(07-27-2017 01:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  With his polls numbers pretty consistently around 40% since before being elected... I don't think many people have changed their minds on Trump. He was the nominee from 'the right'... and the establishment of that group CERTAINLY wasn't going to vote for Hillary. Most of them would vote for a toaster with an R next to it.

As I said, I would have preferred Bernie, but he didn't get the nod from the left. Trump has done nothing to convince me that Hillary would have been any better... she's as deep in any of these same scandals as he is and in many ways deeper.

Like those in the establishment right, I think you'd vote for anyone with a 'D' next to their name... insider, outsider, whatever. You certainly wouldn't vote for a socially conservative Republican, nor a socially liberal, fiscally conservative Libertarian who would obviously run on the same ticket.

So ... all of that to just basically say exactly what was known from the very beginning of the campaign: lots of people do not like HRC, for various reasons that have nothing to do with if she would have been a good president.

Simply a different candidate, but just as much of an establishment insider as HRC, wins the election. Joe Biden wins the election. So that completely disproves anything regarding insider/outsider, etc.

(07-27-2017 01:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Having a limited government means doing 100% of 20% of the things they currently do.

I'm fully aware of the fantasy a few people (couple handfuls) in the country have about literally shutting down whole deptartments of the federal government.

It's sad, really.

(07-27-2017 03:21 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  How did you arrive at that conclusion?

I'm genuinely curious.

The founders were big believers in rights. But they knew, as anyone with common sense does, that rights have no context outside the ability to enforce their protection.

With a weak government, businesses can trample all over our rights, and even regular people can trample over other people's rights.

Quote: by Mario Rizzo

I consider myself both a libertarian and a classical liberal. I have been teaching a seminar in classical liberalism at the NYU Law School for six semesters. I am always asked about the difference. My answer is basically this. Classical liberalism is the philosophy of political liberty from the perspective of a vast history of thought. Libertarianism is the philosophy of liberty from the perspective of its modern revival from the late sixties-early seventies on.

https://thinkmarkets.wordpress.com/2014/...ifference/

(07-27-2017 06:35 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  The founders were big believers in rights. But they knew, as anyone with common sense does, that rights have no context outside the ability to enforce their protection.

With a weak government, businesses can trample all over our rights, and even regular people can trample over other people's rights.

Wow.

Is there an academic that supports this argument? Can you post a link?

Only requires that you trust the founders had common sense. I'm pretty sure they did

(07-28-2017 11:06 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Only requires that you trust the founders had common sense. I'm pretty sure they did

The founders were far more worried about big GOVERNMENT trampling our rights than big business. In doing so, they displayed substantial common sense. Far more than our leaders today do.

(07-28-2017 11:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The founders were far more worried about big GOVERNMENT trampling our rights.

They were worried about England trampling rights of the colonists ... hence why they convinced the colonies to create a central government strong and large enough to fight off the English.

(07-28-2017 11:34 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 11:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The founders were far more worried about big GOVERNMENT trampling our rights.

They were worried about England trampling rights of the colonists ... hence why they convinced the colonies to create a central government strong and large enough to fight off the English.

And I totally support a central government strong enough to fight off the English--or in today's world the Russians or Chinese or Islamic terrorists.

What I don't support is a much stronger central government for the purpose of screwing Americans.

(07-28-2017 11:39 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What I don't support is a much stronger central government for the purpose of screwing Americans.

Military requires the largest and strongest central government.

So I guess you're screwed.

(07-28-2017 11:45 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 11:39 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What I don't support is a much stronger central government for the purpose of screwing Americans.

Military requires the largest and strongest central government.
So I guess you're screwed.

Military doesn't require anything that screws private domestic citizens.

Disagree? Fine, please explain how a strong military requires screwing private citizens.

Fighting wars that we don't intend to win screws everyone who loses life or limb, at a minimum, but fighting wars that we don't intend to win has nothing to do with a strong military. It actually weakens the military.

(07-28-2017 12:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Fine, please explain how a strong military requires screwing private citizens.

Your definition of "getting screwed" is having to pay taxes. Military requires taxes

(07-28-2017 12:05 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-28-2017 12:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Fine, please explain how a strong military requires screwing private citizens.

