"Freedom" thread or something

I have read two books by Sowell and I can say I agree with a large percentage of what he says.

I've heard exactly two Republicans mention Jekyll Island.

We pick on both, but Slart wears Mondale bottoms to bed so when he posts something with have to pick on the Democrats.

My point was that when we talk about Fiat money, we're equally bashing R and D.

Yeah they're just not divisible enough to be feasible for transactions you know?

Equality 7-2521 wrote: We pick on both, but Slart wears Mondale bottoms to bed so when he posts something with have to pick on the Democrats. My point was that when we talk about Fiat money, we're equally bashing R and D.

dr wu23 wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: We pick on both, but Slart wears Mondale bottoms to bed so when he posts something with have to pick on the Democrats. My point was that when we talk about Fiat money, we're equally bashing R and D.   Fair enough...... Then you are a Libertarian ,and without going back and reading every post, can you tell me 3 or 4 specific things Libertarians would like changed regarding the way Dems and Repubs run things..? What are the main 'beefs'  that Libertarians have?

Ha. Sure. It's kind of silly to make a list, but i'll give you the first three things that come to my head.

1) They both hold the belief that something needs to be run. The language and specifics differ, but they both profess the need for the government to be an integral part of social and economic life lest we revert to some non-existent crisis time in history.

2) Neither are anti-war in the slightest.

3) Both insist on enacting changes through the Federal channel.

It should be. War and small government are incompatible. War is the supreme evil of the large, centralized state. If you are not anti-war, then you really miss the whole point of being anti-government. All of the wrongs of the State constitute small scale war.

I am into anarchy. People run things. Societies exist without government.

Changes to the fed would fall under (1) and (3).

dr wu23 wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: I've heard exactly two Republicans mention Jekyll Island.   Not sure what you mean by that but my point was that Libertarians supposedly dislike both parties so why just pick on one?

Because naturally, the opposition in this thread tends to be Democratic and to be fair...Slarti doesn't really make meaningful posts...just obvious propaganda that tends to have holes.

Trust me, my republican friends hear me call their BS at every turn. I sound like an Obama/Dem lover to them. In here, I may sound like they are the anti christ.

To earlier questions you had some of the guys here are anarchic but I support a limited government. Who should run things are the people, a federal government should provide the essentials, and IMO I can see the need for some welfare and even a universal health insurance. See? I just pissed off most here But our lives should be run by us.
Government is the use of force basically, we ALL can use it and libertarianism is that there should be as little use of force as possible. Especially since the rich and powerful will always win that fight against us.

I also think, as Pat said, state and war are natural buds, and I've always been very anti war.
It was the head of the Nazi air force who said it best, to paraphrase: People never want war. Politicians start it and regardless of the type of government...it always happens the same way.
I also support civil liberties and our rights which again need a small government, since big will always lead to those being curtailed.



Edited by JJLehto - April 29 2013 at 18:01

JJLehto wrote: I also think, as Pat said, state and war are natural buds, and I've always been very anti war. It was the head of the Nazi air force who said it best, to paraphrase: People never want war. Politicians start it and regardless of the type of government...it always happens the same way. I also support civil liberties and our rights which again need a small government, since big will always lead to those being curtailed.

I can only agree with that so much. Democracies are just as belligerent, if not more so, than forms of government traditionally seen as less oppressive. There's a bunch of reason you can identify to explain that. People can be whipped into a frenzy relatively easily by adept hands though. Plenty people in America certainly want war. As soon as support for one war wanes, it becomes imperative that another country be handled. I think the maxim holds when people see war. In America, luckily for so many of us, we do not see it unless we volunteer for it. Americans can get behind an offensive on North Korea because we get scared, we don't know what North Korea is, and the fighting will happen on a continent so far away that our limited perception of scale makes it an academic exercise to imagine. If the fighting were to occur with say Canada, where troop movements would inevitably occur on our own soil, then the domestic perception of war would be far different.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: I turned on Fox and Friends this morning