The piggish politics of fake libertarians

[cawacko]

you people really have no idea how to craft a coalition of consensus.



your all my way or the highway nutters.


You always have to have a faction to hate to feel valid.


Its the mindframe of your people.

the world revolves around finding others to hate so you can feel good in comparison.


hate makes a poor master

Desh this is truly the saying irony is ironic.

I'll give just one example. Onceler is a Bush and Iraq War hating Global Warming believing liberal who because you and he disagree on the TM-GZ trial result you have labeled a racist and essentially not a true liberal. I mean if that isn't the definition of 'my way or the highway' then I don't know what is.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

you people really have no idea how to craft a coalition of consensus.



your all my way or the highway nutters.


You always have to have a faction to hate to feel valid.


Its the mindframe of your people.

the world revolves around finding others to hate so you can feel good in comparison.


hate makes a poor master

Like it or not Desh is absolutely right. The failure and utter impotency of libertarians to be able to build political coalitions that get anything done is why they are essentially a political joke. You can espouse high ideals all you want but until Libertarians can actually build affective coalitions and demonstrate that they can govern competently the they will remain what they currently are. Irrelevent.

 

[I'm Watermark]

No, we really shouldn't. The primary purpose of government is to protect life and liberty, and then to protect our personal property. Now, we can still champion an effective, progressive government that offers quality services and champions the health, contracts, and conditions of the average citizen (such as laborers and low-income service providers).

I don't see how that contradicts what I said. Government, or at least one that calls itself remotely democratic, carries the role of guaranteeing freedom, liberty and so on, to the citizenry. And though we disagree on how to express it, that basic idea remains, does it not?

 

[tekkychick]

Like it or not Desh is absolutely right. The failure and utter impotency of libertarians to be able to build political coalitions that get anything done is why they are essentially a political joke. You can espouse high ideals all you want but until Libertarians can actually build affective coalitions and demonstrate that they can govern competently the they will remain what they currently are. Irrelevent.

While I agree they don't have much political power, even a small group not in power can have an effect on the ideas in this country. And gradually, over time, as they get more people to agree with their ideas, some of their ideas may be implemented.

 

[evince]

Like it or not Desh is absolutely right. The failure and utter impotency of libertarians to be able to build political coalitions that get anything done is why they are essentially a political joke. You can espouse high ideals all you want but until Libertarians can actually build affective coalitions and demonstrate that they can govern competently the they will remain what they currently are. Irrelevent.

you cant build with failed ideas.

too many see their economic ideas are built on sand

 

[cawacko]

While I agree they don't have much political power, even a small group not in power can have an effect on the ideas in this country. And gradually, over time, as they get more people to agree with their ideas, some of their ideas may be implemented.

Exactly. To say one has to be a Democrat or Republican otherwise you can have no voice in this country is ridiculous. There are Libertarians, there are Greens there are Independents who all have voices and good ideas that influence what the two major party's do.

 

[Timshel]

So you propose that a “true” libertarian should oppose all “liability” laws?

No. I dont know where you got that, moron?

And of course you’re gonna present your medical credentials, right?

What are your credentials? I am not telling them what procedures they need to perform. I am saying they are best at choosing that and free market forces, like liability, will regulate them. You are opposing the free market and for no reason other than to burden those seeking and providing a procedure you don't like.

But that’s not what I said. The Texas regulations are debatable at best. I simply argue that the STATE of Texas has a state right to regulate abortion as long as they don’t violate the national Constitution.

They violate the constitution .

Libertarian thought does not end at the federal government. These laws are an infringement on individual rights and serve no rational state interest.

Federal and State gun laws often violate the Second Amendment.

And abortion laws violate the right to privacy. These Texas laws also compel speech, which is a violation of the first amendment.

He wasn’t just violating regulations, he was inspiring abortion opponents to regulate the hell out of abortion. You didn’t mention him because he didn’t have anything positive to offer your argument. On the contrary his actions are opposing evidence to your argument. Because of him you’re now only left with 2 choices. You either successfully change the political ideological make up of Texas government and replace the regulators with those who will repeal the regulations you oppose, or you manage to get into court and prove the regulations are unconstitutional and thereby invalid.

I did not mention him. Why is not the point. The point is that you lied in claiming I had defended him. You are trying to change the topic rather than showing integrity and retracting the false charge you made against me. You are just another Republican scumbag.