Your definition of "getting screwed" is having to pay taxes. Military requires taxes

No, my definition of getting screwed is getting screwed.

I've laid out in detail what I would do. You've seen it on here. I think you've even responded . It involves taxes. So you know already that your statement above is a blatant lie.

(07-28-2017 12:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  No, my definition of getting screwed is getting screwed.

Conveniently defined to align exactly with the agenda you advocate

(07-27-2017 06:35 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  So ... all of that to just basically say exactly what was known from the very beginning of the campaign: lots of people do not like HRC, for various reasons that have nothing to do with if she would have been a good president.

Simply a different candidate, but just as much of an establishment insider as HRC, wins the election. Joe Biden wins the election. So that completely disproves anything regarding insider/outsider, etc.

Not at all what I said... in fact the complete opposite of what I said.

The people who didn't like Hillary wouldn't vote for her no matter what. It was the people who WOULD have voted for Bernie and DID vote for Obama who DIDN'T show up to vote for Hillary (because she had NO appeal for them) who cost her the election.

Trump didn't outperform Romney. Hillary under-performed Obama

It's not a question of inside/outside... It's a question of APPEAL. If you're saying that ANY democrat other than Hillary would have appealed more to Bernie or Obama voters... I don't think I'd disagree... but it seems clear that Bernie didn't appeal to the insiders. Like Trump to the republicans, they'd still have shown up for him though

I made that point long before the election. The DNC and their blind support for Hillary and ignoring the 'outsiders' in their party is what cost them the election.

Quote:

(07-27-2017 01:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Having a limited government means doing 100% of 20% of the things they currently do.

I'm fully aware of the fantasy a few people (couple handfuls) in the country have about literally shutting down whole deptartments of the federal government.

It's sad, really.

You're talking about departments, and though sometimes it is simply easier to speak in such terms for expediency, the overwhelming number of millions who voted for Johnson (and many millions more who voted for Trump) are really talking about 'functions'.

Shutting down departments doesn't necessarily mean eliminating EVERYthing those departments do. i suspect that every department does SOMETHING I think the government should continue to do... but if you strip them down to the important issues and only one action remains, it MIGHT be worth consolidating that department into another.

Does it really matter if the EPA is a stand alone entity or if the functions of protecting air and water are now under the Bureau of Land Management? (just throwing that out as a for instance... not qualified to suggest something like that)

Was listening to a political ad this morning and it was talking about how the EPA was responsible for cleaning up a benzene leak in the valley years ago and about how the local senator was thus wrong to suggest a 6% cut in their budget for 2018....

as if there is no possible way that between 1980 (or whenever that was) and today that we've created 6% slack in that department or that without that 6%, they couldn't still do their jobs.

That's what they were selling, and people buy it. You'd actually have to look at budgets and know what you're looking at to know which side was right, but almost no voters ever do.

That's how government gets bloated.

Like everything else, Government needs efficiency experts to come in and overhaul it every so often.

Quote:The founders were big believers in rights. But they knew, as anyone with common sense does, that rights have no context outside the ability to enforce their protection.

With a weak government, businesses can trample all over our rights, and even regular people can trample over other people's rights.

Who said anything about a 'weak' government?

Nobody I've seen from the right suggested that the feds shouldn't control the most powerful military force in the history of the world or that there shouldn't be a supreme court or federal law enforcement and prisons.

I just find it funny that we have so many liberal states refusing to cooperate with Federal law enforcement and yet somehow it is libertarians or the right who wants a weak federal government??

I realize sometimes people use the term 'weak', but they actually mean 'limited'. Not remotely the same thing in practice.

(07-26-2017 12:08 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

Quote:most of the philosophies of a libertarian stem from the ORIGINAL ideals of a Republican... that we are a Republic and that most governing should be done more locally

Bleh.

SOME governing should be done locally. But a strong and powerful central government is absolutely necessary. 99%+ of Americans agree

That statement is 99% fabrics.

99.999% of modern superpowers that over-centralized and spent money they didn't have ended up collapsing. Margin of error is +/- .001 percent.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Quote:The founders were big believers in rights. But they knew, as anyone with common sense does, that rights have no context outside the ability to enforce their protection.

