How Many Libertarians on this Board Were Born Into Poverty?

Are you being threatened by your neighbors?

 

"Up in arms"? It is the primary law under which all other laws derive their legal authority.

How are you trying to manipulate usage of the supremacy clause in relation to Arizona?

 

I don't see how you can make a case for government, especially the Federal government, being more open than private business.

I recognize the fact that problems are most easily solved at their sources, and while problems may often be similar their best solutions may not be, nor need not be identical.

 

Depending on what it is that is being regulated and monitored.

That would be nice if we all thought the same. Too often laws are created to achieve a political agenda and acquire votes.

People should be free to make their own decisions, both good and bad, and learn from their mistakes. Allowing government to make decisions doesn't provide a guarantee that only good decisions will be made, and the fact that government decisions have effect on all of us can produce disastrous results when bad decisions are made.

Delegate Keynes to the waste basket, or bit bucket.

Yes, business come and go. Carriage and harness makers, and blacksmiths are few today. Computers have replaced typewriters, and many products become obsolete or replaced by better ones over time. Bubbles are created and bursting constantly in a free market. Government tends to merge each bubble into a single bubble which like all bubbles will at some point burst and have effect on the entire nations economy.
Financial institutions when used as a tool by government can really have detrimental effect on the economy as we are currently recognizing.

Dishonesty is relative to what people do, and business or government happens to be where things get done. A business that is run by dishonest people can have quite a negative effect on a sector of society in the area in which it performs its business. Government on the other hand can have a negative effect upon all of society, and in all areas which business is performed.

 

Try narrowing your focus instead of broadening it. I just don't have the time and patience to answer such a large variety of questions.

 

Pick a single topic, and try reducing it to where a single answer can be agreed upon. I just don't view society as a condition where each problem that exists can reduced to single solutions with identical and/or desirable results for everyone.

 

I used to be rather poor, but am no longer. I consider myself a right-libertarian, ie: what Americans and Canadians usually think when they hear "libertarian".

 

You said:

I said:

You said:

You just totally dodged what I said.

The supremacy clause goes against what you think about how government should be run. Do you, or do you not, understand what the supremacy clause is? Do you, or do you not, think that the US should follow the constitution strictly? I seem to remember you saying you favored a more literal interpretation.

It's related to arizona because their halfwitted fuckwad of a gov. just said that their citizens are not US citizens, but citizens of the state of arizona, and as such, arizona and arizona's opinions are all that matters there. Which is in clear defiance of the supremacy clause. He seems to have forgotten that we no longer use the articles of confederation. And so do you.

 

Upon parsing your first sentence, assuming you intended to use the word "were" as opposed to "where", I first pointed out that I was uncertain of your usage of the words "Up in arms" by presenting them followed by a question mark. I then went on to state that the Constitution is indeed THE supreme law of the U.S. And yes indeed, I do favor a quite literal interpretation of the Constitution, with amendments being the sole source to bring about changes in interpretation as determined necessary and only with the consent of the governed, a much different process than just allowing elected politicians and activist judges to do so in order to bring about changes that may or may not find acceptance by the general public.

Yes, I do understand what the supremacy clause is, and I did not dodge your question but only asked you to clarify it.

I would really have to see or hear first hand what you claim to have been said by the Arizona governor as it appears to most likely have been taken out of context. Then it is a fact that States also have laws which differ from one another, and as such they apply when you live in or visit that State.
Is what you are referring to related to illegal aliens? And if so how, or better yet do you have a link to a video or "full" text transcript of what the Governor is being claimed to have said? As you refer to the Governor of Arizona using the word "he", I am wondering if that was just a typo, or are you talking about someone other than the Governor, who I perhaps incorrectly thought was a female, Jan Brewer. Words are important for meaningful communication to take place, just as they are for laws to have the effect of their intent without unintended consequences.

 

Indie

So you didn’t read it then?

More - unsubstantiated assertion.

Doesn’t address what was said - evasion

And more - unsubstantiated assertion.

Evasion

Unsubstantiated assertion

Doesn’t address what was raised

Sloganizing

Doesn’t address what was raised

Unsubstantiated assertion

Unsubstantiated assertions

Unsubstantiated assertions

If anything the recent financial crisis shows that a ‘negative effect’ touches many people (well maybe not you in Laos) but definitely in Europe and the US.