 

[Minister of Truth]

I don't see how that contradicts what I said. Government, or at least one that calls itself remotely democratic, carries the role of guaranteeing freedom, liberty and so on, to the citizenry. And though we disagree on how to express it, that basic idea remains, does it not?

To an extent. Where you and I differ, though, is that when the principles of government come into conflict with these ideals and programs, the former must take precedence.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

No, we really shouldn't. The primary purpose of government is to protect life and liberty, and then to protect our personal property. Now, we can still champion an effective, progressive government that offers quality services and champions the health, contracts, and conditions of the average citizen (such as laborers and low-income service providers).

That's right 3D but please expound up "property" in the context that Locke meant, would you please?

 

[Minister of Truth]

Land.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I don't see how that contradicts what I said. Government, or at least one that calls itself remotely democratic, carries the role of guaranteeing freedom, liberty and so on, to the citizenry. And though we disagree on how to express it, that basic idea remains, does it not?

The problem with 3D definition of the primary role of Government is he has grossly limited what John Locke meant by "property" to just simply "private property" which is the corporate/plutocrat version of the primary role of government. That's because they are concerned about their "private property" and not yours. This is a bastardization by libertarians upon what John Locke mean by "property" in his second treatize on Government in 1689. That is 3D and libertarians are not using "property" in the context that was meant by Locke.

Locke believed property meant far more than personal possessions, i.e. land and goods, which is what 3D and libertarians are limiting the definition too and thus warpnig what the proper role of government is. Locke believed that property included the ownership of one's self which includes a right to personal well being, as well as, freedom of opportunity and to help those in want. It was because he knew that some would limit the definition of "property" to personal property, i.e. land and goods, and thus subvert both Lockes meaning of property and the proper role of government that Thomas Jefferson replaced the word "property" with "the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence.

So when you hear this reactionary claptrap that protecting freedom of opportunity for all or to help those in want is not a proper function of government and that it is "socialsim" they simply don't know what they are talking about. These are indeed proper functions of government as defined by our founding fathers.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Land.

Wrong.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Locke never used the expression, Mott. It was invented by Jefferson when Adams suggested that "property" was an abused term and should be changed to something else.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Locke never used the expression, Mott. It was invented by Jefferson when Adams suggested that "property" was an abused term and should be changed to something else.

Read what I wrote 3D. That's precisely what I said.

"It was because he knew that some would limit the definition of "property" to personal property, i.e. land and goods, and thus subvert both Lockes meaning of property and the proper role of government that Thomas Jefferson replaced the word "property" with "the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence."

 

[Robo]

No. I dont know where you got that, moron?

I got that from your post idiot! You insinuate that no good libertarian should accept liability laws. Go back and read your own shit.

What are your credentials?

I don’t need any medical credentials! You’re the one who’s claiming that Texas law is unnecessary medical procedures. That might have some credibility if you could show some credentials that showed you knew something about what the fuck you were talking about.

I am not telling them what procedures they need to perform. I am saying they are best at choosing that and free market forces, like liability, will regulate them. You are opposing the free market and for no reason other than to burden those seeking and providing a procedure you don't like.

Actually what I’m doing is supporting the Constitution which gives States the authority to make all State law as long as State law doesn’t violate the national Constitution and thus far you have shown nothing that shows where Texas State law violates the Constitution.

They violate the constitution .

OK, explain where Texas State law is violating the Constitution.

Libertarian thought does not end at the federal government. These laws are an infringement on individual rights and serve no rational state interest.

So you say! OK explain how.

And abortion laws violate the right to privacy. These Texas laws also compel speech, which is a violation of the first amendment.

One’s privacy is limited when they enter into a public facility whereby the State has every constitutional right to regulate.

I did not mention him. Why is not the point. The point is that you lied in claiming I had defended him. You are trying to change the topic rather than showing integrity and retracting the false charge you made against me. You are just another Republican scumbag.

You didn’t mention him exactly for the reason I have already submitted. These State laws to more stringently regulate abortion are the unintended consequences of the leftist agenda for abortion on demand unregulated. You didn’t mention him because he’s the Achilles heel of your fucking leftwing agenda. You defended him purely by omitting him from your flawed presentation.

BTW, I’ve been called a “Republican scumbag” often by the communist left and I’ve been called a “Democrat scumbag” by the fascist right. I revel in such glory! When both left and right hate my guts, I know I’m a loyal patriot to our Constitution.