With a weak government, businesses can trample all over our rights, and even regular people can trample over other people's rights.

Quote:Who said anything about a 'weak' government?

Nobody I've seen from the right suggested that the feds shouldn't control the most powerful military force in the history of the world or that there shouldn't be a supreme court or federal law enforcement and prisons.

I just find it funny that we have so many liberal states refusing to cooperate with Federal law enforcement and yet somehow it is libertarians or the right who wants a weak federal government??

I realize sometimes people use the term 'weak', but they actually mean 'limited'. Not remotely the same thing in practice.

Hammy- you literally did nothing to refute the point he made at all while providing zero arguments of substance to support your position. this exact exchange of yours perfectly exemplifies why I rarely (if ever) take you seriously.

(07-27-2017 06:35 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-27-2017 01:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  With his polls numbers pretty consistently around 40% since before being elected... I don't think many people have changed their minds on Trump. He was the nominee from 'the right'... and the establishment of that group CERTAINLY wasn't going to vote for Hillary. Most of them would vote for a toaster with an R next to it.

As I said, I would have preferred Bernie, but he didn't get the nod from the left. Trump has done nothing to convince me that Hillary would have been any better... she's as deep in any of these same scandals as he is and in many ways deeper.

Like those in the establishment right, I think you'd vote for anyone with a 'D' next to their name... insider, outsider, whatever. You certainly wouldn't vote for a socially conservative Republican, nor a socially liberal, fiscally conservative Libertarian who would obviously run on the same ticket.

So ... all of that to just basically say exactly what was known from the very beginning of the campaign: lots of people do not like HRC, for various reasons that have nothing to do with if she would have been a good president.

Simply a different candidate, but just as much of an establishment insider as HRC, wins the election. Joe Biden wins the election. So that completely disproves anything regarding insider/outsider, etc.

(07-27-2017 01:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Having a limited government means doing 100% of 20% of the things they currently do.

I'm fully aware of the fantasy a few people (couple handfuls) in the country have about literally shutting down whole deptartments of the federal government.

It's sad, really.

(07-27-2017 03:21 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  How did you arrive at that conclusion?

I'm genuinely curious.

The founders were big believers in rights. But they knew, as anyone with common sense does, that rights have no context outside the ability to enforce their protection.

With a weak government, businesses can trample all over our rights, and even regular people can trample over other people's rights.

I can assure you that the Founding Fathers were not worried about businesses trampling your rights.

(07-29-2017 11:39 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

Quote:The founders were big believers in rights. But they knew, as anyone with common sense does, that rights have no context outside the ability to enforce their protection.

With a weak government, businesses can trample all over our rights, and even regular people can trample over other people's rights.

Quote:Who said anything about a 'weak' government?

Nobody I've seen from the right suggested that the feds shouldn't control the most powerful military force in the history of the world or that there shouldn't be a supreme court or federal law enforcement and prisons.

I just find it funny that we have so many liberal states refusing to cooperate with Federal law enforcement and yet somehow it is libertarians or the right who wants a weak federal government??

I realize sometimes people use the term 'weak', but they actually mean 'limited'. Not remotely the same thing in practice.

Hammy- you literally did nothing to refute the point he made at all while providing zero arguments of substance to support your position. this exact exchange of yours perfectly exemplifies why I rarely (if ever) take you seriously.

Actually I did. I'm not responsible for your inability to comprehend.

The point you're making implies a fact not in evidence... and a poor comprehension of the English language. Though often used as such, weak and limited are not the same thing.

Your point is directly refuted. It isn't valid or a factual representation of what is being suggested.

Here's the problem with your interaction with me... When I'm brief and assume you know what is meant by 'words', you complain that I don't refute your points... When I'm very clear, you complain that I write too much. Maybe your handle should be goldilocks?

It seems rather self evident that 'limited' and 'weak' are not the same word. You're describing government under libertarians to be 'weak', but it is actually 'limited'. Limited refers to the scope... i.e. the range of things it does. You act as if it means they can't enforce whatever they ARE in charge of.... hence my comments about the military and federal judicial authority.

