Gary Johnson is a Complete Idiot

[Deleted member 159002]

I have no idea what you're saying.

Libertarians support one policy they claim to oppose in principle (borders) as a pragmatic response to other anti-libertarian policies the government has enacted. My question is: why don't libertarians support other policies, like social programs, as a pragmatic response to anti-libertarian policies (like IP laws)?

I personally advocate controlled immigration. Don't you?

I do, but I'm not a libertarian.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Libertarians support one policy they claim to oppose in principle (borders) as a pragmatic response to other anti-libertarian policies the government has enacted. My question is: why don't libertarians support other policies, like social programs, as a pragmatic response to anti-libertarian policies (like IP laws)?



I do, but I'm not a libertarian.

You might need to ask @Greoric or lay the case out a little more clearly. The connection between open borders and a welfare state seems a little more apparent to me so I'm going to need some help here.

Me neither.

 

[all caps]

 

[kenetics]

Well if he's an idiot, what does that make Trump? lol

 

[Greoric]

As an aside, what about my posting suggests I wouldn't be familiar with them?

Nothing in particular. I was stereotyping. Posters of your stripe, left of center, I've noticed don't even grasp the BoR or any of the articles frankly. It was legitimately refreshing to see someone on "your side of the fence" that has read them.

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

Well if he's an idiot, what does that make Trump? lol

A billionaire with a model wife.

 

[kenetics]

A billionaire with a model wife.

Ya his wives from different countries lol. Liquid money is nowhere near a billion dollars lol.

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

Ya his wives from different countries lol. Liquid money is nowhere near a billion dollars lol.

I'm sure he's laughing too. He's living the life.

 

[ncordless]

I have no idea what you're saying.

Heh. That's kind of been obvious.

If you want to compare government handouts via redistribution of wealth to the natural right of self defense you're not doing a good job. What have you other than it involves potential harm and is addressed somewhere in the Constitution?

What does dyed in the wool mean? I hope it doesn't mean (in this instance) something as stupid as that one position defining my political views. Good thing we're about to find out what liberals of high standing believe to be quality rules for exclusion.

Oh wait...nevermind. You chose to avoid answering.

I am not throwing out particular rules. But I can give you a way I would judge rules. We should way the benefit to the country gained by the law vs. the right of the immigrant to come to the US for a better life. I'd put the thumb on the side of the country's benefit, but not to the complete exclusion of the interest of the immigrant. The best policies will be good for both, and where they conflict I side with the country's benefit in all but extreme cases where the immigrant's interest is very strong and the government's interest is weak.

Dyed in the wool means a textbook example. You favor a policy of social engineering by the government to preserve traditional values. That's a socially conservative policy.

You just can't seem to grasp the inherent problem in your position that both sabre and I identify. To say that Pedro can't travel where he wants to and I can't make a contract with him because there is a chance Pedro might access money that the government is going to steal from you anyway is taking anti-liberty and compounding it. If this is allowed, then where else are you willing to take away liberty because it might impace other liberty. The right to bear arms is a liberty. So is the right to life. If you will take a way liberty in order to prevent someone else from possibly taking away your liberty, what intelligible principle distinguishes this from infringing the right to bear arms because someone might exercise it in a why that harms sthe right to life?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Sorry, but I'm going to break this up.

Heh. That's kind of been obvious.

Since you're being a dick please don't mind if I follow suit.

I am not throwing out particular rules. But I can give you a way I would judge rules. We should way the benefit to the country gained by the law vs. the right of the immigrant to come to the US for a better life. I'd put the thumb on the side of the country's benefit, but not to the complete exclusion of the interest of the immigrant. The best policies will be good for both, and where they conflict I side with the country's benefit in all but extreme cases where the immigrant's interest is very strong and the government's interest is weak.

The highlighted is based in fact somewhere? Source?

Nice of you to side with your countrymen. I bet you're even one of those rare dudes who would side with his family over strangers. Take a bow bro.

Dyed in the wool means a textbook example. You favor a policy of social engineering by the government to preserve traditional values. That's a socially conservative policy.