Evasion trick

Then stop posting so many broad, tangential, unsubstantiated assertions.

Evasion trickery

 

Indie

I ask you to address some of the criticisms of your views and in return I get yet more unsubstantiated assertions and yet more evasion.

*

Ok you ask me to ask one question so I choose to ask -

Why?

I’ve asked it maybe a hundred times or more times now and so far all I’ve got is…well very little really. Usually all I get in return is yet more assertions of you belief or yet more sloganizing and once and awhile a simplistic ‘because’ without any explanation.

In debate ‘why’ is as important as ‘why’ is in the investigation of a crime, why is about motivation, about the aim, about what the person want to achieve.

Many times you’ve tried to get out of answering by using that age old childish trick of throwing the question back I presume in the hope that I’d find it as difficult to reply to it as you do, the problem is I can reply and have done every time you’ve asked.

This seems like a rational and reasonable aim, I mean nobody in their right mind it would seem to me would want to aim for a worse society a place were most people’s quality of life was lower and where most people had even less of a chance to be happy or satisfied.

But in discussion with you it seems that is your aim, it would seem that all your ideas are designed to make most peoples life worse. True they would make a few people (and institutions) richer and even fewer of those vastly more rich and powerful, but it wouldn’t actually increase their quality of life much, while at the same time reducing the quality of life of many in society.

I’ve pointed this out time after time explaining often in detail why and how your ideas would have an adverse effect on society, but you seem unwilling or unable to address these criticisms of your views, and so I’ve wondered often and openly why you have these views.

You once said that “Sometimes things must get worse before they get better”

I would have liked you to have expanded on that to explain why you thought your ideas would make things worse and why you thought they’d then make things better, but you wouldn’t, at the time.


So why?

What is your motivation what are you trying to achieve what are your aims?

Once we have that maybe it would be easier to look at the ‘how’ - at how you think your ideas could bring it about

 

This has become so monotonous, that I will just answer your one question and consider any further attempts to be nothing more than a waste of time and effort for each of us.
Why not?

 

yes and no, but it's a rhetorical question

i had the thought [i'm kinda sick so bear with me] this morning that all social problems derive from the simple problem of one item that two people want

?

 

Indie

And yet more evasion. Thing is if you are not here to debate your ideas and view why are you here? If it is just to attack other peoples ideas simply out of spite then you are a troll.

That is what you consider as a rational and reasonable response?

And I’ve already replied to it – because your ideas seem designed to make most peoples life worse. They’re not only useless ideas they are actually bad ideas.

If you cannot defend your ideas from that criticism then it stands.

And trying to spread such ideas when you know they’re useless and bad seems like the actions of a troll.

 

That's something I can agree with, and it need not be just a single item, but could be anything that exists in a quantity less than adequate to meet demand. Some problems are unsolvable, but then I assume you could also bring up things that exist in ample quantity, but are possessed by few, and that's an area where I assume you would wish to go next. Correct?

 

You continually present generalities which are difficult if not impossible to address rationally. You tend to promote the view that those who have more than others should be punished in some way as if they are guilty of stealing from the poor in acquiring what they have. It's as though you are constantly looking over the fence and seeing the grass to be greener than your own or others like you who could have the same quality of lawn just by doing the same type of lawn care.Some people I have known have had to work two or even three jobs to achieve the lifestyle they wanted.
Democracy cannot produce a homogeneous society using a progressive income tax as a means of funding government and its various programs. It will always move more and more towards becoming a purer form of democracy where the demands upon government will exceed the capacity to fund it.

 

no

i was hoping to go to an idea like:

the single thing they both wanted was enough food for one to eat for long enough that the other would starve to death

without knowing what would happen in the future, during the eating/starving, or immediately thereafter

or something like that

 

General Electric made 14 billion last year,5 billion in the continental US ----and paid NO-repeat NO taxes. How does that fit anywhere but the rich getting richer?? Let's see some right winger defend that.

 

Okay, concentrating on just food an essential of life, how is your idea developed going forward?

 

You very neatly, yet again, sidestepped the whole fucking thing.

Forget arizona.

The supremacy clause says that power rests with the federal government. You said that you think the finial say should rest with states. Defend your statement.