We're not talking about turning the Feds into the UN where the courts have no jurisdiction and there is no ability to enforce laws, except against the weak (which is what you describe).

Oddly, especially with your comments here... I bet many who agree with you for some reason support the impotent UN.

In a simple example, government can easily keep corporations from trampling people's rights and provide for the common defense without needing to stop us from buying a 24 oz coke, but allowing us instead to buy two 16 oz cokes. I realize that's not a federal issue (yet) but I wanted to pick something we'd all agree the government shouldn't be doing....

Part of the reason I didn't go into more specifics is that I don't presume to know what you'd agree the government shouldn't do, but I'm betting there IS a list of things you don't think they should be spending money on... and I'd bet I'd agree with some of them.

Maybe I give you too much credit

One thing is clear after reading this thread. Members of the 2 gang system are as clueless about Libertarianism as Libertarians are.

Ham- he made a very legitimate point about business trampling the consumer. Bringing that up in the context of the FF is a bit asinine but you didn't go there refuting that. You instead go on about the military proving yet again your incompetence and tendency to fail to address a point. I really have no idea what the military has jack. **** to do about businesses trampling the consumer. And yet you have the gall to act as if this is a competency issue on my part. Nope it has to do with crap like this with you attempting to refute something that has no relevance to the topic at hand time and time again compounded with your ineptitude that prevents you from seeing the lack of a connection.

You do this again by bringing up f***ing soda. That is govt trying to encourage healthy habits by discouraging consumers from buying said product with a tax or ban. That has jack **** to do with the topic at hand. They are similar in that both are "consumer protection" but two fundamentally different types which proves you either know nothing about either or are being a slimeball taking advantage of the two being fundamentally different but having the same name to mislead.

The type that is actually the topic at hand is stuff like airplane seat size, spam robot phone calls, health care, etc. all of those are examples where a business can bully/push around the general public and it's the govt that enacts consumer protections to protect the business from steamrolling the consumer. I didn't pick those three examples randomly, I picked them because we have had recent threads dedicated to each of those topics. And yet did you pick any of them? Of course not because you knew exactly that those examples were exactly what the topic at hand was and perfect examples devastating your argument. Thus you didn't use them and instead you went for an example that doesn't even work with the topic at hand all in your attempt to weasel, slimeball, etc. your way out of an argument.

You want to know why I give you so much crap for your posts? It's not because they are too long, or too short and not specific enough. It's because they are always fundamentally bad. For example I can show you 4/5 of the LP candidates supporting a repeal of the CRA and that does nothing for you because GJ nullified that for some reason in your mind. As if the idea that GJ won the nom IN SPITE of not supporting a popular LP position never crossed your mind. As if the concept of a candidate breaking with his own party on a single issue and still winning the nom is a foreign concept to you. You can let your imagination run wild to find a way to weasel a conversation when it favors you but ask you to do a little bit of critical thinking when it's too your detriment and suddenly you can't see even the most basic connection. It should have been obvious what I was getting at on the GJ-CRA thing and yet you refused to see it.

That's why I rightfully so give you so much crap on your posting style. It's not that I have to read a lot of words, but so many bad arguments that are either off topic or dumb and if not both.

Since I'm ranting: let's keep breaking down how bad your posts are. Your assertion about limited and weak. Yeah they may not be synonymous but they are as close to being similar without technically being synonyms. Heck one of the definitions for limited was "lacking in ability." If you have a bridge with limited support beams keeping it from collapsing...it's a weak bridge. If you have a resume with limited qualifying characteristics...it is a weak resume. Just another slime ball example on your part.

It's self evident that limited govt = weaker govt. libertarians like to use a magic brush to pretend otherwise which is why the party is such a joke. You guys want to take away regulations protecting workers/consumers and yet act as if there is some magical supreme force that will keep protecting those workers.

When you take support beams away from a bridge the bridge only becomes weaker.

Also a detainer request is literally a request. To pull funding over that would be the single biggest blow to state's rights since the civil war. The precedent being set there effectively ends any remaining notion of its existence and the cons are encouraging this to happen all in the name of enacting an unfunded govt mandate. It's crazy that you are more critical of dems than cons on this while claiming to be impartial to either side.