And here I thought equal treatment for women, separating government from religion, and respecting the ghey were liberal values. Because by not letting in Muslims that's what I'd be socially engineering.

What social engineering are you dong that isn't conservative when you incorporate your immigration policies that you lack the balls to be specific on? Hard to fathom a guess from the bullshit dance you tried to pass off as an answer.

You just can't seem to grasp the inherent problem in your position that both sabre and I identify. To say that Pedro can't travel where he wants to and I can't make a contract with him because there is a chance Pedro might access money that the government is going to steal from you anyway is taking anti-liberty and compounding it. If this is allowed, then where else are you willing to take away liberty because it might impace other liberty. The right to bear arms is a liberty. So is the right to life. If you will take a way liberty in order to prevent someone else from possibly taking away your liberty, what intelligible principle distinguishes this from infringing the right to bear arms because someone might exercise it in a why that harms sthe right to life?

I doubt you even understand what my position is but here goes. I don't know who Pedro is and don't really give a fuck because he's not in my club, if you're creating him as some illegal immigrant in this scenario. He's some other club's problem in some other place. I don't prevent his activity within his own club. If he's in this country as per the rules our club has put forth then right on.

Not all liberties and rights are of equal weight. Just calling something a right or liberty doesn't necessarily put it on par with something else with that label.

The right to bear is enumerated whereas I'm not sure what right to life you refer to. Last I knew I lived in a country that chose "choice" over "life". In fact SCOTUS said some other right was of greater weight than life. Was it privacy? I forget because it seemed like a bullshit ruling that made little sense.

Whether you subscribe to the concept of natural rights or not, it's not that hard to grasp the philosophical difference between them and something like the right to whatever you're talking about. Nobody I know of ever thought you could go wherever you like, borders be damned, but to a person they agreed that under most circumstances a person could defend themselves, others, and way of life.

 

[ncordless]

Sorry, but I'm going to break this up.



Since you're being a dick please don't mind if I follow suit.



The highlighted is based in fact somewhere? Source?

Nice of you to side with your countrymen. I bet you're even one of those rare dudes who would side with his family over strangers. Take a bow bro.




And here I thought equal treatment for women, separating government from religion, and respecting the ghey were liberal values. Because by not letting in Muslims that's what I'd be socially engineering.

What social engineering are you dong that isn't conservative when you incorporate your immigration policies that you lack the balls to be specific on? Hard to fathom a guess from the bullshit dance you tried to pass off as an answer.




I doubt you even understand what my position is but here goes. I don't know who Pedro is and don't really give a fuck because he's not in my club, if you're creating him as some illegal immigrant in this scenario. He's some other club's problem in some other place. I don't prevent his activity within his own club. If he's in this country as per the rules our club has put forth then right on.

Not all liberties and rights are of equal weight. Just calling something a right or liberty doesn't necessarily put it on par with something else with that label.

The right to bear is enumerated whereas I'm not sure what right to life you refer to. Last I knew I lived in a country that chose "choice" over "life". In fact SCOTUS said some other right was of greater weight than life. Was it privacy? I forget because it seemed like a bullshit ruling that made little sense.

Whether you subscribe to the concept of natural rights or not, it's not that hard to grasp the philosophical difference between them and something like the right to whatever you're talking about. Nobody I know of ever thought you could go wherever you like, borders be damned, but to a person they agreed that under most circumstances a person could defend themselves, others, and way of life.

So whether you know it or not, you are not a libertarian. Not only that, but you have little understanding of what liberty means. You should read Locke, like our founders did, if you want to understand what the right to life, liberty, and property means. Needless to say, liberty includes the right to move around and pursue you own ends.

Your digression into abortion and SCOTUS is silly and shows you don't understand the issue. SCOTUS recognizes a right to life. They are also not libertarian. Not sure what your point even is here.

Tell us of the heiarchy of rights. You think the right to defend one's life and property is greater than one's right to life and property? Where do you think the right to bear arms stems from?

Your club thing shows just how devoid of real principles or consistency your position holds. Whether someone gets liberty or not depends on whether they are in your club or not. That's nice. If that's the way it works, you won't like it when people decide your backwards ass conservative culture is not part of the club anymore. No liberty for you.

