heart of the US since the 1500s. As if a Democratic governor would have turned NM into CA or something.
Posts: 1,216
Threads: 29
Joined: May 2016
(07-08-2016, 05:47 PM)Drakus79 Wrote: Your definition of property is either really skewed, or you're being obtuse. You don't need the state to have or defend property rights. Individuals have been defending their own property since time immemorial. Even animals defend their own territory without the help of a government.
Traditional societies generally hold their productive lands, the means of production, in common.
Also, I am not talking about all property, I am talking about private property, the private ownership of the means of production. A lot of people on the right, like you, have been brainwashed by decades of anti-communist propaganda to confuse that with personal property.
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(07-09-2016, 12:29 PM)Odin Wrote: (07-08-2016, 05:47 PM)Drakus79 Wrote: Your definition of property is either really skewed, or you're being obtuse. You don't need the state to have or defend property rights. Individuals have been defending their own property since time immemorial. Even animals defend their own territory without the help of a government.
Traditional societies generally hold their productive lands, the means of production, in common.
Also, I am not talking about all property, I am talking about private property, the private ownership of the means of production. A lot of people on the right, like you, have been brainwashed by decades of anti-communist propaganda to confuse that with personal property.
So, in your liberal mind, the property that I purchased for my business to operate is not my private property or the same as the property that I purchased for the family to live in. All I can is, the Republicans would be wise to continue differentiating themselves from you and opposing you. We (the real Americans) don't want confusion when the killing starts. Odin, laws are written to protect people from other people in order to minimize the potential for violence. How much of America do you presently own Odin? Where do you live? Eric lives a few thousand miles away from me. You don't so that means we will be facing each other. As I've told you before, I'm liberal enough to hang white punks, black punks and Hispanic punks from the same limb of a tree. Your not going receive sympathy from me or my black and Hispanic buddies. I think its time to begin separating what's left of the workingman Democrats from you. Don't want our brothers and friends and neighbors getting hurt in the crisis culture clash that's coming.
Posts: 77
Threads: 20
Joined: May 2016
Guys could you discuss the issues without talking about killing each other?
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(07-09-2016, 03:43 PM)Webmaster Wrote: Guys could you discuss the issues without talking about killing each other?
If he stops talking about his beliefs, I'll stop talking about having to kill him. I'm sorry, my beliefs don't threaten anyones property rights and condone government seizure of private property. Is this going to be a liberal forum where liberals are allowed to talk about ideas that are upsetting to most US TAXPAYERS and US TAXPAYERS who remind them there is still a presence of the real world to be concerned about.
Posts: 77
Threads: 20
Joined: May 2016
(07-09-2016, 04:03 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (07-09-2016, 03:43 PM)Webmaster Wrote: Guys could you discuss the issues without talking about killing each other?
If he stops talking about his beliefs, I'll stop talking about having to kill him. I'm sorry, my beliefs don't threaten anyones property rights and condone government seizure of private property. Is this going to be a liberal forum where liberals are allowed to talk about ideas that are upsetting to most US TAXPAYERS and US TAXPAYERS who remind them there is still a presence of the real world to be concerned about.
I don’t have a problem with conservative ideas, it only become a problem when people start talking about each other in a threatening manner. I suspect that a lot of people will find Odin’s views on property extreme and a certainly have no problem with people disagreeing with them. I’m not even sure that his views of property even apply to a single person business like yours anyway but he’ll have to speak for himself.
Posts: 39
Threads: 5
Joined: Jun 2016
The example of animals defending their own territory is "private property" even going by the convenient "let's move the goalpost" Marxist definition.
Posts: 1,216
Threads: 29
Joined: May 2016
Well that escalated quickly...
(07-09-2016, 04:46 PM)Webmaster Wrote: I don’t have a problem with conservative ideas, it only become a problem when people start talking about each other in a threatening manner. I suspect that a lot of people will find Odin’s views on property extreme and a certainly have no problem with people disagreeing with them. I’m not even sure that his views of property even apply to a single person business like yours anyway but he’ll have to speak for himself.
The far-left generally has no problem with sole-proprietorships as long as they are small and employing mostly family.
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
|
