Libertarian Thread #2: We Shall Never Die!

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Dudemanguy wrote: I for one would not mind seeing a Paul-Huntsmen ticket (or a Paul-Johnson one).  My dog is more electable than Gingrich. Anyone with half a brain can see the slime oozing out of that guy.  Paul wouldn't run with Huntsmen.

Not even with one Huntsman

JJLehto wrote: Who WOULD Paul run with???? It can't even be his son since I think he once said he wouldn't, supposedly they disagree on too much stuff It couldn't be...well pretty much every other politician out there.

It would have to be one of these guys on this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Republican#Public_figures

Dudemanguy wrote: JJLehto wrote: Who WOULD Paul run with???? It can't even be his son since I think he once said he wouldn't, supposedly they disagree on too much stuff It couldn't be...well pretty much every other politician out there. It would have to be one of these guys on this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Republican#Public_figures

I will say it will not be someone on that list.

Dennis Miller

I guess it would be the first father-son ticket in history

Dudemanguy wrote: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/12/gingrich-promises-personal-fidelity-in-pledge/ The former House speaker said he was fully committed to defending traditional marriage, including enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act and supporting a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman. Gingrich also used his pledge to lambaste what he called an intrusion of federal courts in the private lives of Americans, saying the phenomenon "amounts to a constitutional crisis." Only a slight contradiction here...

JJLehto wrote: I would be very inclined to agree with that. So who? Is there someone you can think of?

Judge Napolitano, a few years ago I may say Jesse Ventura might be a bit dicey politically now. I'm not so sure.

I can guess cabinet and advisory positions more easily since they need not have political motives only intellectual ones.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Epignosis wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Epignosis wrote: I find your answers reasonable. This is good. I thought you may not. I wonder why you would suspect that. The only detail I would disagree with is perhaps this: Equality 7-2521 wrote: They should be punished differently than actually committing crimes simply because the damage inflicted is much less than if they had succeeded. A bad thief is still a thief, no? Perhaps my wording was poor, I was not convinced I had said enough so I thought may answers may not have been justified sufficiently for you. Yes a bad thief is still a thief, but if you focus on restitution, and even if you focus on punishment, the attempted thief has still taken less from you than the successful thief. Like the man who sets out to kill you, yet misses and only grazes your skin with the bullet, your skin can be more easily replaced than your life so I feel the punishment should reflect that. It's as though the thief intended to steal your flatscreen and your sports car, but he was apprehended after only getting the car. He has stolen less, he is to return less from you even though his intentions were worse.

I believe restitution should be increased with punitive damages in these cases, but I see in a later post you made you would agree with that.

The T wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: The T wrote: No, it basically aims to eliminate that power that allows government to get in bed with wealthy elitists and ubercorporations for the exclusive benefit of a few. To speak for me personally, libertarianism also hopes to smash down ubercorporations as JJ puts it. Yes the methods it takes differ from those of others since the market failure which allows an exploitative corporation to succeed implies the aid of government regulations or funds somewhere in the equations. I have a particular disdain for pharmaceutical companies. I think they get rich by essentially exploiting the rest of us. Attacking them is pointless though. That's like trying to destroy a tree by eating the apples. You're just letting the tree grow taller and fertilizing the tree's seeds. The T wrote: What is really worrying and at times even repulsive is the implicit moral judgement that TheDoctor seems to make based on a person's wealth. One can read between the lines: the wealthy are always bad, sacks of corruption, decayed immoral criminals, abusers, BAD people; the poor are NEVER ever poor for their bad decisions or work ethic or anything, they are pure, perfect, all screwed up by the guy above. In his defense, it may appear that we claim that all the government does is ipso facto evil and all private sector good. If he believes this, I just wish he would justify it in some way. I certainly believe that everything done by government has some degree of evil in it, but I do not shy away from attacking private entities either. And as you know, so do I. Evil wealthy people can be even more evil because of government's help. I don't want a corporatist world any more than TheDoc's want it. But I want no proletarian dictatorship either. And the constant idea I get from The Doc's posts is class warfare.

Of course I'm engaged in class warfare.  But the class warfare wasn't started by the middle class and the poor.  The class war was begun by the wealthy elite, by taking more and more from the lower classes to line their own pockets.  It's a war that has been fought time and time again.  I would hope that someday, greed and lust for power will not be mankind's most apparent trait.  Throughout history, the wealthy have tried to take more and more from the masses and oppress those masses until the masses strike back and regain control.  Then the cycle starts again.  I'm simply one of the masses who has had enough.

Leave him be, he hasn't any grasp of history or reality.