Thankfully, most people see through it. Culture doesn't need defending by government action like that. That's like defending people from freedom of speech. Culture wars get played out in the marketplace of ideas. Western culture ultimately wins because it is superior, except in the places where it is not, then it assimilates other culture and becomes stronger. If you think your culture needs protecting, then obviously your culture isn't so hot after all. There may be some value in preserving it for posterity's sake like some indigenous culture, but it sure as hell ain't fit to dominate.

Finally, your denial of the freedom of movement is silly. It's always been essential to the concept of liberty, and international freedom of movement is a plank in the Libertarian Party of the USA's platform and always has been. The right to travel between states in the US is a limited example of this fundamental human right.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

So whether you know it or not, you are not a libertarian. Not only that, but you have little understanding of what liberty means. You should read Locke, like our founders did, if you want to understand what the right to life, liberty, and property means. Needless to say, liberty includes the right to move around and pursue you own ends.

Your digression into abortion and SCOTUS is silly and shows you don't understand the issue. SCOTUS recognizes a right to life. They are also not libertarian. Not sure what your point even is here.

Tell us of the heiarchy of rights. You think the right to defend one's life and property is greater than one's right to life and property? Where do you think the right to bear arms stems from?

Your club thing shows just how devoid of real principles or consistency your position holds. Whether someone gets liberty or not depends on whether they are in your club or not. That's nice. If that's the way it works, you won't like it when people decide your backwards ass conservative culture is not part of the club anymore. No liberty for you.

Thankfully, most people see through it. Culture doesn't need defending by government action like that. That's like defending people from freedom of speech. Culture wars get played out in the marketplace of ideas. Western culture ultimately wins because it is superior, except in the places where it is not, then it assimilates other culture and becomes stronger. If you think your culture needs protecting, then obviously your culture isn't so hot after all. There may be some value in preserving it for posterity's sake like some indigenous culture, but it sure as hell ain't fit to dominate.

Finally, your denial of the freedom of movement is silly. It's always been essential to the concept of liberty, and international freedom of movement is a plank in the Libertarian Party of the USA's platform and always has been. The right to travel between states in the US is a limited example of this fundamental human right.

Gee dude, thanks for clearing up my identity issues.

If I'm not answering your questions properly I'm sorry for that. At least I made the effort, which is more than you can say. And since you can't extend this basic courtesy I don't really see any point in continuing with you.

Cheers.

 

[kenetics]

If caucasions invaded different countries, i see nothing wrong with others trying to do the same.

 

[mrsenor]

 

[RockstarChris]

wait, politicians are idiots? news!

 

[7437]

Local tyranny can be solved by moving to a different state. The gay man can move to California, if he wishes to marry, while the Christian man can move to Texas, if he wishes to practise Christianity as it was intended. Federal tyranny, on the other hand, cannot be escaped so easily.

Yes it can, with the exact same solution. Move to a different country.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Nothing in particular. I was stereotyping. Posters of your stripe, left of center, I've noticed don't even grasp the BoR or any of the articles frankly. It was legitimately refreshing to see someone on "your side of the fence" that has read them.

Weird. That's pretty much the opposite of my experience. I've quoted the Federalist Papers to libertarians here many times, and they seem to regard it as communist propaganda.

 

[ineverpost]

Just trying to create any buzz he can before he fades into obscurity.

 

[no fat chicks]

He's still better than the alternatives, like Bernie even if you don't agree fully with what he says, he at least seems to sincerely be in it for altruistic reasons

 

[UpaLoompa]

Nothing in particular. I was stereotyping. Posters of your stripe, left of center, I've noticed don't even grasp the BoR or any of the articles frankly. It was legitimately refreshing to see someone on "your side of the fence" that has read them.

From listening to politicians, let alone posters, I'm of the opinion that the people most ignorant of the founding fathers, their opinions, and the constitution (and associated writings) are actually the ones that shriek the loudest about them.

For example, state's right's tards always talk about the 10th but apparently never read the 9th.